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

[Eagle92]

Benelon,

 

I was about to say that they are out of stock, but the new ones are now in YEAH!

 

And as Beavah says, there is way to much emphasis on getting Eagle and the entire advancement process. When Scouts can't build a simple fire and boil water, including scouts who went to Philmont I might add, there is a problem. The troop that the Philmont patrol came from prides itself on the average age of its Eagles, 14 or 15, and the number of Eagles they produce each year. Fine and dandy, but the scouts do not stay involved after getting Eagle. No OA members, no Venturing Crew (despite using the Venturing logo on their patrol flag)Eagle and done. And the parents do not want anything to take their sons' time away from getting eagle, so they do miss out on a lot.

[bnelon44]

Eagle92

 

Your making an arguement for learning basic Scoutcraft skills which is what the First Class Emphasis program is suppose to be all about. People have gotted sidetracked into thinking it is to check a box off in a book. That isn't the purpose of the program. The purpose of the program is to educate the Scouts in the skills so they are prepared for adventures.

[JMHawkins]

Your making an arguement for learning basic Scoutcraft skills which is what the First Class Emphasis program is suppose to be all about. People have gotted sidetracked into thinking it is to check a box off in a book. That isn't the purpose of the program. The purpose of the program is to educate the Scouts in the skills so they are prepared for adventures.

 

Benelon, the mistake you're making is assuming we're arguing about the purpose. We're not. We're saying the results are bad. The results of the current G2A and an emphasis on following them to the letter and avoiding at all costs the dreaded adding to the requiremetns are bad.

 

It doesn't matter what the intentions behind the policies and proceedures are, if the results of following them are bad, then the Polices and Proceedures are bad.

 

The lack of Scoutcraft skills in kids with Eagle rank is not some abberation that would be fixed if those units stuck more closely to the G2A - it's the result of them following a G2A that encourages one-and-done, minimal retention, forced march to FCFY advancement.

 

 

[bnelon44]

JMHawkins,

 

Thanks. I think it is a training issue, if you don't tell people what's important they grab something (like advancement guidelines or safety guidelines) and think those are the all important things. I really think it is a training issue. And, hey, that's my field!

 

 

[Beavah]

It's called the Patrol Leader's Handbook

 

Nope. Da equivalent of that would be if we had an Advancement Chair's Handbook.

 

Where's the Patrol Method Handbook for everybody, not just the individual?

 

I don't think this is just a training thing, eh? This is a materials thing. In da prior thread to this one, yeh (perhaps reluctantly) admitted that yeh felt the proper way to interpret da requirements was one-and-done, talk-not-do, a boy doesn't need to be able to actually store and handle food safely. If that's what yeh choose to reward, that's the outcome you're goin' to get, eh? No amount of training that says "do what I say, not what I do" is goin' to change the outcome.

 

But I agree, it would be a big help to be more up front about da purposes in all of the materials and training. If yeh want to change the outcome, the BSA has to more clearly and unambiguously endorse the notion that the proper interpretation of "da requirements" is proficiency in the skills, as per the R&R, and that lack of proficiency discovered either through testing or review means the lad has not yet earned the rank or badge. That's not adding to the requirements or retesting, that's followin' the program to achieve its desired purposes.

 

So at very least, the notion can't stay buried in the R&R, it should be mentioned repeatedly in the G2A and in each of da training syllabi. But as dkurtenbach points out, it would be far more effective if someone did a decent and thoughtful editing job on the Requirements book to ensure that the notion was pervasive in the actual requirements.

 

Personally, I'd also put FCFY six feet under. If you're runnin' with a NSP, yeh just can't get proficiency in all of those skills in a year in a typical troop program. So when yeh try to legislate the improbable, it should be no surprise that folks cut corners. Far better to specify da outcome - camping skills proficiency - not the timetable.

 

Beavah

 

[Eagle92]

Your making an arguement for learning basic Scoutcraft skills which is what the First Class Emphasis program is suppose to be all about. People have gotted sidetracked into thinking it is to check a box off in a book. That isn't the purpose of the program. The purpose of the program is to educate the Scouts in the skills so they are prepared for adventures.

 

I think we have a partial agreement on this matter.

 

Yes the program is to teach basic scout skills so that can do their adventures with the goal that they should be ready to be on their own with in a year. Agree with you 100%

 

But I do not think people got sidetracked on the matter. The literature I've read and remember on Operation First Class, First Class Emphasis, First Class First Year and whatever other names the concept has gone by over the years places too much, way to much, on getting scouts to FC within a year. Is it possibly, absolutely even back when there when time requirements for T-2-1. But most scouts I remember got it more into the 15-18 month range. And they knew the skills cold.

 

The BSA literature in my opinion support the concept of "One and Done." The Guide to Advancement's language doesn help as it it beurcratese. Look at all the discussion on advancement that has gone on. Look at the various quotes from G2A that folks have used to suppor their arguments ( clasicial definition of the word) Look at all the discussion about not expecting boys to remember the stuff that was signed off on and how expecting them to know the stuff is "retesting" when it is not in the cases I have used, but application of the skill in the outdoors.

 

And don't get me started on the IOLS syllabus. Don't have it in front of me, but somewhere in it is the recommendation to make a skills check off sheet that is signed off by the instructors "just as they would do with their scouts" or some such phrase. I'm sorry but a weekend learning these skills does not mean you have mastered the skill, and are able to do them on your own whenever you need to. It takes time.

 

As for the BSHB, it lacks a lot of info on the basic scouting skills. How can a scout learn a skill, and go home and practice on his own unless eh took notes while learning? Yes I learned a lot being with the older scouts in my patrol, but I could use my BSHB as a guide and memory aid. Now you can't. And if that doesn't encourage One and Done, I dont' know what does.

 

And I hate to paint a broad brush because I know otherwise, but a lot of pros only care about the 3 M's: Money, Membership, and Manpower. Yes there are pros who know that having a successful program = larger membership. But I've met and worked with pros who would not care about how a unit is operating as long as the charter and membership apps were turned in. Heck I had one boss tell me not to get involved with a unit having problems ( and there was no commish corps to speak of at the time) that was on the verge of folding. Told to deal with it next year, meaning when it was time to recharter.

 

And when Operation First Class started, no reports on how programing affected advancement and retention, only dealt with advancement and retention.

 

 

 

 

[bnelon44]

Beavah

 

If we look historically, and I did for some research I did last year, see:

http://www.bsatroop14.com/history

http://www.bsatroop14.com/patrolmethod

 

There were a number of places the BSA communicated the patrol method to the field:

1. The Patrol Leader's Handbook (use to be called the Handbook for Patrol Leaders) - that was the first place parts of the Patrol Method were described in the BSA in 1928.

2. The Scoutmaster's Handbook (use to be called the Handbook for Scoutmasters)

3. The Boy Scout Handbook (use to be called the Handbook for Boys)

4. In a very small program pamphlet called The Patrol Method Patrol Helps for Scoutmasters that was used briefly in the late 1930s.

see: http://bsatroop14.com/history/The_Patrol_Method.pdf

5. Scouting Magazine

6. Boys Life Magazine

7. Training materials

 

The same is true today (well all but #4)

 

The original purpose of the GTA was to teach Councils how to administer advancement and what the policies and proceedures are. Since the 1930s there has been some kind of guide like this available to the councils. It has now been made readable so that interested unit leaders can understand it. I think that is a good thing.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[bnelon44]

Eagle92

 

I think the IOLS check off list is in the back of the syllabus, I don't have one in front of me either.

 

I am pretty sure from the Volunteer Training Team correspondence with me that they are well awaire of the limitations of IOLS and SM Specifics. What we really need is a week long Scoutmaster training course, but it ain't gonna happen in this day and age.

 

 

[moosetracker]

bnelon The original purpose of the GTA was to teach Councils how to administer advancement and what the policies and proceedures are. Since the 1930s there has been some kind of guide like this available to the councils. It has now been made readable so that interested unit leaders can understand it.

 

I like that statement.. Per benlon, unit leaders only need read it if interested.. And (if like Beavah), they do bother and find it a bunch of Twaddle, they can drop kick it..

 

I am also laughing about the "readable" part.. Readable sort of like the Bible, in that there are many ways to interpret the same sentence.. Some more creative then others.

[moosetracker]

As far as I am aware the checkoff list is to use for someone who is testing out, so they don't have to take the course (if your council allows a testout that is..)

 

Not worth it to pull out for IOLS.. If they know it coming in.. Ok, but really when you are racing them through the firehose method, who has time to play a game of check-offs.. If they are green coming in, they are green going out with 100 items running through their overloaded brains..

 

I always tell the green ones to look at it as a course that gives them a little hands on, and an overall view of what they will need to work on with others in their troop after they return from the course.

[JMHawkins]

I think it is a training issue, if you don't tell people what's important they grab something (like advancement guidelines or safety guidelines) and think those are the all important things. I really think it is a training issue.

 

I agree, it is a training issue. One way towards a solution would be to almost ditch the G2A. Reduce it to something more along the lines of a Program Helps. As it stands now, too many people think it's a User's Manual or better yet, a cheat sheet. Er, maybe I should say Crib Sheet instead. Something that leads them through doing it without really knowing what they're doing. Like the way cooking is taught in Beavah's Troop #1. Those scouts aren't really "trained" in cooking. They're lectured in it, given one or two brief opportunities for hands-on practice, then signed off. That's not training, or at least it's not effective training.

 

Real training that imparts skills takes more than what Troop 1 is doing. Thing is, the BSA adult training curriculum tends more towards Troop 1 than Troop 2. Classes with one-and-done signoffs. IOLS meets the standard. Frankly, so does Woodbadge when you think about it. I was getting pitched Woodbadge during IOLS. Honestly, shouldn't folks have a little more time under their belts before taking the end-all-be-all training BSA offers?

[moosetracker]

JMHawkins - Since WB is really not about scoutcraft but more how to get a working vision of your unit, and put the plan in action and motivate others to work with you toward the goal.. Does it really need more time in ScoutCraft??... I don't think so.. In fact you get Committee people, Cub Scout leaders, COR's etc, that never take the scoutcraft part of the program..

 

Anyway, if your in IOLS, doesn't mean you are not a seasoned scouter.. Many finally come to IOLS after haveing been SM for years and in scouts for years before becoming SM that..

 

If you aren't ready, at least you get to know when you are ready, there might be something else for you to try down the road.

[Eagle92]

Moose,

 

 

Nope, not meant for a test out. It's says that as participants in the course do the skills, sign them off. So it's for the course, not testing out.

 

And something else hit me. It can seem that because there is less emphasis on the outdoor skills in the BSHB, they are not as big a deal and therefore not important. Hence the absence of those skills in the books can be seen by some that they are nto really important, and thus "One and Done"

 

As both Benelon and I have stated, we need to use handouts with the Basic T-2-1 skills on them that were in the BSHBs of yesterday. I discoverdin last Dec when I was trying to line up the skills taught in IOLS with the current BSHB for the participants, Discovered a heck of a lot of basic info is missing, and created a 120+ page pamhlet to supplement the BSHB.

 

I should not have had to do that.

[bnelon44]

I think the issue with skill training is that the vast number of Scouters today can't afford the time to devote to it. Asking them to come to an overnight is strenuous enough and that only gives them the "firehose" method, they don't learn much from that.

 

Someone explain to me why an experienced Scouter should be in a beginners course? Most of the time is a waist for them and the instructor is saddled with a grumpy student.

 

In the early days of Woodbadge it was a week long and included skill training. I never attended it, but it sounds like the right thing to do. Problem is, modern leaders don't want to devote that much time to basic training.

 

 

[JMHawkins]

Since WB is really not about scoutcraft but more how to get a working vision of your unit...

 

In which case, it's another one-and-done course. Just like there's no AOLS (Advanced Outdoor Leadership Skills) to go along with the Introduction course, there's no follow-up, no training continuum, to unit vision.

 

 

Anyway, if your in IOLS, doesn't mean you are not a seasoned scouter.. Many finally come to IOLS after haveing been SM for years and in scouts for years before becoming SM that..

 

Not any more, since you need IOLS to recharter as SM (or even an ASM).

 

If you aren't ready, at least you get to know when you are ready, there might be something else for you to try down the road.

 

But there isn't. Like you said, it's not something that builds on any other training, it's just another Intro course. Rename it IEUAO (Introduction to Effective Unit Administration and Organization, the Vowel Class!), since that's what your definition amounts to.

 

If you want to give people a Mountaintop experience, you should probably have them climb a few hills first.