Is Wood Badge just about "the beads"?

[Troop24]

@ Scoutbox, "After a Scout has completed all requirements for Tenderfoot, Second Class, First Class, Star, and Life ranks, or an Eagle Palm, he appears before a board of review. This board of review is made up of at least three and not more than six members of the troop committee. One member serves as chairman, usually the committee member responsible for advancement." as stated in 2008 Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures which is the latest version I can find online.

[Eagle92]

'Box,

 

T24 beat me to it. National only wants adults on BORs now.

 

As I stated up until 1990 or therabouts, PLs and Leadership Corps members in my troop did sit on BORs in my troop for the T-2-1 ranks. Now I admit as a brand new PL, and a few BORs afterwards too, I did ask the scout specific questions that should not have been asked ( i.e. "how do you clean a Dutch Oven" is the one that comes to mind and I'm not saying why ), but it was a learning experience. It was one way for us PLs and LC members to help relax the scout, see how our peers are doing in the other patrols, and get ideas for improving the troop.

 

It was a very good learning experience IMHO, and gave the scouts some ownership of the troop. It also showed the new members of the committee and parents on the BORs that the troop was working, and that the youth do know what they are doing.

 

 

 

[ScoutBox]

T24 and E92, first thanks for your responses. I guess though and sorry for asking again, but an older boy from the troop can or can't sit in on the BOR?

 

Reason why I'm asking this is because we are FINALLY having, for the first time this year, and meeting with the SM and ASMs and the SPL.

 

Thanks,

 

ScoutBox

[Beavah]

Yah, ScoutBox, an older boy is allowed to sit on a BOR if you let him, eh?

 

Some troops still do some version of the old program where youth led.

 

Technically, the current program materials say that a BOR should consist of three members of the troop committee (registered adult MCs). Overall, da trend is to use three adults, but I'd guess less than half of the troops out there are strict about using MC's. The materials are specific about not using relatives, SMs, or ASMs.

 

Still, even if you're stayin' strict to the books, there's nothing that says that you can't have an older scout or youth leader sit on a BOR as a 4th person/guest. That can be a nice way to go.

 

Beavah

 

[ScoutBox]

Merci Beaveh.

 

I'll bring this up at the meeting. But a 4th person really doesn't help with getting the BORs done. But getting the older boys more involved does.

 

Thanks,

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Remember the intent of the Board of Review is also to review the Troops program and if a scout has issues with fellow scouts, I am not so sure he will be forthcomming if that scout or his best bud in the troop is in the Board of Review.

 

That being said there is no prohibition against having an older scout be in the Board of Review and if the presence will enhance the Troop's Program which is supposed to be part of what the Board of review is about anyway go ahead.

 

 

[Eagle92]

OGE,

 

In my limited experience as a youth doing BORs back in the day, we didn't have that problem. Usually it was a "Green Bar" member, now called a PLC member, that sat with the adults, and the youth in most cases knew how to open the scout up and talk about any problems or concerns.

 

Grant you having a new PL sit on a BOR for the first time can be interesting, remember " How do you clean a Dutch oven" question above , But overall the the scouts selected to sit on the BOR knew a little about the scout, knew if there were any problems, and knew how to get him involved.

[OldGreyEagle]

maybe you didn't, that is not the point

 

[ScoutBox]

I have been talking to a few older Scouters in my Council, and several attended both the new and older WB Courses. Here's a reply to my question to one about the difference of both Courses.

 

 

(Its different; yet it's the same.

 

It's like asking a parent to say which of two children is better than the other.

 

There are folks that are so tied to the older courses (syllabus has changed more than once) that they can't accept change.

 

I like some elements of the older course better (but there are excellent reasons why they could not be retained). And there are some elements of 21SCWB that i dislike, but I recognize and accept the need for change,

 

1) adult leaders did not stay around long enough to go to the old woodbadge; (there was a 2 year tenure requirement); leaders weren't even staying registered for 2 years.

 

2) there was essentially no course for CS leaders (not even CSTWB met that need). Some councils created pilot programs for venturing WB but there was no consistency in course content.

 

3) The older courses were labor intensive (patrol cooking) and outdoor intensive - so we were essentially eliminating those who were less outdoor prone from participating, and we were taking too much time in teaching outdoor skills rather than leadership skills. Both are needed, but there are other venues for the outdoor piece.

 

4) The old course was almost 8 days - which was is difficult to schedule for busy leaders - vice 6 dasu for 21CWB.

 

5) The new course tries to bridge three programs; it does poorly with CS (it's really only cosmetic), but well with Venture and BS

 

6) The new course practices what it preaches with involvement of a venture crew; proves that adult leaders can rely on youth leaders and participation in training.

 

7) the new course cab be conducted in an indoor environment (not to my choosing) but it opens the trainingto a lot more volunteers.

 

8) the ticket's not the same but the purpose is.

 

9) the game of life poses a danger if not carefully controlled. It's new to 21CWB. It's a good teachihg point but has risks that must be anticiapted and avoided.

 

Overall, WB needed change. Change brings likes and dislikes based on personal bias. I accept the change and endorse the need for it.

 

It does little good to bemoan the loss of the old course. We make 21CWB work )

 

 

 

[John-in-KC]

As regards boys and BORs...

 

It's really quite simple:

 

- If it's an Eagle Board, youth members on the EBOR won't happen. Any District/Council guest worth his salt will stop things instantly and adjourn the EBOR before the candidate enters the room.

 

- If it's a due course S-T-2-1-S-L board and the BOR advances the Scout, no problem. As long as two adults sign the Advancement Report,... DONE.

 

- If it's a due course board, where the BOR doesn't advance the Scout, but he buys in to the shortcomings, no problem.

 

- If it's a due course board, where the BOR doesn't advance the Scout, and he appeals: BIG PROBLEM. The BOR's formation can be an issue on appeal. The District Advancement Chairs I know would reject the BOR as procedurally invalid, convene a Board at District Level, and most likely advance the Scout ... that is, if they didn't cut to the chase and close the appeal with an advancement anyway.

 

You pays your money, you takes your choices.(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[TNScoutTroop]

Scoutbox wrote,

"The older courses were labor intensive (patrol cooking) and outdoor intensive - so we were essentially eliminating those who were less outdoor prone from participating, and we were taking too much time in teaching outdoor skills rather than leadership skills. Both are needed, but there are other venues for the outdoor piece."

 

Yep, that's precisely the attitude we've found here in our Council -- outdoor skills can be taught in "some other venue". Unfortunately, that venue is IOLS, where those skills are taught by the WB'rs who are "less outdoor prone" . . . but well trained in leadership.

 

 

TN Scout Troop

[Eagle92]

Box,

 

When WB21C came out, I know of one CD who was very, very, VERY upset with the changes. Yes publicly he supported the new course, he really had no choice in the matter. BUT if you knew him well enough, and talked to him privately, he was extremely angry with the changes made.

 

Whether we like the new course or not, I think that all of us agree an advanced outdoor skills course is needed.

 

 

[Kudu]

ScoutBox writes:

 

there was essentially no course for CS leaders...The older courses were labor intensive (patrol cooking) and outdoor intensive - so we were essentially eliminating those who were less outdoor prone from participating, and we were taking too much time in teaching outdoor skills rather than leadership skills.

 

Yes, Wood Badge is designed for Den Leaders who hate the Patrol Method because it is too "outdoor intensive" and "takes too much time."

 

But Scoutcraft, not "leadership skills," is defined by our Congressional Charter as one of the three Purposes of Scouting.

 

Wood Badge qualifies indoor people who hate Scouting (Scoutcraft) to move into positions of authority such as local training staffs, "health and safety" committees, and other decision-making capacities:

 

"We should spend a million dollars on a summer camp dining hall because Patrol cooking is labor intensive and takes too much time!"

 

Our local Training Chair is a Den Leader. When I mentioned that there is no description of a Patrol and no mention of a Patrol Leader in the Patrol Method Presentation of SM-Specific Training, her assistant (also a Den Leader) jumped on me right away about not adding or subtracting from the course outline.

 

They both used exactly the same phrases three times during the course planning sessions to demand that we not add Patrols and Patrol Leaders to the Patrol Method Presentation (the purpose of which is explain EDGE theory now).

 

And what kind of person on a national training staff writes a Patrol Method presentation that replaces Patrol Leaders with these "leadership skills" in the first place?

 

And what kind of person on a national heath and safety committee removes Patrol Outings from approved activities?

 

Those "who are less outdoor prone," that's who.

 

Kick the cupcakes out of Wood Badge!

 

Yours at 300 Feet,

 

Kudu

http://kudu.net/

 

[Eagle92]

Kudu,

 

Don't knock all of us Den Leaders! Some of us are chomping at the bit to take our dens outdoors when the weather improves a little, helping to organize pack and/or district camping activities, and wait for the day when our den moves up to Boy Scouts, and say to them when they come to us with a question, " have you asked your PL?"

 

Seriously though I do see the problem, and I see it getting worse in the future. If BSA goes the way of other organizations, and look at the CSLST being online so it is, it will get to the point that trainers pop in a DVD and just monitor the training,being there to answer questions.

 

Luckily there is no way to do that with IOLS and other outdoor skills courses, and that is where we need to focus our efforts.

 

Now in reference to patrol activities, for the moment they are still allowed. The online version of the G2SS found here

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/GSS/gss01.aspx

 

, which is supposed to be updated every quarter according to the printed G2SS, still states the following:

 

Leadership Requirements for Trips and Outings

 

1. Two-deep leadership:

Two registered adult leaders, or one registered leader and a parent of a participating Scout or other adult, one of whom must be at least 21 years of age or older, are required for all trips or outings. There are a few instances, such as patrol activities, when no adult leadership is required. (emphasis mine) Coed overnight activities, even those including parent and child, require male and female adult leaders, both of whom must be 21 years of age or older, and one of whom must be a registered member of the BSA.

 

So patrol camping without adults is still allowed for the moment by the BSA. HOWEVER as strict as some state laws are becoming, leaving a group of teenagers without adult supervision in the wilderness could be considered negligence in some jurisdictions. Again I am not a lawyer, but if the old OA Tap Out Ceremony cwas considered "child abuse" in some jurisdictions, I would not be surprised if letting them out without adults would be outlawed somehow.

 

[Kudu]

HOWEVER as strict as some state laws are becoming, leaving a group of teenagers without adult supervision in the wilderness could be considered negligence in some jurisdictions

 

My point exactly: The purpose of Wood Badge is to teach Den Leaders to brainstorm reasons why the Boy Scout program must be dumbed-down to the Cub Scout level, instead of creating workarounds for jurisdictions in which the "Real" Patrol Method is against the law.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

http://kudu.net