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

[moosetracker]

Well, as stated if it is then it would not be used by me.. If they are seasoned and know their stuff, it will not mean much to them.. If they are green, it would (like you said), carry the wrong message, as well as adding confusion to an already confusing time for them.. Like I really want them to go home, overwhelmed and remembering little except that they got checked off for what they did at the class.

 

I will have to look at that again. All I remember is a checklist with no explanation of what it was for anywhere in the book..

 

We still don't need IOLs or any training except YPT to recharter.. Our council will never mandate it on their own, and it looks more and more like National will never mandate it either. All we have for incentives to take it is journey to excellence.

 

Oh.. And I agree WB doesn't really build on other training, as it takes all positions and all programs.. But at least it is a week long course emersing you in what they want your to learn, and you have 1 1/2 years with ticket items in order to put the training into practice.. Much more thorough then the weekend training or day course or 1/2 hour video training.

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[Eagle92]

B,

 

Some councils do not allow a test out, such as Moose's council. And some councils have mandatory training. And some council's records are so screwed up, that folks who have not only been trained, but have served on training staff, including PTC, are listed as 'UNTRAINED" on reports.

 

What I am really discouraged at is that when I went to PDL-1, I was told SCOUTNET would allow all records to move along with you as you moved councils. I just found out recently that is not the case.

 

And while I have not taken any WB course, I did take Brownsea 22 which was modeled on WB. Scout skill intensive and a lot of fun.

 

I do not see WB reverting b/c the training folks are trying to consolidate, and make it 1 size fits most (those pesky Sea Scouts break every mold )

[bnelon44]

The hold up on mandatory training is ScoutNet. As soon as training can be tracked correctly and there is a way for units to update their records, I would expect mandatory training to happen nationwide. We are probably a couple of years out from that.

[brooklynscout]

My personal leaning is towards a combination of these two methods: teaching in the meetings by the troop guide, with activities to reinforce it, and then testing in the field. Take for example, the menu planning. The way I would conduct this is by first having the troop guide use the EDGE method to have the patrol plan a menu for their campout, and teaching them about basic cooking and cleanup procedures. This not only introduces them to the skill, but having 6-8 eleven year olds plan meals together is a great exercise in compromise and teamwork. On that campout, they'll all cook and clean together, teaching them the skill and fulfilling the tenderfoot requirement. On the next couple campouts, as they refine the skill, they'll each take ownership for a meal and fulfill the second class requirements. Finally, each scout can then plan and cook for one campout, fulfilling the first class requirement all in one piece. At their board, they have by this time prepared meals on at least three campouts, and have practiced the skills on each one. Throughout, the troop guide is providing instruction, but the patrol leader will be facilitating all of the actual cooking and planning so that each scout can fulfill the requirements. Basically, this combines the more formal teaching element with practice and signing off in the field, ensuring they've learned the skill.

 

PS- Always teach safe food handling before the first campout. Even if you don't sign it off, you must teach this one formally so that the scouts know it. Food poisoning makes for tough questions from parents.

[JMHawkins]

The hold up on mandatory training is ScoutNet. As soon as training can be tracked correctly and there is a way for units to update their records, I would expect mandatory training to happen nationwide. We are probably a couple of years out from that.

 

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?

[Beavah]

Hiya BrooklynScout, and Happy 4th!

 

What yeh propose is a solid plan, eh? It gets boys through the requirements. Probably not quite in a year, since yeh need a separate campout for each of those 6-8 11-year-olds, on top of the several campouts for Second Class, on top of the one for Tenderfoot. But still, a good adult plan that's close to FCFY and reflects a well-run Troop 1, eh?

 

Now here's the thing to think about.

 

An individual boy in that setup will get one lecture on planning and food safety, and one experience of planning a meal together with a group of 7 other boys. As we know from such group work, that generally means that one or two boys do most of da actual work, with others perhaps offering suggestions or just being quiet supporters.

 

Then he gets to plan and cook 3 meals (one for Second Class, two cooked meals for First Class). Presumably he helps with other meals along the way, as part of a group of 8 chefs. So some of that time is just getting to stir occasionally, or chop an onion.

 

An average 11-year-old has never planned or cooked anything, eh? Do yeh think, after planning and cooking 3 meals, that he is proficient in that skill? Can his patrol now trust him to do this task on his own, without help?

 

I've never seen anyone go from raw beginner to proficient in 3 tries, eh?

 

So from da Troop 2 perspective, what Troop 1 has done is subtract from the requirements, and deprived the boy of the fun and satisfaction of actually becoming competent and confident at the important skill of planning and cooking. In Boy Scouting, there are four steps to Advancement: A Scout Learns, a Scout is Tested, a Scout is Reviewed, A Scout is Recognized. What got skipped completely in the rush to First Class First Year is the "A Scout Learns" step, eh? It went straight to "A Scout is Tested" and then (presumably) signed off on the test for his very first try.

 

That boy, if he moved to Troop 2, would be in tears, eh? Because his peers would all expect that a First Class Scout could plan, handle, and cook a weekend's worth of tasty & nutritious meals on his own. So his PL would assign him that task and he would fail. The badge does not represent what the boy is able to do, eh? It was given as a token recognition for what he had done once.

 

I think what confuses people a lot is that "the requirements" are meant to be the Test. They're what a boy has to demonstrate at the end of learning, not a place to start from. And like any test, "the requirements" don't measure everything a boy needs to be a First Class Scout. No test can measure everything without bein' way, way, way too long. Instead it samples da most important skills, and assumes that a boy demonstratin' those has also picked up on lots of other skills. So, for example, while the test is to explain food safety, the assumption is that in the course of learnin' the boy has gotten a lot of practice and can also do food safety. It's just that that's much harder to test.

 

So Troop 2 would just teach cooking and camping, eh? They wouldn't teach to the test. And eventually the lad would build up experience and learning until he demonstrates that he's proficient to his PL's satisfaction and to "the requirements" of the test. But he wouldn't have just da isolated bits of disconnected knowledge from the test, eh? He wouldn't just be able to explain food safety, he'd be able to do food safety properly, because he'd really learned. Even though doing food safety isn't part of the test.

 

The rank badge would signify what the Scout is able to do, not simply be a reward for what he had done once.

 

Beavah

 

 

[bnelon44]

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.

[bnelon44]

Beavah said, "I think what confuses people a lot is that "the requirements" are meant to be the Test. They're what a boy has to demonstrate at the end of learning, not a place to start from. And like any test, "the requirements" don't measure everything a boy needs to be a First Class Scout. No test can measure everything without bein' way, way, way too long. Instead it samples da most important skills, and assumes that a boy demonstratin' those has also picked up on lots of other skills. So, for example, while the test is to explain food safety, the assumption is that in the course of learnin' the boy has gotten a lot of practice and can also do food safety. It's just that that's much harder to test. "

 

Whereas I agree the requirements are the test. I don't see any evidence that they assume the Scout learned more than what is in the requirements.

 

Where I may agree with you that there is a need here; I see no assumption in the requirements nor in the literature that the Scout, "has gotten a lot of practice and can also do food safety." Your adding assumptions here that are not present in the literature and adding to the requirements by doing so.

 

(This message has been edited by bnelon44)(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[Beavah]

It's not about da literature, bnelon44. It's about the goals.

 

For the first three quarters of a century or more of Boy Scouting, there was no need to ever explain that we actually expected boys to have skills (like handlin' food safely). Everyone just knew it. Yeh don't need to write down what everybody knows.

 

It's only in the last couple of decades that da culture of America has changed to perverse legalism and "teach to the test", where the norm for at least part of da population is to read kids' program literature looking for loopholes or da sort of 80-page precision language common in federal regulations. Heck, a few years back I had a colleague dealin' with a lawsuit against a school because their student handbook didn't state explicitly that they prohibited a student from droppin' his trousers and peeing on another student in the hallway. No joke. Actual case. That's what the student had done, and he claimed he didn't merit any punishment because it "wasn't in the literature."

 

That's what we're becoming in Scouting, eh? Just as it should be blindingly obvious that peeing on other kids is not OK it should be blindingly obvious that a First Class Scout should be able to handle da storage and preparation of proteins without making his entire patrol ill. That stuff is not in da literature because da literature assumes an understandin' the Scouting movement and its goals when it comes to things that should be so obvious.

 

Where I fault the BSA is that they haven't stood firm enough and been clear enough in their responses to this odd cultural trend, eh? In fact, in da last decade in particularly we've seen folks who are products of that cultural trend try to advance it within the BSA. As a result, the BSA has followed the cultural trend rather than living up to its mission. Even well-meaning fellows like yourself were apparently never taught how scoutin' really works.

 

Beavah

 

[boomerscout]

I think we need to get the parents on board. My Mom taught me how to cook well before my first campout. I realize some parents of today don't know the first thing about cooking, but there should be enough that do. This would make a good summer project for all the males in the family

[bnelon44]

Beavah said:

 

"For the first three quarters of a century or more of Boy Scouting, there was no need to ever explain that we actually expected boys to have skills (like handlin' food safely). Everyone just knew it. Yeh don't need to write down what everybody knows. "

 

Remember the 10 second rule? (aka 5 second rule, 2 second rule, 5 min rule, etc., etc., etc.) People made up all kinds of stupid rules that caused more problems than not. People don't "just know" how to handle food safely. Green Bar Bill had a whole chapter on keeping food safe in camp in the 1936 Handbook for Scoutmasters.

 

For the first 1/4 of Scouting history national was just trying to get the troops to stop drilling their Scouts. To many Scoutmasters drilling = teaching. There was no skill training in those troop programs at all. They didn't just naturally know what Scouting was.

 

"da literature assumes an understandin' the Scouting movement and its goals when it comes to things that should be so obvious. "

 

Not really, that is why there are introductory chapters in the Guide to Advancement and the Scoutmaster Handbook that explain the goals of the program, and one in the Scoutmaster Handbook and the Guide to Advancement that describes what advancement is.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[Beavah]

Yah, bnelon44, this is a point -> . And you missed it.

 

The point that I was makin' was that up until very recently, it was not necessary to explain to anybody that the goal is to develop real skills proficiency, not simply to teach to the test or adhere literally to da requirements. Twenty five years ago nobody would have claimed that it was OK to pee on a fellow high school student because the Handbook didn't have an explicit requirement of not peeing on a fellow student. Nobody would have claimed it was OK not to be able to handle food safely because the Handbook didn't have an explicit requirement of actually handling food safely.

 

But now we do have that sort of naive or silly sort of citizen, so we should probably change "the literature" a little bit to deal with 'em. That means adding to the training or the Handbook Chapters you mention, because those things assume a culture that valued proficiency over credentials. Now that we have members who value credentials over proficiency, we have to be more explicit.

 

It's impossible, however, to create "literature" of the sort that some demand, where every bizarre and unproductive interpretation is ruled out. We can't even do that in professional law and regulation, eh?

 

Those were my points.

 

Your point is a different one. While da 5-second rule was always a joke, it is true that in other areas what constitutes skill proficiency has changed, eh? CPR has changed. Leave No Trace has developed. All sorts of stuff. What others have mentioned is also true - the BS Handbook has become far weaker on actually givin' people information on the modern skills. So for example, da BS Handbook doesn't actually contain much by way of information on proper food handlin' and storage in the field. A bit about bear bags, and a sentence about puttin' stuff in coolers. Yeh can't pass the requirement with what's available in the Handbook.

 

Now personally I think most scouters are good folks, and good scouters go find resources and play with things until they figure out how to make it work for their kids. They need resources to support 'em, not somebody tellin' 'em what to do.

 

But if you're concerned about novice scouters doin' the wrong thing, it seems to me that "the literature" is failing them twice. It fails them once by not bein' up front and clear about what "A Scout Learns" really means - that he works hard and practices until he becomes proficient, and that only when he's proficient in the skills is he ready to test, and that the test is meant to sample his proficiency and should reflect da expectations of proficiency. It fails 'em a second time by not providin' details about what constitutes real skill proficiency in the modern world - by not providin' resource that would help youth or adults become proficient.

 

So we see more Troop 1's these days, eh? Good folks like brooklynscout who are doin' their best, but the BSA is not supportin' 'em against the one-and-done, teach-to-the-test, credential-not-competence culture, and the BSA is not providin' 'em with materials that actually help build skill proficiency. Brooklynscout's plan skips A Scout Learns entirely, eh? And given his urban location, 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.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[bnelon44]

Beavah,

 

Ah but what does proficient mean? It means something different to you than it does to others. Do we just except a vague term without a clear definition?

 

In this discussion I am more concerned with people putting arbitrary obstacles in a Scout's way because they feel "a First Class Scout should be know how to ____" fill in the blank. Which I think is what you are advocating. That isn't the standard nor was it ever the standard. The standard to advance is and has always been that the Scout does what it says to do in the requirements. Also, as I have shown, ever since Bill Hillcourt started writing the handbooks, BORs don't retest the Scout and don't "flunk" the Scout if they don't pass a skill test. The rest is left up to program, but you don't add to requirements because you want to have a "troop two" troop.

 

Isn't the Guide to Advancement clear on this?(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmmm....

 

The definition of "proficient"? I'll have to remember that line for my next dinner party.

 

If a Scouter doesn't know what level of effort and learning is required to be Physically Strong, Mentally Awake, and Morally Straight mean; if he doesn't know what level of skill is required to Be Prepared and to Help Other People at all Times, then I'm not sure providin' a legalistic definition of proficiency is goin' to help the fellow, eh? He (or she) has to go back and learn about honor and duty and the rest of the Oath and Law.

 

I think an honorable man knows what "proficient" means. So for that matter does an honorable scout. The quest for legalistic definitions is one that I confess I associate with those who strive to substitute legalism for honor. That ain't even the mission of the American Bar Association, eh? I'm not sure that it should ever be the mission of the Boy Scouts of America.

 

And that's what this comes down to, eh? Some folks in the BSA want to live up to their obligations to the boys to teach 'em real skills and real values. For them, understanding that a boy should be able to prepare food for his patrol without risking making them ill is an obvious part of real skills, and workin' hard with lots more practice than doin' 3 "required" meals is both an obvious necessity for adequate learning and an obvious part of teaching real values.

 

Other folks in the BSA 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 so much as to isolate it from da rest of the "program". The mission of the BSA is in fact "left up to" the rest of the program without the support of Advancement.

 

Aside from being nonsense that Bill Hillcourt would never have supported, it's not even logically or ethically consistent, eh? If the writings of the BSA are to be interpreted literally and legalistically and narrowly, then yeh have to start with da Rules and Regulations of the BSA with respect to advancement, and the Rules and Regulations repudiate the second interpretation. That's why those folks never quote the R&R, and they never quote da advancement guidance that's consistent with the R&R. The only thing they ever quote is the half-sentence about adding to the requirements and the one sentence about not retesting. They replace all of Advancement Method with those two tenets, and the added hand-wringing about "flunking" boys which is their own misguided and invented notion.

 

That's not Scouting. It never has been. If it continues to be widely adopted, it will cripple Scoutin' in the U.S., because our public recognitions will have no value. No value for kids, no value for parents, no value for the community.

 

Just look at Lisabob's son, eh? An Eagle Scout by any measure, his perception was that Advancement and Eagle Scout had no value. I already know employers who refuse to hire Eagle Scouts because their experience has been that unlike other employees, Eagle Scouts expect the employer to hand-hold them through every step of success.

 

Shame on us for betrayin' the legacy of those who have gone before us by allowin' that to happen.

 

Beavah

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[brooklynscout]

Beavah raises several good points- the adding to requirements point and retesting point are too oft quoted by those who just want to get it signed off and done with. It is ultimately the spirit of the regulations that counts, not the letter. For example, some might say having a scout do a basic orienteering course for second class is adding to the requirement. After all, he just has to show how the compass works and orient a map, right? Well, in my mind it isn't adding to the requirement, but simply making sure the scout meets the intent of it- to know how to use a compass. Another situation with retesting- up until a few months ago, our troop guide would sign off just about anything on the vaguest trace of accomplishment. Is it retesting to go over the requirement with the scout and test him again? No, it is simply helping the scout and saving him (and the troop guide-don't even get me started on people who subtract from the requirement) a bunch of trouble from the scoutmaster. Another thing people need to drill into scout's heads- you aren't learning these skills just for advancement. Whether you get it signed off or not, keep practicing and doing it. I, an Eagle Scout, still practice my basic knots every so often lest I forget how many turns are in a taut line hitch. I will admit, as a young scout, I had the mind set of "sign off, advance, repeat". Now, looking back, I understand it differently- learn the skills better than you're required to know them, and keep practicing. Not only does it behoove you, but your parents love it when you can cook them a great meal.