Something better than the Blue card

[GKlose]

I personally hate the worksheets. They are treated way too much, even by my own sons, as "fill in the blank" things, with little thought otherwise.

 

So my protest is this, and it's happened about a dozen times so far -- I ask a Scout to take a look at his worksheet (especially if I ask him a question and then he looks at the sheet first). I glance at it and then turn it upside down on the table. Then I start a conversation with him.

 

I've seen this done many times...I'm a musician too, and I recognized a long time ago that most student instrumentalists are lost if they don't have a music stand in front of them. I've seen many, many teachers just turn over whatever sheet music they have, and then the crutch is gone.

 

Guy

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm...

 

I'm still not gettin' yeh, Eagledad.

 

What does phoning and settin' up a meetin' with a counselor have to do with Blue Cards? Why do yeh feel that if we eliminated Blue Cards that would somehow mean that a lad wouldn't have to find a counselor and arrange meetings with a counselor?

 

Anyways, settin' that aside for a moment, I think da place we fundamentally disagree is that you have a notion that 95% of boys and adults can't achieve high performance on what in da grand scheme of things are relatively easy tasks. I think that's utter nonsense. I think you're gettin' those results because of the system you have set up.

 

We can, as adults, set up a highly regimented system. We can say within our troop that the way to do Merit Badges is yeh must go to MB.com where yeh can select a badge, then download and print out the MB worksheet. Then yeh must come with your worksheet with your name on top to the SM for his approval, and the SM will give yeh the MB book for that badge and a phone number. Then yeh must fill out all da lines on the worksheet and have your parent sign that you did it yourself, then with your parent (for YP reasons) call the MBC to arrange an appointment. Then we tell the MBC that he has to use the worksheet and make triplicate copies and just walk through each of da requirements as covered on da worksheet (no adding to requirements). Yeh must use black pen because at some point da Advancement Chair has to copy it for da records, etc. etc.

 

You are correct, eh? Adults set up that kind of regimented system when they believe that kids and other adults aren't capable of goin' about workin' on merit badges without that kind of added structure. And yeh know what? They discover that the kids and adults they work with aren't capable of goin' about workin' on merit badges without that kind of added structure. Their system produces the result they expected, eh? But they'll be proud that their boys are demonstratin' "responsibility" by always havin' their worksheets completed and signed in black pen.

 

What I'm gently suggestin' is that yep, yeh occasionally need to provide a bit more structure to a young scout or a new MBC when he's just gettin' started. But very soon after that the extra structure should fade so that things proceed more naturally and real learning takes place. 95% of youth and adults are capable of doin' this stuff on their own, without all that extra foorah. They can manage their own learning without a worksheet, and they can engage in normal communications, which these days usually involve email instead of 3-part cardstock forms.

 

But in the end, yeh get from boys and adults what yeh expect, eh? Expect they can't do it, and they won't.

 

Beavah

 

[Eagledad]

>>I think that's utter nonsense. I think you're gettin' those results because of the system you have set up.What I'm gently suggestin' is that yep, yeh occasionally need to provide a bit more structure to a young scout or a new MBC when he's just gettin' started.>95% of youth and adults are capable of doin' this stuff on their own, without all that extra foorah. They can manage their own learning without a worksheet, and they can engage in normal communications, which these days usually involve email instead of 3-part cardstock forms.

[Venividi]

I've been trying to make sense of this dialog, but am getting lost.

 

Structure is provided in planning meetings.

Structure is provided in running meetings.

Structure is provided in planning and conducting outings.

Structure is provided in developing skills needed for fun and adventure in the outdoors.

Structure is provided in leadership development.

 

But structure is not needed in the MB program, and troops that use blue cards are adult driven bureaucracy??

 

 

[Beavah]

I've been trying to make sense of this dialog, but am getting lost.

 

Yah, you and me both!

 

All I suggested was that blue cards weren't a necessary part of scoutin', and that all that was really required was any reliable way for a MBC to indicate that a lad had completed a badge. Apparently I was wrong.

 

VeniVidi does raise an interestin' point about structure, and perhaps by takin' a different example I can communicate better.

 

Let's look at meetings.

 

Da BSA does provide some optional structure in terms of troop meetings. More like some examples. Those used to be called Woods Wisdom, now they're Program Helps or somesuch. They are based off a relatively rigid structure of opening game and opening and then some other stuff, which stayed the same no matter what the topic was.

 

Now, I suppose yeh could say that anyone doin' meetings differently was "doing it wrong and not following the BSA guidelines" as Eagledad implies for not usin' blue cards. Da problem with that is that I've yet to see a successful troop anywhere that followed Program Helps exactly, eh? Mostly yeh just see some elements. Some just come up with their own meeting plan, which works just as well. Others have longer meetings than what Program Helps were designed for, heaven forbid! So I guess everybody's doin' it wrong.

 

Just like I don't think troops or boys have to use blue cards, I don't think it's really "wrong" for troops or boys to come up with their own meeting plans. Da structure isn't required. The BSA materials are there as a resource.

 

Is da structure desirable?

 

In da grand scheme of ways to approach puttin' together a meeting, havin' boys take da Program Helps documents for da Canoeing month and fill in the blanks is one option. In that case, da responsibility of the scouts is filling in the blanks. The other parts of planning - setting a goal, figurin' out where your people are startin' with respect to that goal, developing a progression, usin' local resources, planning for time, etc. etc. have all been done for 'em by adults. The boys just have to execute it.

 

On the other end, yeh could have a PLC that says it wants to do canoein' for a month, and those boys could set a goal, consider their patrol members and patrols, investigate resources, develop a progression, plan for time, etc. In all likelihood, they'll come up with somethin' different for weekly meeting plans than the ones in Program Helps. Maybe they'll change the order, or go longer, or skip the game at the start. Maybe they'll go grab somethin' from the American Canoe Association instead, and the meetin' won't look anything like Program Helps. Probably, they'll do more actual canoeing.

 

In da first case, the boys have learned how to execute a plan within a rigid structure set up by others. Lots of adults look at that and feel a swell of pride. The kids have learned how to march. It looks neat and organized. Nuthin' wrong with that, if that was your goal. I think its of limited usefulness in this day and age to the lads; too much like assembly line work, which is goin' away. So it would not personally be my goal. It gets yeh Scout 1 in my example, a lad who knows how to execute a system provided for him.

 

In da second case, by contrast, the boys have learned how to have an idea, change it into goals, gather resources, develop a progression, plan for time, and execute their own plan. It's leadership work. It's portable. It requires the boys to set up their own structure, not just follow someone else's. It gets yeh a lad like Scout 3, who can organize and engage on his own, without adults havin' to provide all da structure.

 

Now, in a brand new unit, with brand new youth leaders, yeh will need more structure. That's just the way things are with beginners. If yeh leave it wide open, beginners will flounder. To me, though, yeh want to get past that unnecessary structure quickly, rather than lock it in forever, because it's da other aspects of youth leadership where most of da growth really takes place.

 

Once yeh have a unit culture in place, yeh don't need a rigid structure at all, because kids learn by watching and doing. If they've seen older boys run meetings, if they've served in assistant roles for a while doin' the meeting planning process, then by the time they're in PL and SPL roles they've got it down. No need to pull out Program Helps unless they happen to want to look at a set just for an idea or two.

 

So I'd say Program Helps aren't necessary, might be useful as one resource or idea, and are perhaps a hindrance dependin' on what outcomes yeh value and how yeh use 'em. Same with blue cards.

 

Beavah

 

[Venividi]

Beavah,

 

I think your example is trying to compare the wrong documents. Comparing the massive program planning material document with a simple tool such as the blue card misses the mark. I think a better comparison of the blue card would be with the troop meeting planner. Both are simple tools that boys can use successfully.

 

Would it be beneficial to dispense with the agenda and replace it with something else? You could argue that the agenda is a rigid structure that takes away creativity. That to use the meeting agenda is simply "scouts filling in the blanks". That successful use of an agenda is "the boys have learned how to execute a plan within a rigid structure set up by others." That when boys learn to use an agenda effectively, then "Lots of adults look at that and feel a swell of pride. The kids have learned how to march. It looks neat and organized." If you think that use of planning tools is "of limited usefulness in this day and age to the lads".

 

But I have yet to see a successful troop where the boys were not required to perpare and use an agenda. (or a duty roster, etc.)

 

Now in this day, an agenda completed on an ipad could work. As long as it included the various components of the meeting with enough detail listed for the SPL to run the meeting.

 

I suppose that there is a first for everything - I can't recall disagreeing with Beavah on a scouting related thread before. I think that learning the benefit and usefulness of such tools is one of the benefits that boys get out of scouting.

[Twocubdad]

No.

 

The issue here is very simply the Scouts' responsibility in the process.

 

Beav's initial posts were for the ADULTS to just make a call or send an email confirming that the Scout was authorized for the MB or had completed it. "Hi, Nancy, this is Steve. I'm with Tommy and Freddy, and they both just finished Citizenship in the Community." The blue card system requires that the SCOUT be responsible for getting the appropriate authorizations and sign-off through for the badge.

 

I really don't care how big or small of an bureauracy there is. (But the beauty of the blue cards is that they are about as easy a process as you'll find.) I do care that the Scout is the one with the RESPONSIBILITY for communicating between the troop, the MBC and back. Blue cards, phone calls, emails, smoke signals or jungles as long as the Scout remains part of the chain. The comparison to troop meeting plan sheets is spot-on. The piece of paper isn't important, the key is who is responsible for the planning.

[Beavah]

Yah, VeniVidi, I agree my example doesn't provide 1:1 correspondence, but it at least let's yeh in to my way of thinkin'.

 

Nothin' wrong with scouts having an agenda, that's a fine thing. But followin' TwoCubDad's logic, in which case is more of the responsibility with the scout? The case where da scout has to fill out da form (complete with prompts and most activities and times already pre-set by adults), or the case where the scout creates the agenda from a blank piece of paper, workin' with his buddies and deciding on order, and timing, and other stuff on his own?

 

Or takin' the duty roster example, which is da more effective patrol... the one where the PL is given an adult-compiled duty roster form with times set up and blanks to fill in for names, or the patrol that dispenses with the duty roster and has everyone just pitch in effectively, one lad swapping out with another at da cooking station so the other can pack his stuff, two guys who were done early with packin' jumpin' in to help da cleanup go faster? All without a form?

 

I'm arguin' for the second in both cases.

 

TwoCubDad, I reckon there are two points that I'm makin' with respect to blue cards which perhaps aren't clear.

 

Point One is like the point I'm makin' above. By specifyin' the form and the exact method of communication (Eagledad lays out enumerated steps for communication), while the lad is only executing the communication, the adults have done most of the work. Da task of carrying the card back is trivial make-work which doesn't teach very much. As an alternative, yeh could make the lad truly responsible for the communication and let him (or the PLC) choose what's best. That might be asking the MBC to call (or calling himself and handin' the MBC the phone). It might be email. It might be showin' the MBC how to log on to the ScoutTrack account and add the badge. It might be takin' a photo of himself with da counselor and a sign saying "MB Completed" and photo-texting it. It almost certainly wouldn't be carryin' a blue card until da next time he sees the Advancement Chair.

 

Point Two is that da act of recording the badge is truly trivial, and no matter what yeh do it teaches almost nothing. Real responsibility and communication are learned in other aspects of da badge and program. Yeh can dispense with learnin' about a paperwork system the boy will never see the like of again in his life, and the important things are all still there - settin' up a meeting with an adult, communicatin' expectations, bein' responsible for completing requirements, an ongoin' mentoring relationship. The added requirement of conveying a form doesn't add much at all to the lad's experience.

 

As a result, since the benefits are so low, the cost/benefit analysis argues against it. Let's look at da cost. Some of the kid's time. An advancement chair's time. More time when the form is lost by the boy or (more often) by an adult or (still more often) by the council. All that adult recordin' and passin' off and signing time. All so the boy can learn that make-work bureaucratic systems are annoying?

 

Let's be honest, most badges are earned at camp, and at camp da recording process is adult-run. I don't think that's an awful thing, because the recording process is an adult need, not a kid need. All of Scouting in the eyes of a boy, and all of its positive effects on his character can be accomplished without an exercise to get data entered into ScoutNet.

 

Beavah

 

[Venividi]

 

Beavah: I'm arguin' for the second in both cases.

 

 

I'ld argue for the first. I can understand that you prefer the second, but think that your disparagement of those that find planning tools useful distracts from your argument rather than enhances it. I plan for a living. I use tools that are in some ways similar to duty rosters. Responsibility is assigned to individuals - and - team members all pitch in to help. Dispensing with the plan and planning in favor of ad-hoc winging it might work in your field, but it does not work in mine. Different life experiences, different views on the importance of structure and tools to use within that structure. I get it.

 

Beavah: Real responsibility and communication are learned in other aspects of da badge and program.

 

I'm not understanding why you think that responsibility cannot be implemented throughout the program. Not understanding why a scout taking responsibility for even the things that you think are "trivial" do not contribute to the development of youth. Perhaps not being responsible for "trivial" items isn't important in your field, but it is important in mine. Again, I suppose the different view is based on our differing life experiences. I ask that you not belittle mine (and two cub dad's)view of the imortance of taking responsibility by saying that the reason is for adults to "feel a swell of pride. The kids have learned how to march. It looks neat and organized." We know it won't look neat and organized. but being neat and organized is a life skill that is beneficial to learn. Though I recognize that you may disagree with the need for organizational skills in life, and therefore may consider it a waste of time to teach.

 

I find your whole argument that a scout need not take responsibility, coming from a person that strongly advocates the position that a scout cant learn in a once and done manner, highly surprising.

[Beavah]

I find your whole argument that a scout need not take responsibility, coming from a person that strongly advocates the position that a scout cant learn in a once and done manner, highly surprising.

 

Yah, well. It should be surprisin', because it's not my argument. I'm not sure how yeh managed to get to "a scout need not take responsibility" from anything I've ever written. I do talk funny, I'll admit, but that's got to be at least partly an error by the reader.

 

So I guess I'm suggestin' a hierarchy of youth leadership.

 

1. Adults do it for them.

2. Adults develop all of the procedures and make them do the work (a variant of "adults tell them what to do").

3. Adults develop all of the procedures and make them learn the procedures, but allow modifications if justified.

4. Kids take adult tools and procedures and modify them to meet the goals.

5. Kids develop their own procedures (and perhaps make adults do the work ).

6. Kids do it all themselves.

 

You are accusin' me of advocatin' for #1, and are telling me how much better #2 is than #1. Yep, I agree that #2 is better than #1. I'm just suggestin' that there's more merit in #3, #4, #5, and #6.

 

Astute students of history will recognize this as sort of parallel to Bloom's taxonomy. I'm suggesting that all scouts can engage in higher-order thinking, or reach a level of proficiency. If we let 'em. I don't buy that 95% of 'em can't.

 

That doesn't mean that we don't give 'em tools. Some tools are fine, though I think it's also necessary to teach folks how to add and subtract in their head without a calculator, or how to cook fish without an immersion circulator. There are times when folks are learning we perhaps shouldn't give 'em tools. But a tool is somethin' yeh can use in multiple ways, and choose to use or not use in a particular case. That's different from a procedure. What folks have been describin' in terms of blue cards is an adult-mandated procedure. The boys can't choose not to use it, or use it differently the way they could with a tool.

 

At least that's Point One of my argument.

 

Point Two is that this is just a stupid recording task, and da proper way for anybody with a brain to handle a recording task in the modern world is to use tools to minimize the number of steps between accomplishment and recording. It costs less, is more accurate, and leaves more time to learn or teach real responsibility using more meaningful tasks.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Eagledad]

>> I'm suggesting that all scouts can engage in higher-order thinking, or reach a level of proficiency. If we let 'em. I don't buy that 95% of 'em can't.

[Basementdweller]

Now that we are all thru the feather fluffing

 

 

 

What is a better solution than using the current blue card

[Beavah]

Read my post again beav, the 95% is a reference to adults, not scouts. And I asked you how you would get those adults to reach the goal of higher level proficiency without the checklist as a guide.

 

Yah, I don't buy da figure for people - either scouts or adults, eh? Though I'll grant that adults have a harder time imaginin' things bein' different than what they're used to.

 

I think by and large folks teach others the way they have been taught. So if we teach adults checklists, they'll teach the kids checklists. Our example speaks more loudly than our words. I don't think yeh can get adults to help kids reach the goal of higher proficiency unless we as adults use behaviors and practices associated with higher proficiency.

 

 

-----

 

Basementdweller, I think when we're talkin' communication and records, the more steps there are in the system the greater the chance of errors and lost records, and the more energy is used just to maintain the system.

 

Right now in troops usin' blue cards we have a communications/record keeping system that goes somethin' like:

 

MBC->Scout (blue card)->SM->Committee Member->(transcribed to advancement report)->Council Registrar->(transcribed/verified in ScoutNet)->badge purchase->badge delivery->badge awarded.

 

That's a lot of steps, and almost all of those are adult steps, eh? So we see a lot of loss/errors, and a lot of delays, and the majority of that is caused by adults.

 

I think in terms of Scouting for the boys, da natural thing is

 

MBC->badge awarded

 

No errors, no delays, no long chain of adult involvement. Da folks who like cards can even expect that the boy bring his award card in its baseball card folder sheet thingy to his BOR for documentation, though I think most lads would shoot a photo with their phone and upload that.

 

With modern technology to ensure back-ups,

 

MBC->ScoutNet->badge delivered->badge awarded

 

would work fine. Scout's job is to verify his online records. That's much closer to what he'll experience in da real world.

 

Da other one I suggested was

 

MBC->Scout's discretion communication->Committee Member->Registrar-> etc.

 

Doesn't save many steps, but at least the lad is playin' an active role in the communication, not impersonating a mailman.

 

Of course for camps these days, we have

 

Instructor->MBC of record->camp's discretion communication->SM->Committee Member-> etc.

 

Beavah

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

I have been reading along in this thread but stopped posting, because frankly the discussion has gotten a little too wacky and convoluted, and like I said before, the discussion is purely academic for me, because in my council (or at least my district) if you don't use blue cards (lately they actually seem to be white but we still call them blue) your Scouts don't make Eagle, so every troop and every Scout uses blue cards. I suspect that even if the district relaxed a little on the use of blue cards and allowed for some other method of verification at the EBOR, it would be a slow and gradual process for troops to start adopting it.

 

And I will just make this one comment about blue cards: Beavah, if you can take and send a cell-phone picture of a Scout with the MBC and a silly sign that says merit badge completed, you can also take and send a cell-phone picture of the signed blue card. Maybe you could even take it in such a way that the electronic recipient could print it onto... a blue card! Instant backup. (You know, I am saying this as a joke, but now I might actually talk to the guy in our troop who would know about these things, and see if it makes sense to try it.)

 

But what I really want to comment on is this:

 

Or takin' the duty roster example, which is da more effective patrol... the one where the PL is given an adult-compiled duty roster form with times set up and blanks to fill in for names, or the patrol that dispenses with the duty roster and has everyone just pitch in effectively, one lad swapping out with another at da cooking station so the other can pack his stuff, two guys who were done early with packin' jumpin' in to help da cleanup go faster? All without a form?

 

Assuming that Patrol 2 actually existed -- in other words, assuming there was a patrol where "everyone just pitch[ed] in effectively", without a duty roster, that might be the more effective patrol. However, if you change the facts of Patrol 2 so that everybody does NOT "just pitch in effectively", resulting in chaos, meals that take 2 hours to prepare when they should take 30 minutes and/or food that is not cooked properly or portions of meals that are never served at all, cleanups completed way late or not at all or incompletely, not to mention yelling and/or screaming by the poor 13-year-old PL who is chasing after kids all over camp to get stuff done, programs that do not get completed because breakfast and cleanup weren't completed until 11 a.m. and now there's no time for the 2-hour nature walk before lunch.... and I think I've made my point. I am exaggerating slightly in some places but I have seen various examples of all of these things in my Scouting lifetime when there was no duty roster (or there was a duty roster but it wasn't followed.) I have heard the clarion call of the Scoutmaster, "Why am I seeing dirty pots and pans when its almost lights out"? Or "Thank you for inviting me to lunch with your patrol today, Patrol Leader X, but I notice that it's 1:30 and I don't seem to have any food." Not to mention the endless arguments over why I have to do something at every meal but Charlie never seems to do anything... which I have heard WITH a duty roster, but much more often without one.

 

I would guesstimate that at least some elements of what I have described here probably would be the case in 70 to 90 percent of patrols in the country if they tried to have people "just pitch in effectively" without a duty roster. (And yeah, Beavah, I am sure all the troops you have dealt with operate just fine without duty rosters, but that just means you are lucky enough to have the uncommon 10 to 30 percent all concentrated in your area. Sarcasm off.)

 

So, yeah, if Patrol 2 effectively manages without a duty roster, it might be "more effective" than Patrol 1. But most of the time, Patrol 1 is better because Patrol 2 (being made up of those pesky, fallible human beings) is not getting things done, and Patrol 1 (also made up of human beings, but ones who at least know what they, individually, are supposed to do and where and when they are supposed to do it) got dinner prepared and cooked and served and cleaned-up-from in reasonable time, and now we can go on the nature walk or build the monkey-bridge or have the campfire -- or go to sleep -- without having to worry so much about dirty utensils or unfed and/or arguing Scouts or irritated Scoutmasters or resigning Patrol Leaders because nobody listens to them without a duty roster.

[Beavah]

However, if you change the facts of Patrol 2 so that everybody does NOT "just pitch in effectively", resulting in chaos

 

Yah, yah, that's always da assumption, eh? The kids can't do it. It will result in chaos. They need the adults to do it. They need the adults to solve da problem of working together for them.

 

If yeh really are gettin' chaos, then I think yeh have to look carefully at a lot of program components, because for some reason yeh aren't succeedin' at teaching character and citizenship.

 

A duty roster can be an OK thing as a tool, if yeh have a PL and a patrol that needs that sort of support. But I think yeh can move past "An adult tells them how to do it" fairly quickly with a tad more guidance and practice. A couple rounds with a paper roster, then da duty roster can just become verbal, and then just friendly agreement, and now yeh have a patrol culture where new lads learn da culture by watchin' and gentle social pressure. Boys learn by watchin' and doin', not by worksheets.

 

B