Woodbadge, big whup?

[John-in-KC]

Any education or training is what each of us make of it. That goes for an undergrad degree, grad school, initial entry training in the Armed Forces, continuing ed, volunteer training ... whatever have you.

 

I care not: If you don't want to attend a training, you can find an excuse or a reason.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Those said,

 

An educator or trainer has to be not only skill-proficient, but also communication-proficient. If you cannot share the knowledge, you just wasted the time of your training audience. Lisa and I have been in fairly strong agreement for a while on that.

 

I've said before and I say again: The leadership psych given me in WB21C was a useful revisit to well-plowed ground. It wasn't my root reason for attending. For me, the root was to expand my Scouting network beyond my "usual suspects." Fresh input matters.

 

Now, a question:

 

To Mr Desertrat:

 

"Wondering aloud...if councils put a fraction of the effort into basic scout leader training that they put into WB, we'd really have something...."

 

Sir, this is a binary choice: Are you part of the solution (doing something about training by joining those who train others) or are you part of the problem (and doing nothing other than commenting on an internet board is ... doing nothing, and being part of the problem)

 

???

[TAHAWK]

"To quote National: 'Incorporating leadership concepts that are used in corporate America, the course teaches participants the basics of listening, communicating, valuing people, team development, situational leadership, problem solving, and managing conflict. Once the skill is learned, each member is given the opportunity to use the skill as a member of a successful working team. At the conclusion of the course, each participant develops a set of personal goals related to his or her Scouting role. Working toward these goals allows each participant to practice and demonstrate new skills.'

 

Whereas WB used to be the "Pinnacle of Scouter training".

 

Used to be that you would see a Scouter with WB beads and know that that person knew quite a lot about the program they WB'ed in. Now-adays, a brand new Tiger Den-Leader with less than one year can earn WB beads and still not know what the cubs need for advancement.

 

So what is the new "Pinnacle"? What training is there for the Scouter to teach the outdoor skills that s/he can teach to his Pack/Troop? How can s/he teach that Scouting is a game that teaches in the outdoors when s/he may not know them? WB used to be about the program. Now it is about the management.

 

How is WB different from a Covey (sp?) course in management? What does Covey know of tracking, pioneering, Day Camp, Camporees, Webelorees, Tote-n-Chip, or any other thing the boys like doing?

 

I also regret that I did not go through the old WB course, although I would have to have gone through the Cub Scouter Course then. The new one is NOT worthless but is not a Scouting specific training either.

 

Agin, just my $0.02. I would like some of the Outing put back in Scouting.

 

YiS,

 

Rick "

 

Wood Badge was primarily about outdoor skills until 1972. Then the new Wood Badge came out, focused on the White Stag eleven "Leadership Compentencies" (later "Skills"). Boy were there moans in cerain circles! It was the end of Wood Badge!!! "Watered down Wood Badge!"

 

I guess I was not so shocked because I had taken White Stag in California years before. When was invited to take the "new" Wood badge course in 1984, it has a great experience notwithstanding my prior exposure to White Stag. I felt that I better understood what Banathy was teaching in the 1960's.

 

I did wonder why teaching folks how to lead was "scheduled" after years of leading -- as a sort of capstone or regognition of veteran status. Seemed like the directions for operating the "machine" should come earlier in the career, but . . . .

 

I do think there is a need for a course to follow-up on IOLS and WOL, and I suspect one will happen in my Council this Fall, put together by volunteers with the already-given blessing of Council. Certainly, the Handbook and Fieldbook do not contain the information they once contained. We are already supplementing the IOLS syllabus-level material with handouts as it is, in part to correct obvious errors that have crept into the official literature and errors that have always been there.

 

Still, even as one whose greater interest is in the Scouting method of Outdoor Program, I not sure why outdoor skills training should be more of a "pinnacle" than training in leadership.

 

As for training in areas of perceived existing competence, All-pro's in mant professions still practice. One thing about teaching is the opportunity for Staff to learn from other Staff members and from the trainees.

 

How is Wood Badge different from a course by Blanchard, who helped B.S.A. develop the original 21st Century syllabus? The Scouting context and examples aside, there are large differences. Haven taken both courses, I can say that much more learning and give-and-take goes on because the vast majority of those taking Situational Leadership do not want to be there and have very little interest -- and the staff knows that. In WB, the trainees are self-selected (the odd paid professional excepted) and largely highly motivated to learn, as opposed to merely attend. The Blanchard staff was very competent, BUT one could tell they had said the same words over, and over, and over. Very little passion. Then there is the cost difference.

 

You do understand, I hope, that much of the eleven Leadership Skills of the second version of Wood Badge are still there. There is coverage, with different labels sometimes, of communiactions, understanding the needs and characteristics of the "team" ("Group" "Team" Big difference?), counciling, planning, using different leadership styles (but now with a rationale for when different styles may be more useful), teaching, and other "skills" of the second WB course.

 

We are not likely to go back to a outdoors skills-centered course that went away over thirty-five years ago.

 

I do, however, understand that not everyone likes chocolate, however strange that seems to me.

[John-in-KC]

Like others, I want to see skills trainings. I may be different than others, though... I want to see some specific skillsets, vice a general campout. Don't waste my time:

 

- I'd like to see several "camp cookery" events: One Dutch oven, one lightweight, one just weekend camp.

 

- I'd like to see an improvised shelter weekend. Stay warm even in ugly conditions.

 

- I'd like to see an orienteering/gps weekend.

 

- I'd like to see an equipment demo weekend. Whether its a tent, clothing, or a stove, much has changed these past 40 years

 

Why? Too many adults I know in Scouting don't have a good idea of fieldcraft.

[desertrat77]

Mr. John in KC,

 

Sir, excellent question...let me start by amplifying my comment about the disparity of council effort that goes into WB v. basic training:

 

Generally speaking, most basic scout leader training is an honest effort by the council...nuts and bolts, serves its intended purpose. Get your certificate and go home. Any camaraderie developed is usually based on the initiative of the attendees.

 

Compare/contrast WB...first, there is a big council-level PR effort, and it goes from there, in style. The council and cadre do their absolute best to ensure the WB program is the special experience they advertise, and I'm sure they deliver every time.

 

To me, it's the haves/have nots...a big gulf between the two trainings in terms of resources and effort.

 

So I go thru basic leader training, go back to the unit and get to work. Then WB pops up. Do I want to attend?

 

Depends. Am I intrigued? Do I want to be part of the WB community? Or have I seen something about WB that makes me say no thanks? Real or perceived, WB's image is polished or tarnished between basic leader training and when WB is offered.

 

Here's my pitch. Instead of making the basic training a square filler, lend it some (just some) of WB's program ideas, scouting spirit, council push, resources, etc. No ticket or special badges, aside from the trained tab. Just make it clear to the new leaders they are attending something special...and if they enjoyed basic training, they'll love WB.

 

It would be a perfect stepping stone to WB for many.

 

Regarding my involvement in council training: Mr. KC, that's a good question. I haven't been involved to date, but your suggestion is a good one. I'll look into, because it's a role I think I'd like to serve in.

 

As far as WB goes, I've looked at the outline and it's ground I've covered at work and in college. I'm not beyond learning, but don't have a desire to cover Leadership and Management 101 again. To a lesser degree, the clubiness does not appeal. I wish WB and WBers the best, but I think you can be a dedicated, educated scouter without going to WB.

 

[fleetfootedfox]

WB 21st Century is the adult version of what is taught at NYLT. I think anybody who thinks they might someday be a Scoutmaster should attend.

[Eagle92]

Desertrat brings up a good point about council's focusing on WB and not on basic training. I think part of the reason is that national has separated SM and ASM training into 3 parts: This is Scouting, SM Specific, IOLS. I also know that some councils do have trouble getting trainers. That's my council's problem now. Trust me I was a traingin chair and had difficulty getting folks to volunteer to be trainers.

 

When I went through SM Fundamentals, it was an all or nothing course in that you had to complete the day long session, night session, and campout to be "trained." Three districts organized the course, and it was a blast. We were organized by patrols, and everything was accomplished with that patrol. While we didn't have the 6 day and ticket expereince as WB, this was the best basic training I ever been through or taught, and is was the closest thing to Brownsea 22 and JLT i've expwereicned as an adult. The trainers went so far as to have custom neckers issued and required for the course.

 

Maybe, just maybe, national needs to go back to the allor nothing format of basic leader training?

[OldGreyEagle]

WOW, so many diferrent concepts in one thread, and all related at that!

 

I think Woodbadge developed into its present form out of necessity. Not only do Scoutmasters and assistant Scoutmasters need advanced training, so do Cubmasters, Den Leaders, District Advancement Committe members and Chairs and District Chairs and the rest also need training. As I understand things, the Woodbadge curriculum was changed to be administrative in tone to address the issues scout leaders from the den leader to the Council Commissioner might face.

 

Now, we can argue whether or not thats a good idea, but thats what we have. An administrative oriented program. When I took 21rst Century Woodbadge, it was a rehash of a lot of stuff I had seen and heard in Grad school and leadership seminars, but not all scouters have been to grad school or attended Leadership Seminars, Woodbadge seeks to give everyone the same vocabulary, which is why NYLT models Woodbadge, or is it Woodbadge that models NYLT? Anyway, they use the same terminology which is great. And all graduates have the same background

 

What apparently is missing is what is known as scoutcraft, woodcraft, outdoorsmanship, those kind of skills that are not second nature to an adult anymore. How to swing and ax, how much wood equals a cord, how to start a fire etc.

 

So, how about a division of sorts? The BSA keeps the Woodbadge for the 21rst Century curriculum and renames it the Ernest Thompson Seton award, maybe its a knot or a maybe something else, its open. Then it takes the term and symbol of Woodbadge, the axe and log and the beads and turns it into an all out woods skill class. 5 ways to start a fire without a match, cooking a meal from stuff found in the wild, and the local 7-11 doest count as wild no matter how late at night you shop there. We keep the Administrative course, but name it after the first Boy Scout Administrator (I hope I am correct with that) and Have Woodbadge be about scoutcraft skills.

 

And the passion in training the first levels of scouting with that of Woodbadge is a very good idea(This message has been edited by oldgreyeagle)

[asm 411]

Oh oh oh I know ...

 

I bead for each course!

[TAHAWK]

Again, WB left the all-Scoutcraft format in 1972. You will have a hard time (not impossible by any means) finding anyone to personally testify to how that worked. An experimental "traditional" all-Scoutcraft course sponsored by Region here in Ohio in the 1980's was, by consensus, a flop. Perhaps it was all the poision ivy. (-:

 

Seaton was an outdoors skills and Indian craft person, never an administrator. An administrative course, if one existed, might be named for Darth West.

 

WB now spends zero time on administration of the program. What training there is for unit Scouters in administration is part of "basic" training. WB is leadership and motivation with just a pinch of you're-on-your-own-learn- from-each-other Scoutcraft.

 

Our Council's IOLS courses are staffed from multiple districts each time. The SPL for our course in May is the immediatlely past WB Course Director. Most of the staff is WB trained and the minimum experience in Scouting is 11 years. Most are over 25 years. There is competition to be on staff in the sense that more want to be on staff than there are slots.

 

The notable exception is the "one day" course that our departed Exec sanctioned (and the Scouting Division did not). That was minimally staffed and pretty much what you expect when trying to reduce 23 hours to 8 -- indoors. Yeech! Sorta' "Pretend to require each unit's lead Scouter to be trained, then pretend to train them."

 

John-in-KC, I like your ideas. If we can pull it off, that is the sort of thing we will be starting next year under the title "Advanced Outdoor Leader Skills."

[gcnphkr]

I don't understand why some type of adult training is not included at camporees. But so many scouters (especially the ones with the red, white and blue square knots) know that there is nothing more for them to learn. And the ones most likely to be instructors are stuck running events for the scouts. (Do we really need to burn though yet another string?)

[Eagle92]

reason why camporees didn't work for basic training is that the leaders wanted to stay with their boys. Tried that one.

[gcnphkr]

Gee, I try to keep them away from the scouts at camporee...just can't seem to get this right.

[Crew21_Adv]

Fellow Scouters,

 

In addition to all or forum members, OGE and TAHAWK have made some good comments about the legacy Wood Badge courses and comparison to the current (administrative and leadership seminar) style of Wood Badge.

 

(I wish I could state that Ive been there all along and watched the transition from the previous course to the current curriculum. But I all I have to trust is the second hand and third hand description of events.)

 

As I have been told many times. The current syllabus was born out of feedback and critiques of the Wood Badge for Boy Scout Leaders. There were a few regional teams of former course directors (a variety of Course Directors from the 70's, 80's and 90's) assembled with professional educators to rewrite the WB21C in a manner that the feedback and critiques had asked for.

 

I understand many numerous WB course critiques in the 90s questioned, if Wood Badge learners are already experienced in the outdoors, why is the curriculum on an aggressive outdoor schedule?

 

I also understand critiques asked, why is Wood Badge still teaching the 11 traits of a leader; when in New York, Los Angeles, Tokyo, London, Bombay (and etc), they are learning the 4 styles of Situational Leadership, Team Development Model, Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, and etc.

 

After the initial draft there were 2-3 pilot courses in 1999 and 2000, to test the curriculum. I understand the only attendees on the pilot courses were three and four bead participants. An entirely different curriculum, but it met the request of feedbacks, and was considered contemporary.

 

Again.. From second hand and third hand information, this is what has been related to me; so take it with a grain of salt.

 

So, while it may seems to be a drastic change from the previous curriculum, and a different presentation. The current WB21C curriculum was to satisfy the critiques and feedbacks from the Wood Badge attendees of the 80s and 90s. But my bottom line is that the goal of either Wood Badge (WB for Scout Leaders or WB21C) is to enhance the program of a participants Pack, Troop or Crew.

 

 

Scouting Forever and Venture On!

Crew21 Adv(This message has been edited by Crew21_Adv)(This message has been edited by Crew21_Adv)

[Eagle92]

Jet,

I wish I could have kept them away. We did have a few takers, but not many.

 

Also another problem is that out training records were way out of wack. Only a handful of folks were considered trained, and those were the ones who just went through courses since I too over. Heck I and others who were trainers, including some PTC trainers, were considered "untrained."

 

As for those 'red, white, and blue" know it alls, have you ever considered that maybe they do have the expereince already and training? I know when I did SM Fundamentals back in the day, there was not much I didn't already know. Then again I had gone through BROWNSEA 22, had an excellent SM and SPLs who trained me as a youth, and had some great mentors when I turned 18. I also staffed JLT and other trainign courses, and worked in supply so I had lots of knowledge, skills,and abilities.

 

And recently I underwent BALOO. I admity I was one of those know-it- alls since I organized and staffed district and council level cub camp expereinces. I joked with friends abotu why I needed the course. But whenthe time came, I had that cheerful disposition, sat back and had soem fun. Again not much learned except a new knot I need to practice more on. ;)But it did give me a chance to meet some of the unit leaders in my district, especially the pack my son has joined.

 

Now why would I undergo all that training again? Well first and foremost I see the BSA turning into the Girl Scotus with all kinds of required training in order to go outdoors. I started thinking about this and realized that as we get more and more urbanized, people do not have the outdoor skills like they used to. So yeah the eagle who's been there and done that may be bored becasue he does have the basic skills. Me persoally if I want to take oldest and his pack camping, I want to be able to have the credentials to do that and be anotehr resource to the pack.

 

Another reason, and here's one you can use, is that I love training people. I love passing on the skills and knowledge to others. And I bet if you ask, those Eagles would also be willing to staff training. Just make sure you discuss current policies and procedures before you let them rip. Between being an OA chapter adviser and District trainign chair, I don't knwo which job I loved more. Those Eagles ARE a valuable resource to use in training. So get them working for you. And whielthey are staffing the event, they can also attend someof the other sessions and be offically trained and get that pocket certificate.

[gcnphkr]

Eagle92. It is a shame that it didn't work, I understand with the Spring Camporee especially. Often it is the first campout after crossover (for us this year, 7 crossed over at the camporee) and you have lots of parents that tend to come along. Of course they are the ones you really want to get into training. Fall might work better. By then most of the occasional adults have stopped coming and hopefully those that still remain are seeing the need for the training.

 

I find it odd when anyone has the attitude of not needing training. Until to go, how can you know that you know everything. It is rarely true that you will not learn anything. There is generally some benefit in the experience itself. If you really know it all then step up and volunteer to be on the training staff. Finally, you may not need it, but chances are there is another scouter in your unit that does. What is your example? Are you likely to get him to go when you won't go yourself?