Real Training

[Beavah]

 

Yah, in his rant Gunny raised some interestin' points, eh? Like most Gunnys I know, he's a good egg, and went right out to get his BSA trainin' and certifications as soon as he took da post .

 

Let's look at some of those BSA trainings, though. Safe Swim Defense. Safety Afloat. Climb on Safely. Trek Safely. All of 'em are 1-hour read-throughs of a set of rules. They really don't teach anybody the skills or judgment needed to be responsible for themselves (let alone kids) in those environments. It'd be downright frightenin' to have someone who had only done SA lead some kids on a movin' water canoe trip or someone who'd only done COS lead some kids on a climbing event.

 

BSA mostly relies on gettin' volunteers who come to us with outdoor skills.

 

Seems like rather than givin' us "legal fig leaf" one-hour trainin', we should be able to come with a resume like Gunny's, get a quick check on outdoor skills & judgment based on prior experience, and then be directed to what we're missin'. Maybe Gunny should do a LNT Trainer course, maybe Beavah should take Wilderness First Aid, maybe someone else should get an intro to Ages & Stages / workin' with youth.

 

I really have cringed a bit at some of da BSA accident reports, where leaders were clearly in over their heads. It's hard to use "we're just volunteers" as an excuse for not meetin' the norms for youth wilderness leaders if we put kids at risk.

 

What knowledge should an adult have before acceptin' responsibility for taking kids into the woods? paddlin' on rivers? climbing on rocks? campin' in da snow? Shouldn't it be more than Scoutmaster Specific?

 

Beavah

 

[FScouter]

The purpose of Trek Safely, Climb On Safely, Safety Afloat, and Safe Swim Defense trainings is to inform adult leaders what skills, supervision, equipment, and planning they must have in place before they take boys out trekking, climbing, floating, and swimming. These awareness trainings do not teach those skills and are not intended to teach those skills. They do teach what resources are necessary and how to get them.

[RangerT]

Beavah

 

I agree with ya 100%, those on line trainings are close to worthless. I also have to say most of the current Boy Scout leader training leaves a lot to be desired, including the current WB course. The other problem is that councils ,especially mine, have real trouble finding really qualified people to train others in outdoor skills and survival. Inferior teachers with inferior skills leads to unskilled leaders and deadly accidents. Maybe every council should have to contract with a professional outdoor training group to do training in wilderness skills. At a recent University of Scouting workshop on wilderness medicine the instructor was a EMT with a local fire department who had no experience in the outdoors,in fact he even joked about how he hated camping. Those are the kind of trainings that do not prepare for emergencies and lead to deaths in a troop. I asked the SE why this guy was even teaching this course, his answer, "He was the best we could get." It is time to raise the bar on all adult BSA training or we will face many more of these problems, deaths and fires, etc. in the future.

[GernBlansten]

When I took Climb on Safely, I was expecting a climbing course. What I got was a sermon on BSA climbing regulations. At first I was disappointed, but then I realized that I needed to know the rules before I could teach the skills. I have over 25 years climbing experience and probably could teach a course on climbing to most of these young whipper snapper climbers, but I couldn't have teached COS. I'm signed up to take BSA Climbing Instructor training next month so I can take our venture crew real climbing (you know, the kind that isn't done in some warehouse). Until then, I won't take the scouts climbing, even though I'm competent but not qualified to take them.

[BrentAllen]

Beavah,

My Safety Afloat card does not say I am now qualified to take a group whitewater rafting down a Class IV river. It states I will make sure there is qualified supervision, "who is experienced and qualified in the particular watercraft skills and equipment involved in the activity." It also states they must complete "rescue training for the type of watercraft to be used in the activity..."

 

If Scouters do as you say, no amount of training is going to help them - they are just clueless!

 

What knowledge should the adults have? They should have the knowledge to complete those trainings, and follow the rules - it's that simple! If you aren't qualified and experienced in the activity, hire someone who is. This ain't rocket science.

 

If someone wants more training in the different activities, attend Powder Horn.

[GernBlansten]

you are 100% correct Brent. Those courses do nothing to teach skills, just regulations and recommendations. They are also focused on the high risk activities.

The problem I see is there is no Camp on Safely required. There is no Wilderness 101. We don't require our scout leaders to attend a single outdoor skill course before taking children into the wilds. BSA offers them, but they don't require them.

[Gunny2862]

You are all making sense here, and note that I mentioned in the rant that I still would ensure that I had qualified instruction for the HA(climbing, Scuba , etc.) trips.

The BSA Safety afloat, Safe Swim Defence, etc., are MANAGEMENT courses, not how to do the activity courses.

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, I think we all agree, eh?

 

Here's da thing, though. Safety depends on good judgment, or what Calico calls "common sense" in the other thread. Problem with SA, SSD, COS, etc. is that they don't provide enough experience/skill proficiency for a person to develop good judgment. So yah, sure, they've been lectured that they need somebody who is "experienced and skilled in the activity," but they don't have the judgment to recognize what such a person looks like, eh?

 

I've seen loads of SA-trained types who considered themselves "experienced and skilled" because they'd been on simple class 0 float trips before.

 

Now, as BA says, some of 'em are just dumbos, eh? But I don't think most are. Simply put, beginners don't have the ability to even know what questions to ask, or what "experienced" really looks like. After SA, they know they're supposed to have PFDs, but they don't know how to size PFD's appropriately for kids, choose proper PFDs for an activity, etc. Yah, sure, us dedicated scouter forum-types then read about da incidents and accidents they caused and complain that they should have known better. But we never really taught 'em any better, eh? We just checked the "Safety Afloat Trained" box. They just checked the PFD box.

 

Might be as easy as sayin' things like "in order to take boys on a canoe trip, you should have the equivalent of American Canoe Association Moving Water Canoe (level 3) skills." If you're not sure, you can either take an ACA course through da BSA, or you can do a quick afternoon checkout with a local instructor.

 

So there's an identified standard, and also a way for scouters whose prior life experiences qualify them to quickly "test out" on the standard.

 

Seems almost negligent not to provide that kind of thing before lettin' people take children into the woods, eh? We've all seen troops with guys who are pretty scary, haven't we?

 

Beavah

[John-in-KC]

In a way, it goes back to the Merit Badge Counselor system: For years, BSA has relied on folks to identify themselves as experts, and accepted that at face value.

 

The Scouters of our generation are not those of WWII. We are increasingly farther removed from the land.

 

Revisiting "what right looks like" may be a challenge, but it may well need to be done.

 

I think leveraging other folks trainer certifications may be an answer. We do that already in shooting sports: Look at the minimums needed for a Venturer to actually use a pistol: 10 hour NRA course!

 

What I think we are scratching at is developing an ethic of learning, to gain competency and then expertise, to then share with our younger. As others have said, it demands common sense.

 

The other question we have to ask is WHY? The sad answer is simple: America is now inculcated with a lawsuit ethic: Something bad happens, sue. If the leader wasn't an "expert," complain the organization was negligent. It even happens from US Government to BSA (SLC UT area council and the 2002 fire, anyone?).

 

The sad thing is implementation will neither be easy nor cheap.

 

My thoughts, and yes, they are murky right now. No clear vision on this ...

[GernBlansten]

More than just training and certifications, one needs experience. I'd much rather send my son camping with someone who's been hundreds of times than some greenhorn who just got certified. With experience and common sense, comes wisdom. Experience gives us an appreciation to the variability of the situations one faces when outside the human zone. Weather, illness, attitudes, injuries, fear, ... the more you camp, the more wisdom you get on how to deal with it.

 

 

 

 

 

[Gunny2862]

Okay, but when we do this (leverage others certifications)does that mean that only one certification will fit the bill.

In example rifle range. In order to properly fire on a BSA range I believe you need at least one if not both an NRA Rangemaster and an NRA Instructor to operate the range. (This is .22 caliber and pellet or BB guns folks.)

I would bore you with what experience I think I have that would allow me to teach young shooters how to properly fire even a BB or pellet rifle while observing safety rules. But that could get long and boring.

 

Another example is that there is more than one wilderness medical certification, does only the ARC's certification count?

 

Or should alternate certification/experience be reviewed (possibly by Council Training professionals) followed by the issuance of a BSA certification? (Because isn't having the knowledge rather than a piece of paper what we are really after?)

 

What do you think?

 

What do you think?

[John-in-KC]

Gunny,

 

I think we need to look, area by area, at what can count.

 

For instance, with 15 minutes review of correct procedures, I think you and I could both open and control any level of small arms range. Would I want to train an 8-14 year old on basic rifle marksmanship? In my case, I'd have to pick up the books again, study them, and then go to the range and blast a thousand rounds or so, to refamiliarize the integration of the eight steady hold factors

 

I think a Navy SEAL Chief probably could demonstrate proficiency on whitewater smallcraft management with little further checking.

 

The research intensity, though, will militate to a cutoff of options at some point. I am not smart enough to tell you what right looks like, though...

[BrentAllen]

Gunny,

You are going to run into a little bit of a maze on this issue. There is generally a good reason for it, however.

For instance, I am NRA Rifle Instructor certified. With that certification, I can teach Rifleshooting merit badge and supervise shooting activities for Boy Scouts (All training and shooting activities must be supervised by a currently certified NRA rifle instructor or NRA coach who is 21 years of age or older.) However, I do not qualify to supervise or operate a BB range for Cub Scouts with that certification. In order to run BBs, I have to attend BSA BB certification, which is good for 2 years.

The BSA certification class is very specific to the age of the boys and the types of ranges they will fire on. The class was not a waste of time. Our council offers BB and Archery certification on the same day, one right after each other, so you can complete both in one day.

As for Wilderness First Aid, our Council offered 3 ARC and 1 SOLO course this year. What's the difference between the two? Go here to find out:

http://www.doubleknot.com/openrosters/DocDownload.asp?id=19652

I attended the ARC course and really enjoyed it - pretty intense.

Our council is offering an ARC CPR/First Aid/AED Instructor class this fall. Tuition is $150. Those who complete the entire course will receive a Red Cross CPR/First Aid/AED Instructor card with the Wilderness First Aid Basic instructor endorsement. The council will then reimburse you $50 for each Council WFA class you serve on as an instructor, up to $150.

WFA isn't currently required for any activity that I'm aware of, but may be required (1 participant) for Philmont crews in 2008. If so, I'm sure the BSA will let us know which certs meet the requirement.

 

You are just getting started on a (hopefully) long journey. Don't burn out in a sprint from the start. You've done more since May 1 that most Scouters do in a year.

As for Wood Badge, I suggest attending after a year or two as a Scouter. It won't certify you for anything, except maybe being "certifiable" :-) I hope you enjoy it at least half as much as I did; if so, you will love it!

[Beavah]

Or should alternate certification/experience be reviewed (possibly by Council Training professionals) followed by the issuance of a BSA certification? (Because isn't having the knowledge rather than a piece of paper what we are really after?)

 

Yah, this is sorta what I was gettin' at.

 

Kinda like the CPR model... you can re-take the course for renewal, or you can "challenge out" by just taking the test again.

 

We can leverage the trainin' of other groups, fer sure. But there should be someone in each council who can do one of two things:

 

1) Make a decision on equivalence. "Yep, we'll accept your Fire Department Medical First Responder as equivalent to Wilderness First Aid" (or not). Or "Yep, through-hikin' the Appalacian and Pacific Crest Trails we'll accept as qualified for backpackin'. No need to take the intro trainin'."

 

and

 

2) Allow a person to "test out". "Sure, George, if you're free Saturday afternoon for a few hours we can run through the river canoe skills / Safety Afloat. If you look good, we'll credit you for ACA canoe Level 3. Meet me at Joe's Canoe Palace."

 

It'd be great if it could be done on a unit trip, where the person could demonstrate supervision skills, too. "Joe, you're not checked out yet for canoe trip leader, but we'll send Calico with you on your troop trip, and if everything looks good you get credit for that."

 

In other words, make it easy for people to quickly get credit for prior work, but don't let raw beginners take kids out into the woods.

 

Beavah

 

[Lisabob]

John wrote: "What I think we are scratching at is developing an ethic of learning, to gain competency and then expertise, to then share with our younger."

 

I think John puts his finger on an important part of the problem here. We're becoming a nation of "instant experts" but the problem is, our knowledge base tends to be a mile wide and an inch (if that) deep. I see this in the academic and business worlds all the time - don't know something? Hey, just look it up on wikipedia and you're good to go, no need to truly master, or even fully comprehend, the material. So many people see education as something you go out and "get," as opposed to a process that actually requires some sweat equity in order to be of any value.

 

So it doesn't surprise me that this carries over into scouting too. And we reap what we sow, when boys (and parents) feel they're "owed" a merit badge because they went to class for 3 or 4 days at summer camp, or they're "owed" a rank advancement because they showed up. The same holds true, in far worse ways, when we read about some tragic accident that might have been prevented if the people in charge really knew a lot about the activity they were engaging in.

 

I wish I could say that I believe the BSA could fix this. But I don't think we can seriously be expected to buck the broader cultural trend toward de-valuing knowledge and expertise. And in fact, I'd have to say that many of the BSA trainings I've attended simply reflect that trend, rather than even beginning to push back against it.