A Tale of Two Troops (spin off from Guide to Advancement)

[Beavah]

Yah, exactly brooklynscout! And that's always been da ethic of the Scouting program.

 

BNelon44 mentions some of da historic materials, and I think perhaps it's worth takin' a stroll through those. I didn't know Green Bar Bill as well as ScouterTerry, but he was ever the advocate of da sort of real-world stuff brooklynscout is talkin' about, and never would have supported da very recent notions of credentialism and minimalist interpretation of requirements with no substantive review.

 

But let's take a look at that, eh?

 

The Requirements for Second Class and First Class Scout Ranks were developed in such a way that, when properly applied in the Patrol and Troop, they will: ...

 

Promote SCOUTCRAFT - Make the boy at home in the out-of-doors; encourage more than "just getting a badge". The requirements add up to making a boy a good Scout hiker (2nd Class), a good Scout camper (1st Class). They stress learning by doing - doing for a purpose instead of just knowing. (emphasis in the original)

 

So to Bill's mind, and to the BSA for most of its history, there was a notion that properly applying the requirements meant that a boy was a good Scout hiker and good Scout camper. Any result that was less than that showed that the requirements were not being properly applied. They weren't to be strictly construed, they were to be construed broadly so as to correspond to everything that a good hiker and camper is able to do.

 

What's more, the requirements embodied doing for a purpose, not just knowing. So it would never have been acceptable to Bill or to the BSA for a boy to "know" about food safety, but not to be able to actually store and prepare foods safely.

 

Let's see how that's accomplished. First, there's

 

PREPARATION - By taking part in plenty of outdoor Patrol and Troop experiences, the boys can't help but learn these skills. They have to know how to use an axe, build a fire and cook, to make a meal in the open. They need to know how to use a compass and a map to go on a cross-country hike... Rank advancement is therefore a natural outcome of the boys' participation in regular Scouting activities. (emphasis in the original).

 

So no classes, no curricula. Just learning by example and experience in the woods. "Plenty" of experiences are expected before a boy is ever ready to be tested. No signoffs for the first time. No notion that the troop experiences "retain" skills either - the troop and patrol experiences teach the skills, and continue until the boy has mastered the skills, at which point retention is not an issue.

 

QUALIFICATION - ... A Scout goes on several hikes and learns to cook a meal for himself. Some day, on a Patrol hike, he tells his Patrol Leader "Well, I think I am ready now". The Patrol Leader then watches the boy as he prepares firewood, builds a suitable fire, and cooks his food. If the boy does everything smoothly and well, the Patrol Leader says "You did fine!" and checks off the boy's advancement card.... An even more natural way is for the Patrol Leader to plan a Patrol hike that involves doing things the requirements call for, without specifically telling the boys that it is advancement he is aiming for.

 

So we see that unlike what was advocated by some here, boys were expected to spend a lot of time learning, with "plenty" of experiences and practice meals before ever being tested. When tested, he is expected to prepare a meal smoothly and well, not simply execute individual requirements that are narrowly construed, nor have a burnt mess interpreted as acceptable because "It doesn't say it can't be burnt". Preparing a meal smoothly and well would include storing and preparing food safely.

 

Each boy is called in singly before the Board of Review and asked enough questions to assure the members that he deserves the rank he seeks.... The main purpose of the review is to make sure that the examination was up to standards. It is a check-up to see that what should have been done was actually done... Answers to "Where? When? How?" and so on will soon reveal whether the Scout has learned and demonstrated his skills under real-life conditions. (emphasis in the original)

 

So the point of the Board of Review is to have a friendly conversation with the scout, to see where he his at in his scouting progress. It should not re-test the scout, so the board should not expect the boy to prepare a meal for them. But it should determine that he actually met the full requirements by being able to prepare a meal smoothly and well under real life conditions - that he has become a good Scout hiker or camper.

 

There was no notion that once a requirement was signed a Board was obligated to rubber-stamp the advancement. In fact:

 

If the review has been satisfactory, the boy is told so. If not, he is asked to prepare himself better in the subjects in which he is weak, and to come back before the Board when he has been examined in them again (emphasis mine)

 

So in traditional scouting and Green Bar Bill's vision, the Board of Review can revoke sign-offs on requirements and demand re-examination. The better way to think about that, though, is that the board in its conversation can recognize that not enough work has been done for a boy to be proficient and confident in his skills under real-life conditions, and to encourage him to go back and keep working until he really is. There is no notion of "flunking", but there is a notion of awarding only real camping skill.

 

What is the standard?

 

Scout advancement provides a progressive series of requirements in various skills, sets standards for meeting them, and offers awards to the Scouts who master them, in the form of special badges.

 

In other words, the expectation is mastery of the requirements, not one-and-done. If a Board of Review were to discover a one-and-done signoff, their duty is to send the boy back for more learning and then re-examination.

 

What da traditional Scouting materials describe is pretty close to Troop 2, eh? Not really a surprise, because Troop 2 is an older troop with more long-term adults. It's very far from what bnelon44 is advocatin'.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[bnelon44]

You are using words that different troops would define differently:

"mastery"

"good hiker"

"good camper"

 

If we are going to use such terms in a national organization we need to define them.

 

I think saying that it is expected that the Scout is confortable accomplishing the requriement as stated is probably a good starting point for such a standard definition.

 

Beavah said, ". But it should determine that he actually met the full requirements by being able to prepare a meal smoothly and well under real life conditions. "

 

If that is the requiement, that is what he should have done before getting signed off. The BOR job is to figure out if the Scout did do what he should have done and was signed off. You don't punish the Scout though if the person signing him off did so if the met the requirement but didn't test him as strenuously as you would have. As long as the Scout met the requirement as written, was tested and signed off, he did what he had to do to meet the requirement.

 

If you want to turn him into a master food handler, then you add that to your program, you don't make it an obsticle for his advancement and you don't add it to the requirements.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[SeattlePioneer]

I'm only up to Page Three of this thread, but I'll post anyway.

 

 

I've been toiling at the Cub Scout level for a number of years, because "You can't have a youth program without YOUTH!" and most of those come from Cub Scouts.

 

So I'll comment on how I aim to support the Boy Scout program with Cub Scouts.

 

#1 is to keep Cub Scout units healthy and recruiting new boys. I could use more help with that from Scout Troops frankly, that tend to ignore Cub Packs except to scoop up those Webelos IIs.

 

#2 is to emphasize hiking and camping as Cub Scout activities.

 

When I do Cub Scout hikes, they aren't the "Death Marches" Boy Scouts are fond of doing. They emphasize relatively short hikes in terms of distance, but encountering a variety of activities to do along the way. I usually try to make them self guiding by posting Cub Scout recruiting yard signs along the route, to encourage the Cub leading themselves.

 

And I like to conclude with some activity that brings everyone together with a final fun activity ---hot dogs roasts over a fire work well with that.

 

I encourage den and pack competitions with Cub Scouts setting up tents on their own (Tiger Cubs with help from parents).

 

#3 Dens make new flags each year at our June campout. The flags usually become the focus of a good deal of emotional energy over the next year.

 

#4 We aim to make Cub Scout responsible for cooking simple meals. At our last campout, Tiger Cubs were responsible for preparing an after snack of apples, bananas, graps and string cheese. Webelos cooked a spaghetti dinner for about 30 adults and youth. Bears cooked a pancake and sausage breakfast for everyone the next morning.

 

#5 We use competitions to spark interest in the program and between dens. But it is low key competition to spice those activities, not to create a desperate urge to "WIN." So boys get used to working together as dens and competing between dens as well.

 

Den competitions to set up tents would be one example.

 

My personal favorite is our December sleigh races. Dens build a cardboard sleigh as a den activity, and then compete in sleigh races with other dens at the December pack meeting. One Scout sits in the sleigh and is pulled around the race course by the other boys in the den, and then boys switch being in the sleigh and pull the new boy around the race course. Wow! You really can't have much more fun than that! The parents love it too!

 

 

In my view, a quality Cub Scout program shapes the interest and understanding of boys and parents towards Boy Scouting kind of program and activities.

 

 

 

 

[JMHawkins]

If we are going to use such terms in a national organization we need to define them.

 

Well, please define "define" then.

 

Because I'd be inclined to say the terms are already defined by common English language to an acceptable level. But if you have a different definition of "define" then maybe they're not in your book. So before we can authoratatively, written-down-to-be-quoted, argumentum ad verecundiam define what "mastery" means, we have to agree on defintions of definitions and write all sorts of rules about writing the rules. And when we make the inevitable mistakes, forget a subclause to cover a corner case, or encounter a locker-room lawyer trying to finnagle his way through, we have to put band aids on the rules and argue about that....

 

Or we can go with common sense, as messy as that can be.

 

 

[bnelon44]

>Well, please define "define" then.

 

Sure. Beavah is using terms like "mastery"

 

OK, over the centuries we have had master plumbers, master masons, master gunners. Is this what he means? Obviously not. Well then a definition is in order.

 

How about "good camper" What does that mean? Does that mean he can camp on his own without adult supervision? No where in the requirements does it describe such a requirement.

 

What does "good hiker" mean? That he can hike without adult supervision? Again, no where does it say that to pass Second Class a Scout has to reach a level of "mastery" that he can go on a 50 mile hike without adult supervision. So obviously that isn't what he means. Well, what exactly does "good hiker" mean?

 

Before we throw out terms we assume others understand we need to understand ourselves that others will interpret what we say differently.

 

(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[fred8033]

 

Justifying doing what you want ... That's what this whole discussion is about. And I must admit what scares me the most is when I read "It is ultimately the spirit of the regulations that counts, not the letter.".

 

NO!!!! NO!!!! NO!!!! That reasoning justifies anything. The intent/spirit can guide us to interpret and clarify requirements, but scouts are answerable to the letter of the requirements. Clarify with the spirit of the requirement all you want, fine. But the scout is answerable to the written requirement.

 

That earlier justification is used to do what you want. BSA wrote their requirements to try to get people on the same page and to protect the scouts from the great justifiers.

 

And what's funny is that BSA has written multiple clarifying documents but people also brush those aside as having come from the misdirected, disconnected BSA advancement team. Really! I'm just amazed at all this malarkey.

 

The excellent example is Beavah's quote that the scout "has gotten a lot of practice". Your intent is to make the scout go thru circles to get the cooking requirements done. That's not the BSA requirement. You want more. Fine. Let BSA know. Continue to write novels on it. Fine. But don't explicitly contradict the requirement because of your spiritual interpretation. The requirement is Tenderfoot = 1 as assistant. 2nd class cook one meal. first class - server as patrol cook. Don't even need to cook for that one. You can just coordinate assistants.

 

Now if you want to apply the spirit or intent to make sure they did something as patrol cook. To check that the meals turned out okay. Fine. High standards are good. Doing an evaluation is good. Having the test as a natural part of the program is great. Focus on doing things instead of advancement is absolutely great. But implying they won't be tested until they've done it many times is just wrong.

 

Now if you want to say advancement is a natural outcome, fine. But then there's no separate test. The tester sees the work performed and can sign off on the requirement. If the scout was the cook and he did a suitable job cooking, it's signed off. Don't need to do it many times until there's a confidence of his proficiency.

 

...

 

And Beavah - Thy name is the great verbose justifier, eh. You continual provide a rhetorical song and dance to justify implementing a different advancement program and essentially going rogue to do it. Your latest post is a great example. It's using reasoning that's been replaced and is not part of the program any more. So much of it is still good and true. But key parts aren't there anymore.

 

And you earlier march right into all this with '"the requirements" are meant to be the Test'. So so true. But then you ignore the requirement is also the criteria for passing the test.

 

So if the scout proficiently cooks the meal, he passes! That's the requirement dude. I'd much rather use the phrase you can't add requirements than suggest people just ignore the explicit requirements to hold scouts accountable to some intangible vision that is not consistent across the units and contradicting the explicit requirements.

 

BSA has written all the requirements, magazines, news clarifications, etc. to protect the scouts from the great justifiers like yourself who pave the advancement road with good intentions to a place I just don't want to go.

 

...

 

Beavah writes about food safety handling ... "Yeh can't pass the requirement with what's available in the Handbook."

 

Rhetorical nonsense. The answers are there throughout the very long cooking section and the key parts are on the page 326.

 

You should just admit your doing a different program than BSA when you assert the book does not document the information necessary to complete the requirement. Would I like the book to have more useful info or a different format? Sure. But it has what scouts need to complete the requirement.

 

On a side note, I actually just read the new Boy Scout Handbook cooking section. I had really liked the last handbook. But the new one is way better than I thought. It was my perception that was wrong. The content and guts are there.

 

...

 

Beavah writes ... "I bet if yeh asked him how long a raw egg can be left out in da field without refrigeration he'd get that wrong too since "the literature" doesn't actually help him."

 

BSA does not document it for a reason. #1 The answer is worse than what we should teach. #2 Most adults don't even know the answer. I had to look this one up too.

 

If out of the shell, use immediately or throw. Bacteria starts growing quickly.

 

If in the shell, you have days at room temperature. Some say seven days. some say four days. Personally, I want eggs to be refrigerated. Essentially, the answer is different than what we should teach as safe food handling.

 

...

 

Beavah - If I can move anywhere toward your non-BSA position, it's this. Too many authorized signers don't test requirements such as the cooking requirements. As ""the requirements" are meant to be the test", I think too few scoutmasters view some of the requirements as too difficult to test when they should all be testable. And the test is a common sense every day reading of the words in the requirement test.

 

Knots are clearly testable because you have to demonstrate a knot. Now if you can't demonstrate the knot or you muddle your way thru, you need to work on it. Similar for cooking. I think to sign off on the cooking requirement, you need to see the scout doing the requirement and doing it to some common sense, simple reading of the requirements words, standard.

 

...

 

I also agree that the scout transferring into troop 2 would be shocked. Mainly because the troop two scouting program is not the one documented in his handbook.

[fred8033]

Beavah - What is the document your quoting in the 7/4/2012: 9:39:17 PM post? It's out of date and sometimes contradicts the current BSA pubs. But I'll still read it if I can find it. I'm not saying the ideas are bad. I'm just saying they are superseded by the current program.

 

But at least now I know where your getting this one-and-done protest kick. It's an outdated document that's currently out of favor. Or at least that part of the document did not continue on as part of current expectations.

[bnelon44]

Fred, Beavah is describing how a boy prepares to be tested. Then he jumps a bit to try to justify the BOR retesting without calling it a retest. I can buy into the first part, get the Scout ready for testing and have the SM then test him. I can't buy into the BOR retesting. If the BOR discovers he was not tested and someone just signed him off without the Scout actually doing what the requirement asks him to do, then yes, the BOR, as I read the GTA, can ask the Scout to go back and get tested. But if the Scout is tested as to what the requirement says and passes, the BOR can't flunk him because he didn't do it the way someone on the board would have liked. In fact, the GTA is trying to stop arbitrary roadblocks in front of the Scout (knowing how long an egg stays fresh in the field, for example.)(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[fred8033]

bnelon44 - Fully agree with you. I'm just getting really tired of the better-than-thou long-winded badgering wanton ignorance and sloppy logic. BSA isn't perfect, but it's pretty darn good. I just feel pain for the scouts that get stuck in such misdirected unit.

[Beavah]

Yah, fred8033, yeh have to read things in context, eh? Though I agree that's hard in internet forums.

 

I was respondin' to bnelon44's claims about Bill Hillcourt and the BSA's long-term view of advancement, eh? So I was quotin' from Hillcourt's 1947 Handbook for Scoutmasters, which states clearly that a BOR can send a boy with weak understanding back for more learning and re-testing (among other things). The point for both bnelon44 and myself is that to understand the modern BSA program and materials, it is helpful to have an understanding of the long-term BSA understandin' and practice. Much as to understand modern Constitutional Law it is helpful to have an understandin' of long-term historical interpretation and precedent.

 

Da struggle both you and bnelon44 have is that the "Constitution" (the Rules and Regulations) has not changed, eh? It's the same as it was historically. So in order to make the claim that your somewhat peculiar interpretation of the "modern" program is the correct one, yeh have quite a hurdle to get over. That's why yeh have to try to redefine plain-language terms like "mastery" and "proficient".

 

Now me, I'm not particularly wedded to BSA historical documents, though I find 'em interesting. My objection to the one-and-done nonsense is that it is the epitome of poor education and encourages poor citizenship. Right now, in the modern world. So to my mind and in my actual experience workin' with many troops, it doesn't do as good a job of meeting the BSA's mission. It may well meet a particular Chartered Organization's goals, and I support units that take the approach yeh describe, so it is in fact a modern Scouting approach. It's just wrong to believe that it is the vision that the BSA intends or the the Scouting Movement desires.

 

As I mentioned in a recent post, I believe both of yeh fall into the group that "want to live up to what they perceive as their obligations to legalistic interpretations of children's program materials, so as not to place "obstacles" in the way of giving Scouts a credential. For them, the issue is that all kids program materials should be narrowly construed in a manner that limits the scope of the Advancement Method".That has never been Scouting, and is not Scouting now if yeh read the program materials in anything other than a strained way that relies on redefining words. It is a re-definition or re-interpretation of Scouting that tries to bring in aspects of modern American culture and helicopter/snowplow parenting that I frankly abhor. I know I won't convince yeh, but I think da discussion is worthwhile because I may perhaps help other people to a better understanding of Scouting.

 

That better understanding I think is epitomized by da issue of food safety, eh? On the one hand, yeh have bnelon44 sayin' that it's adding to the requirements to expect boys to be able to store and handle food so as not to make their patrol ill. That relies on redefining proficiency and mastery, abandoning our educational mission and emphasis on real-world skills, precise reading of da requirement "to explain" so as to exclude other options, and emphasizing the "no adding to the requirements" half-sentence above all other BSA advancement guidance and the Rules & Regulations we agreed to uphold, and abandoning the shared understanding and interpretation that BSA Scouting has had for a century. On the other hand, yeh have folks like me who say that boys should be able to store and handle food safely because it's one of the things we're tryin' to teach, because that has always been the expectation and BSA interpretation, because it doesn't involve redefining words, because it is in keeping with our mission to build citizenship, and because that interpretation lines up with Patrol Method, Youth Leadership, Personal Growth, and Values Methods therefore using Advancement to support da other methods.

 

Now let me take a bit to digest your more longwinded piece before I respond in detail...

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Beavah]

the GTA is trying to stop arbitrary roadblocks in front of the Scout (knowing how long an egg stays fresh in the field, for example.)

 

Yah, hmmm.... BNelon44, the requirement is "Explain the procedures to follow in the safe handling and storage of fresh meats, dairy products, eggs, vegetables, and other perishable food products". So I guess you'll have to explain to all of da rest of us how the G2A considers knowing about safe handling and storage of eggs is an "arbitrary roadblock in front of the Scout" when the requirement explicitly demands that he know about eggs.

 

How much more strained can yeh make these definitions, do yeh think? Just curious!

 

Old Bill Hillcourt's description of a Test on preparing a meal that I provided above is perfectly consistent with da modern BSA notion, eh? The test is done in the field by having a Scout actually prepare a meal, start to finish. So a "re-test" would be for a Board of Review to ask a scout to actually prepare a meal, start to finish.

 

Yeh have to strain the definition of "re-test" to the breaking point to believe that asking about meal planning is the same thing as having a boy prepare a meal. But a BOR member might ask "When you prepared your chicken salad sandwiches for lunch, how did you store the chicken salad?" A "How" question, right out of the Handbook. If the boy says, "I used real mayonnaise for the chicken salad, and prepared it Thursday night, put it in a Tupperware container and kept it in my tent until Saturday at lunchtime (in 90 degree heat)" then the BOR can safely establish that the lad doesn't understand food safety, eh? He should be congratulated on his progress so far, then told that he needs to do more work on food safety before earnin' the rank.

 

That is the BSA program now, and that has always been the BSA program. There are only a few folks recently who want to "go rogue" and "do their own thing" by giving out badges for signatures rather than for knowledge, on the grounds that anything else is putting obstacles in a boy's path.

 

Beavah

 

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, fred8033, let me take a stab at some of your long message...

 

The excellent example is Beavah's quote that the scout "has gotten a lot of practice". Your intent is to make the scout go thru circles to get the cooking requirements done. That's not the BSA requirement.

 

Yeh are correct. That's not the BSA requirement. The requirement is the test. That's Step 2 of Advancement.

 

What Green Bar Bill and the BSA materials I quoted from were describing is Step 1 of Advancement: A Scout Learns. Learning requires a lot of practice. Yeh don't learn how to cook by doin' it once. Yeh learn how to cook by doin' it a bunch. A Scout has to learn first. A Scout has to learn before he is tested. That is the BSA program. That has always been the BSA program. That is what the Rules & Regulations and every BSA training tries to explain.

 

Anything else is unfair to the Scout, eh? Because either he's put in a situation where he doesn't feel confident and can't pass the test, or he's put in a situation where someone gives him an award when he doesn't have the skill. That's "going rogue". That's substitutin' your own one-and-done program for the BSA's program and tryin' to justify it by strainin' definitions.

 

Beavah writes about food safety handling ... "Yeh can't pass the requirement with what's available in the Handbook." Rhetorical nonsense. The answers are there throughout the very long cooking section and the key parts are on the page 326.

 

Most adults don't even know the answer. I had to look this one up too... Personally, I want eggs to be refrigerated. Essentially, the answer is different than what we should teach as safe food handling.

 

Yah, hmmm....

 

So first, if an adult doesn't know the answer to somethin', then I reckon he or she should look it up, eh? Isn't that part of what we'd expect any Scouter to do?

This is just an example of where "the literature" does not contain da information the scout needs to fulfill the explicit requirement that he know how to handle and store eggs properly.

 

Second, I'm certain I'm not understandin' the second part of what yeh wrote, because it sounds like you're saying that we should lie to Scouts, because lying to Scouts is good for them.

 

Boys should know when eggs are safe and when they are not. We should tell them that honestly. You should not substitute your own personal preference for teaching them properly. If yeh go to Europe, no eggs in stores are refrigerated, and their food safety record on eggs is better than the U.S. Would yeh have scouts travelin' to Kanderstaag or WSJ not know how to handle food properly?

 

More importantly, by not lying to kids they get to learn the "Why?" of somethin', not just the "How?". Knowin' why somethin' is done helps them develop understanding and good judgment far more effectively than memorizing one adult's personal preference.

 

Beavah

"The Verbose Justifier"

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[bnelon44]

"Yah, hmmm.... BNelon44, the requirement is "Explain the procedures to follow in the safe handling and storage of fresh meats, dairy products, eggs, vegetables, and other perishable food products". So I guess you'll have to explain to all of da rest of us how the G2A considers knowing about safe handling and storage of eggs is an "arbitrary roadblock in front of the Scout" when the requirement explicitly demands that he know about eggs. "

 

A Scout saying that you keep the fresh eggs in the ice chest would satisfy the requirement. Requiring that he know exactly how long eggs stay fresh in 75 degrees F vs 100 degrees F is outside the scope of a 1st class requirement. I understand you are an expert in the subject, but a 1st Class Scout need not be an expert to satisfy the requirment.

[bnelon44]

Beavah said,

 

What Green Bar Bill and the BSA materials I quoted from were describing is Step 1 of Advancement: A Scout Learns. Learning requires a lot of practice. Yeh don't learn how to cook by doin' it once. Yeh learn how to cook by doin' it a bunch. A Scout has to learn first. A Scout has to learn before he is tested. That is the BSA program. That has always been the BSA program. That is what the Rules & Regulations and every BSA training tries to explain. "

 

I'll buy that. BSA advancement since Green Bar Bill has always been in 4 steps. (A Scout Learns, is tested, is reviewed and is recognized) The first being that the Scout learns. It's a linear progression. I think my only objection has been when people try to turn the review step into the testing step.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[JMHawkins]

JMHawkins said, "So, if units are going to update their own records, then why is ScoutNet necessary for mandatory training? Just switch over to Mandatory Training and ask units to check a box next to each required traning that each member of the charter has taken. I mean, if units are going to need to manage their own training reports, then why not have them manage their own training reports? "

 

Because the units never do that correctly. They mix up what needs to be taken all the time. You need a system that leads them by the hand. This isn't very sophisticated companies have had training management systems in place for years.

 

And you don't see any obvious problems in this direction? Unit's can't be trusted to manage their own training reports, but even if and when National gets a functional training system up and runing (which, as you said, isn't exactly rocket science, and yet ScoutNet is... not exactly a Saturn V) they'll still need units to update their training reports. Exactly the thing they can't be expected to do correctly? Where in this loop does the actual critical validation happen?

 

I'm actually not entirely sure where things should go at this point anyway. I'm a huge proponent of training, but I think it needs to be different than what we do now to really be effective, and I think there are serious problems with mandatory training for a volunteer organization. Not to mention there will be radically different results from training depending whether you have a Troop 1 style trainer, or a Troop 2 style...