Putting Patrol method in IOLS Test-out..

[TNScoutTroop]

Sort of like a constitutional amendment requiring all new laws & regulations apply to legislators for 12 months before they apply to anyone else?

 

Works for us!

[fuzzievohs]

Every volunteer who goes through IOLS without needing it just spent 2+ "volunteer days" doing something other than working with kids. Every volunteer instructor who teaches a class to people who don't need it just spent his or her "volunteer time" doing something that didn't help kids.

Amen to that...how about this simple test: Ask the scouts which leaders in their troop know their scoutcraft?

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

[SeattlePioneer]

I took the outdoor leadership skill training. I learned something, primarily the emotional effect of good ceremonies, which I have tried to replicate since then.

 

Secondarily, it showed the Scout method of training in groups moving from station to station which I thought was good.

 

But it's oversold as a requirement in my opinion. And retesting is absurd.

 

Scouting is busily testing itself out of volunteers and leaders, in my opinion. It smells of lawyers who want to have "certified" leaders to minimize losses in lawsuits.

 

 

[moosetracker]

Seattle there is no re-test. Just the option of testing out if you want to NOT go throught the IOLS in the first place.

 

Yeah I started this thread may moons ago. Things have happened since then, but not enough. I found the Council did have some policy that outlawed giving the "test-out" option in our council, and would not except the "test-out" option if volunteers jumped boarders to a different council, and came back with the IOLS done though a test-out there..

 

****Sigh****

 

So I proposed a new option. I got positive feedback from some who where against the test-out. But, they had to take it up the chain, and I have not heard word back for over a month.. Meantime, the clock is ticking and I am unsure if I can do the new idea or need to put together a normal IOLS this spring (I planned the test-out this spring & the normal IOLS in the Fall.. Now I hope the new idea this spring.)

 

They keep telling me the test-out is no good because there is no camaraderie or sharing of ideas. But, to take my knowledgable volunteers stuck in the "forced to go through training" and make them you trainers.. ("So, they can't test out, but can be the trainers.."??)

 

So I proposed something that is the full IOLS, but with greatly reduced time, by taking those who could test out, making them my trainers, and closing the course off to only them.. So they really did not have to train anyone but themselves.. Which means in a way an advanced course.. No time spent on starting from the ground floor up. Start mid-way with a refresher, do the knots or orienteering quickly, check each others knots, make comments about improvements for maybe their backpacks or share different idea on teaching knots or other skills. Organize their own food and bring it and cook it.

 

Hopefully by sharing ideas at an advanced level they can take away something from how different troops function. Sleepover is counted the next time we hold a camporee and they spend the night with their units..

 

That would definately have camaraderie.. I am waiting for a final verdict of yes or no..

[HICO_Eagle]

"Why did I know that Kudu would think the idea of what is considered by National as having the patrol method incorporated in the training is lame??.."

 

Maybe because it is? I'm with TNScoutTroop on this issue.

 

This whole thread astounds me. First, I think the proposed test-out is way above and beyond the course requirement but that just points out the idiocy of making this course mandatory rather than highly encouraged. What exactly is the point of requiring qualified people waste time taking or teaching a redundant course?

 

Second, I'm amazed at the number of posts saying "we couldn't find Scouters qualified to administer the test." In my troop, any Scout past the rank of First Class darn well better be able to administer much less test out the requirements listed. If we get ASMs who CAN'T pass a course like that we would darn well instruct him or her ourselves or recommend this course so I again don't see the point of making this mandatory and thereby dissuade adults from volunteering.

 

As an aside, I grew up with SMs who couldn't have passed these tests -- we had two ASMs who were Eagles that saw to our instruction in traditional Scout skills -- but somehow the dozen or so Eagles from our small troop managed. What was important to us was that someone was willing to put in the time to organize a program, work with the committee and see to the paperwork. We got the skills instruction we needed from camp, older Scouts and the ASMs who had been Scouts. I wonder a bit about the deleterious effect this "Every Scout deserves a trained leader" movement will have on our corps of adult volunteers.

[Eagle92]

HICO,

 

One reason why in an earlier post, ormaybe a different thread, I suggested usign Older scouts, i.e. 1st Class and Above, and/or Venturers either having the Outdoor Bronze, or workign on it as I believe part of the requirements invovle teaching (but I mioght be confusing it with RANGER), help staff events.

[drmbear]

About the only place I see value in this training is with parents and leaders that essentially have no real camping or backpacking experience. The place where there is an abundance of that is in Cub Scouts, where I even have leaders that have very little or no experience in camping. I know I will get absolutely no value out of the OWL/IOLS that I'll do in April just to say I've done it as I move into being a Webelos leader, as I know without hesitation that I have far more outdoor and camping experience than most anyone in our district. In a Cub Scout Setting, though, where the adult leaders are the ones teaching and running things, when they don't know what they are doing it can be really messed up.

 

But it is a completely different ball game in a Scout Troop. There, it is boy run. In an established troop, there will usually be older boys that have been camping for several years that are teaching the younger guys, or at least setting the example. Inexperienced adult leaders should also be getting their cues from those same experienced youth or other experienced adults in the troop.

 

"Oh, we're going camping this weekend?" "What do I need to bring?" "Okay!"

 

Then the experience of going through it will create the skills, in the same way I learned as a youth. I never had any formal camping "training," but I certainly am an expert. I became an expert through experience first, then reading or asking questions when I wanted to improve things. There is no way any of that can happen in a two day artificial training.

 

Maybe at my OWL/IOLS weekend the instructors will learn something!!!

[moosetracker]

drmbear,

 

Absolutely, the last IOLS I did (it was my first organizing it).. There were definately participants there that added value to the passing of information.

 

Then.. again.. there were a few that "thought" they knew it all.. The type who probably didn't learn anything because they were too full of it, to listen to anyone, but whatever they said was not very accurate, or was a little off topic.

 

those might be the ones National is trying to get to the "know-it-alls" that are passing on wrong info (or outdated info).. But, again, they are the type not benefiting from it..

 

If you don't have a "holier-than-thou" district trainer.. Let them know your experience, if they need extra trainers, they might use you.. If I can't get those in my district an easier way to get through this IOLS, I will definately ask for their help during the trainings. I will need to put on alot more full blown 2+ days training if everyone in not trained in my district has to get through it that way. I am counting 97 SM & ASM's needing it. Not counting webeloes leaders and Venturing Crews with an outdoor program..

 

Alot of us district trainers are just sandwiched in the middle trying to get thought this mandate in a way that is easiest on you as well as on us.

[SeattlePioneer]

drmbear,

 

When I took the course the leaders had a couple of outstanding examples of ceremonies which have motivated me ever since to have meaningful ceremonies for boys.

 

Also, I had disparaged the contact method of splitting wood as being "how lawyers chop wood." After actually practicing it, I had to admit it was a safer method to use, and reasonably efficient.

 

The leader of the nature study session was a Boy Scout who already had a relaly impressive understanding of plants species, and an outstanding eample of "boy leadership."

 

The firebuilding session was done by two venerable Scouters who did an outstanding job on their topic and did an excellent job of creating a firebuilding competition.

 

While I had lots of camping, backpacking and climbing experience, I still learned a lot about SCOUT camping at this training. For me it was worthwhile taking.

[Kudu]

 

Ugh.

 

Has anything changed on test-out in the last two years?

 

The only promising candidate to be our local Troop's next Scoutmaster (outdoorsman, hunter, backpacker, SCUBA diver, pro-Scout-owned tents, pro-"Real" Patrol Method) walked out of OWL/ItOLS.

 

He said that Friday night and all of the Saturday morning sessions were devoted to cooking, cooking, and more cooking, except for the Friday camp set up session, which still included cold weather camping tips like "use an electric heater on cold nights."

 

Last time I staffed it, it creeped me out too: Mostly staff with Cub Scout camping experience, but no high adventure interests. Participants? Tables of Den Leaders, fresh out of Wood Badge, petting their plush toy "critters," and tittering and talking whenever the topic strayed toward anything to do with actual outdoor skills for the Boy Scout program (such as how to stay warm at night without electric heaters).

 

Typically the participants for the entire District include only a couple of Boy Scout volunteers, so I suspect that "required" training is not strictly enforced around here, but...

 

...but it is required in our local unit: An adult-run Eagle mill in transition. New CC and his wife, the secretary, want to move the Troop backwards (away from camping in areas without electricity and running water), but the Committee has left those decisions up to the Scoutmaster...so far.

 

So I am motivated to find a way to get this guy around ItOLS.

 

Rumor is that Council plans to take over the District training.

 

Not sure who I should talk to about testing him out of ItOLS, since I don't have any Council connections (I've gone to Roundtable twice since I moved to the area in my retirement).

 

Any suggestions?

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

 

[Brewmeister]

In our council, test-out is at the discretion of the discretion of the course director and I know it is done. That seems like too obvious of an answer for you not to have tried already, but just in case you hadn't....

 

 

It's a shame your district's training is so weak. In our council's cold-weather camping training (Okpik), the topic of heaters never comes up...then again I suppose they would melt a quinzee .

[Eagle92]

One crazy idea I came up with, but have not, repeat NOT, implemented, is an event at district camporee called "Are You Smarter Than a First Class Scout." The event would be a competition for leaders and compose the T-2-1 skills covered in IOLS. I see two things coming from this.

 

1) Fun way to keep skills current

 

2) Test out those who have the skills, but not the time to take IOLS.

 

3) When national finally decides that older training courses will not count towards being "Trained," so that old fogeys like me who took SM Fundamentals back in the day will have to redo training, (remember a few months back that WAS what national wanted to do and after many protests on FACEBOOK and email came up with the current policy to let the local training chair decide whether to count the older training or not), this would be an established practice to keep people current.

[Old_OX_Eagle83]

Ok, I know what IOLS is, but this sounds like I missed some significant change. What is the IOLS test you guys are talking about. Before anyone suggests it, I did read the thread and still am not clear on what's being discussed here. I did my training some 25 years ago, but thought I had kept up on changed via my fellow leaders.

[qwazse]

K.

 

I had no idea that you had to put up with such idiocy.

If I had to endure IOLS training like that, I would have spit nails.

[acco40]

Okay, I think the vast majority of the posters on this thread miss the point of the Introduction to Outdoor Leader Skills course. Yes, it does provide leaders with the basic outdoor skills but that is not the real point. So a simple "test out" that shows you know these skills should not be available.

 

If properly run, what the course should give the participant is the experience of being a scout. The skills should be taught just like they are in a troop - hands-on participation and with the buddy system. The buddy system is used - not instead of the patrol method - because it allows the participants to practice the task with enough repetition to learn the skill well and also help (or be helped by) their buddy if needed. Adults, just like some of the youth, have a fear of failure so working with a buddy who supplies positive reinforcement helps reduce the possibility of non-participation or embarrassment that may occur in a large group.

 

So really, it is not the scout skill that is being taught (those skills are really not too hard to master - we expect 11 years-old's to master it for Pete's sake) - what the adults really should be learning by observation is the teaching methods that are used to instruct them.