How about those who prefer leaders keep their hands off the kids?

[Hawkwin]

21 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Agree, it does sound like Wood Badge training problems.

What I have seen with female troop leaders is a tendency to focus on specific program areas - scoutcraft, nature, hiking . Maybe advancement related, maybe just sticking with what they know.  Fishing, shooting sports not so much.

I just saw my first "Wood Badge Ceremony" a couple of weeks ago. Just so happened it was a female troop leader they were celebrating. Was a pretty cool skit they performed.

I would think all troop leaders have a tendency to focus on what they may know. These days, some of equipment-intensive outdoor skills (shooting, fishing, etc.) are probably less common in scout dads (specifically those without scouting experience) too. Off the top of my head, I can only think of four scout dads (including me) in my son's patrol that hunt, have hunted, or otherwise have moderate to significant exposure to shooting. Only one of them is currently a volunteer.

[Eagle94-A1]

IMHO Current WB is a problem because it is now a management course and not a leadership course.  As  someone stated the pre-WB21C courses were different than today's course. Back then there were 2 to 3 different WB courses ( Boy Scout, Cub Scout, and briefly an Explorer courses). Not only did you have to complete specific basic training for the course, you also had to have 2 years tenure in the program was for. Only way to waive that was the 18 and 19 year olds who went straight from Scout to Scouter. Now WB is a one size fits all management course. And from everything I hear and read, including the syllabi for the different courses, the new course is a shadow of the original courses.

One of the challenges with female Scouters, is that they have no points of reference in boys' development, nor experience in the Boy Scout program. At least with male Scouters no involved as youth, they will have some references to boys's development because they were young once.

Also I see the proliferation of rules and regs as a result of women in Scouting. A lot of things Scouts use to be able to do are no more, and it has been since the 1989 decision to allow women as SMs and ASMs. No more pioneering towers, no more water guns, no more using wagons unless 14 ad nauseum. That may not be the case, but isn't it strange that there is a chronological correlation?

Then there is the mothering factor. let's face it, women have it. They are biologically born with the instinct to nurture and care. Nothing wrong with that, but it is something they need to learn to overcome. From watching my wife's interaction, it is a long, hard, painfully slow process. But she sees the value of letting the boys be independent, explore, and do things for themselves. Sadly a lot of moms are not like that.

And notice the introduction of mandatory training in some councils. We are getting more and more folks with little to no experience in the outdoors coming into the program. In the past, experienced Scouters in the troops worked with the new Scouters to get them up to speed. Now the new parents are overwhelming the experienced ones. 

And BSA is not helping. There was an effort to put more OUTING in Cub ScOUTING, and in less than 18 months national watered down the new Cub Scout requirements. They also watered down the new outdoor requirements for Tenderfoot, Second Class, and First Class.. Now they are watering down training. Then they introduce STEM Scouts, which is taking resources away from the traditional program.

 

[Cubber]

1 minute ago, Hawkwin said:

These days, some of equipment-intensive outdoor skills (shooting, fishing, etc.) are probably less common in scout dads (specifically those without scouting experience) too.

Well, that's a really good point. I've got a lot of camping experienced dads and moms but no shooting experienced dads or moms. Only three fishing experts-including a couple. 

 

[Cubber]

6 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

At least with male Scouters no involved as youth, they will have some references to boys's development because they were young once.

Being one doesn't make you an expert in male development. Or often very knowledgeable about it. The time and distance change the memory into a personal story about who one is that the person can transfer onto others. That's really not fair- especially to the next generations that are growing up in a radically different world with differences in societal norms, expectations, technology, resources, and parenting philosophies.   

Good leaders think about these things and how to help boys developing today. There is plenty of collective and better learning out there than personal experience, when leading a group of today's boys- that are all very different individuals. 

11 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Also I see the proliferation of rules and regs as a result of women in Scouting. A lot of things Scouts use to be able to do are no more, and it has been since the 1989 decision to allow women as SMs and ASMs. No more pioneering towers, no more water guns, no more using wagons unless 14 ad nauseum. That may not be the case, but isn't it strange that there is a chronological correlation?

I think it is just that- a correlation. Kids have had increasing use of screens and digital media since that time- also a correlation. Is it really having female anatomy that caused this or is it maybe a shift in the norms of parenting style fro all parents? Helicopter parents applies to both moms and dads. I see the dads stepping in to tell their boys what to do and not do as much as the moms in my pack. All parents also tend to take over more when doing projects like pinewood derby.

15 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Then there is the mothering factor. let's face it, women have it. They are biologically born with the instinct to nurture and care. Nothing wrong with that, but it is something they need to learn to overcome. From watching my wife's interaction, it is a long, hard, painfully slow process. But she sees the value of letting the boys be independent, explore, and do things for themselves. Sadly a lot of moms are not like that.

Well, I'm not sure what to say. Some surely do have this experience, like your wife but it is not universal.   I have a very large circle of female friends and many of them don't have this mothering factor you are referring to. Some had a child in their mid to later 30s, others over 40, often at the request of their husband. Many never had kids. even after they have them- many take the back seat. Women are just not all the same...

19 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

And notice the introduction of mandatory training in some councils. We are getting more and more folks with little to no experience in the outdoors coming into the program. In the past, experienced Scouters in the troops worked with the new Scouters to get them up to speed. Now the new parents are overwhelming the experienced ones. 

And BSA is not helping. There was an effort to put more OUTING in Cub ScOUTING, and in less than 18 months national watered down the new Cub Scout requirements. They also watered down the new outdoor requirements for Tenderfoot, Second Class, and First Class.. Now they are watering down training. Then they introduce STEM Scouts, which is taking resources away from the traditional program.

Yeah, I agree- those changes to the cub program was completely unnecessary. That was female driven? Had no idea.

In regards to new overwhelming experienced leaders in cubs...in cubs they pretty much turn over as the boys move through the program, I thought. From Tiger leader (usually brand new), on up to Bear and then either to ACM or CM or Webelos DL. Maybe that is just how ours has been. Or is this not what you mean?

That's unfortunate about the boy scout level. I had hoped that our transition to boy scouting would come with experienced leadership. And I say that as a CM!  We are really looking forward to learning from experts when we transition. Regardless of their gender though. Ideally mixed. That's just how my sons' futures will be and I want them to be better prepared to work hand in hand on a team with all kinds of people, instead of in an artificial bubble of "safety' from having to grow into a fully functional human that have overcome challenges that taught them to treat everyone with kindness and respect. 

[oldbuzzard]

1 hour ago, Cubber said:

Well, that's a really good point. I've got a lot of camping experienced dads and moms but no shooting experienced dads or moms. Only three fishing experts-including a couple. 

 

Camping is at the core of the Scouting program. Shooting and Fishing have *never* been core scouting skills. Camping, hiking, and cooking are Eagle badges. Orienteering and Pioneering are linked to 1st Class requirements. High Adventure usually requires Backpacking, Canoeing, Sailing etc. Besides the MBs and the Venturing Shooting Sports Medal there is not a real pathway for shooting within Scouts. I see a lot of value in kids getting comfortable with guns and gun safety at camp and Leopold very eloquently defends fishing and hunting as a key element in his land ethic. But, given a choice I'd rather have camping, backpacking, canoeing parents over shooting ones to support the core program.

[Tampa Turtle]

I appreciate Cubber's questions but can we not re-hash girls in scouts on this thread?

[Back Pack]

I’m home for Christmas and getting a chance to spend time with four generations of scouts in my family. We’ve been talking about how guys are a lot. Funny thing is stuff my great, great uncle says he did are the same things I do. So much for male development changing. Some things change and the fundamentals don’t seem to. Different tech and vocabulary but same topics. 

[Eagledad]

4 hours ago, Cubber said:

Barry- I can see you took that differently than I intended. I'm being completely sincere here- honestly trying to understand. I read your answer and I guess it did go over my head because you referenced adults in general and changes in general, and an experience with one specific male leader?

I've only been with the BSA for 3 years and a CM for 2. I was a scout and my brother an Eagle, but that's the sum and total of my experience. Help me out. Is Wood badge a new thing created by or for female leaders, or has it been altered by or for them (seriously honest naive question)?  Are females setting policy, or there is a shift you see as a result of female leadership winning arguments over male leadership? Is this all just a change in society's approach to kids or is it really female leadership specific?

My council is super male dominated and I see almost no female leadership except at the cubscout level. Frankly I think parents in general are contributing to the trends you mentioned- not female leadership. I share your concerns about that. I think the independence is a huge factor and I want my son in a boy-led program that emphasizes that. I know he needs to do things on his own and make mistakes without my guidance or interference. 

 

My apologies Cubber. I over reacted to your post and find myself not being very scout like. I will try and set a better example.

Barry

[TAHAWK]

 "In actuality, you'll have few brave pioneering girls join up at first, but most won't want to deal with the lukewarm reception they will receive in most troops.  They will wait it out and miss an opportunity. The ones that join will have some support and much opposition. They will be encouraged and they will be discouraged. They will be made to feel equal and made to feel inferior. Welcome to the same journey of your adult female leaders in scouting. Think about that."

I thought there has been no decision announced about co-ed troops.  I confess freely not have focused on this business as BSA still seems to be working out what they will do with, for, or to the program.

"IMHO Current WB is a problem because it is now a management course and not a leadership course.  As  someone stated the pre-WB21C courses were different than today's course. Back then there were 2 to 3 different WB courses ( Boy Scout, Cub Scout, and briefly an Explorer courses). Not only did you have to complete specific basic training for the course, you also had to have 2 years tenure in the program was for. Only way to waive that was the 18 and 19 year olds who went straight from Scout to Scouter. Now WB is a one size fits all management course. And from everything I hear and read, including the syllabi for the different courses, the new course is a shadow of the original courses."

When WBII replaced WB I circa 1972, there was the introduction of leadership skills into the syllabus and a sharp reduction in the former 100% focus on Scoutcraft through First Class.   The first version of "It's All Wood Badge's Fault" was that the introduction of leadership skills was the Devil destroying Boy Scouting.  Ask "Kudu."

WB21 (or WBIII) in 2001 introduced new leadership skills and presented some of the old ones with new language.  Since private enterprise had seen the virtue of leadership vs. management/bosses in the 1990s, the same sorts of training were being given to management employees of companies.  I received the ten-day version of Situational Leadership in connection with my employment in 1995, an accurate version of Stages of Team Development and all.  So WB21 was denounced as "management training."  I note that Karl Marx supported literacy and opposed malaria.

Interestingly, the Army and Marines, at least, are teaching the same stuff.  "Be, Know, Do," for example, seems to appeared first in that context and only later in Wood Badge and NYLT.  See Department of the Army, U.S. Army, FM-22-100  (08/99).

The one size fits all critique is fair, although Cub leaders complained to me pre-2001 that there were so very few Cub WB slots, unlike in Canada and the UK where there was a single WB program for all Scouting programs.  In 1989, my council was allocated one slot in Cub Wood Badge, and that did not go to a lady from my district.  The notion that Scout side adults should know something about Cubbing  also seems prudent given the common contempt of many Scouters for Cubbing..

Even worse than one size fits all, training, Scouters with no training are allowed to take WB to "Fill the Course."  I see this more as a matter of BSA indifference to program quality -- training being the traditional way to drive quality unit program.   Told that some Scouters found some training less than wonderful, one Scout executive told me the solution was "less training."  Apply that 'logic" to complaints about meals in the camp dining hall.

The quality of a given course depends on he quality of the staff, inclusive of the leaders of that staff.  That was as true in 1959 and 1984 as it is today.  The-one-size fits-all denunciation of all WB since 1971 or since 2001 is fairly described as simple prejudice, which is or is not accurate as the facts in each case dictate.

 

 

 

[RememberSchiff]

Ok then @Cubber  and @Eagledad  , I think you might have misinterpreted each other so I hid the last two posts.

As @Tampa Turtle suggested let's not rehash a previous topic here.

Thank you.

cc: @NJCubScouter , @Sentinel947

[Tampa Turtle]

(I just think that too much girls in scouting controversy should go back on a separate thread)

I think I was fortunate to have entered my Troop at a time when there still were a few older Scouters that took newbie 'brown shirts' under their wing for part of that first year to keep me from mucking too much up. Later I tried to return the favor. That is how unit norms for greetings, handshakes, etc were passed down and how changes to BSA training and requirements were passed down.

I was also lucky to have been able to spend a week at Woodruff summer camp one year and take the Scoutmaster 'Merit Badge' under the legendary Sue Nunn. We basically did all the skills a boy would have to master on the path to First Class plus a lot of other stuff discussed on this forum. We were formed into patrols and I remember the "Dining Fly Challenge" we had to do with 8 poles and a canvas dining fly. Each patrol had to set it up next the dining hall on a Tuesday and you only passed if it was still up on Friday. We had a storm blow through on Thursday and ours was kinda katty-wampus and leaning. Humbling having to walk past your handiwork several times a day, I once heard a boy go "I wonder who did THAT one". Sue kept the Powerpoint to a minimum and we had a LOT of dutch oven drills.

I also remember sitting by the side of the road trying to practice a tautline hitch (I have a hard time with that one) and a 12 year old scout doing the 1st year program set up right next to me and without saying a thing started practicing his knots. He spied what I was doing and still without speaking showed me what I was doing wrong. In return (and in silence) I showed him one of my favorite knots 'the Zeppelin'. 

[Jameson76]

18 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

 "In actuality, you'll have few brave pioneering girls join up at first, but most won't want to deal with the lukewarm reception they will receive in most troops.  They will wait it out and miss an opportunity. The ones that join will have some support and much opposition. They will be encouraged and they will be discouraged. They will be made to feel equal and made to feel inferior. Welcome to the same journey of your adult female leaders in scouting. Think about that."

I thought there has been no decision announced about co-ed troops.  I confess freely not have focused on this business as BSA still seems to be working out what they will do with, for, or to the program.

"IMHO Current WB is a problem because it is now a management course and not a leadership course.  As  someone stated the pre-WB21C courses were different than today's course. Back then there were 2 to 3 different WB courses ( Boy Scout, Cub Scout, and briefly an Explorer courses). Not only did you have to complete specific basic training for the course, you also had to have 2 years tenure in the program was for. Only way to waive that was the 18 and 19 year olds who went straight from Scout to Scouter. Now WB is a one size fits all management course. And from everything I hear and read, including the syllabi for the different courses, the new course is a shadow of the original courses."

When WBII replaced WB I circa 1972, there was the introduction of leadership skills into the syllabus and a sharp reduction in the former 100% focus on Scoutcraft through First Class.   The first version of "It's All Wood Badge's Fault" was that the introduction of leadership skills was the Devil destroying Boy Scouting.  Ask "Kudu."

WB21 (or WBIII) in 2001 introduced new leadership skills and presented some of the old ones with new language.  Since private enterprise had seen the virtue of leadership vs. management/bosses in the 1990s, the same sorts of training were being given to management employees of companies.  I received the ten-day version of Situational Leadership in connection with my employment in 1995, an accurate version of Stages of Team Development and all.  So WB21 was denounced as "management training."  I note that Karl Marx supported literacy and opposed malaria.

Interestingly, the Army and Marines, at least, are teaching the same stuff.  "Be, Know, Do," for example, seems to appeared first in that context and only later in Wood Badge and NYLT.  See Department of the Army, U.S. Army, FM-22-100  (08/99).

The one size fits all critique is fair, although Cub leaders complained to me pre-2001 that there were so very few Cub WB slots, unlike in Canada and the UK where there was a single WB program for all Scouting programs.  In 1989, my council was allocated one slot in Cub Wood Badge, and that did not go to a lady from my district.  The notion that Scout side adults should know something about Cubbing  also seems prudent given the common contempt of many Scouters for Cubbing..

Even worse than one size fits all, training, Scouters with no training are allowed to take WB to "Fill the Course."  I see this more as a matter of BSA indifference to program quality -- training being the traditional way to drive quality unit program.   Told that some Scouters found some training less than wonderful, one Scout executive told me the solution was "less training."  Apply that 'logic" to complaints about meals in the camp dining hall.

The quality of a given course depends on he quality of the staff, inclusive of the leaders of that staff.  That was as true in 1959 and 1984 as it is today.  The-one-size fits-all denunciation of all WB since 1971 or since 2001 is fairly described as simple prejudice, which is or is not accurate as the facts in each case dictate.

 

 

 

I have many friends in scouting that have definitely "drunk the kool aid" of WB.  To them, God Bless them, it is the end all be all for scout leaders.  Critters, totems, walking sticks, coffee mugs, council strips etc etc.  Never mind your years of actual experience working in a unit, to really be a Scout leader need to be WB trained and then do district and council stuff, the troop work is soooo last year.

If I run in to them with my troop I always take the time to have some of my scouts come over, I introduce them to some actual scouts, remind them that at the end of the day, this is why we are involved as adult leaders...an actual scout at an actual outdoor function, doing actual scouting stuff.

Often sarcasm and cutting edge humor is lost on the WB nation.  Could be my cracks about the pink hankies and kilts.....

[TAHAWK]

WB is not inherently good or bad.   Any "Kool-Aid" is unhelpful, including the Kool-Aid you have consumed and are dishing out.

Imagining that one is something special just because you have the beads, is like thinking rows and rows of knots make you, ipso facto, superior.  Some Scouters got nothing out of Wood Badge.  Other were offered little at the particular course they took.  Others "knew it all" before they started.

The six Beavers I worked with when I last staffed were, and are, active unit Scouters.  Two of them started an inner-city troop that has grown steadily for ten years despite the odds.  You might want to be introduced to such people as you apparently don't know that they exist.

 

 

 

[Tampa Turtle]

15 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

I have many friends in scouting that have definitely "drunk the kool aid" of WB.  To them, God Bless them, it is the end all be all for scout leaders.  Critters, totems, walking sticks, coffee mugs, council strips etc etc.  Never mind your years of actual experience working in a unit, to really be a Scout leader need to be WB trained and then do district and council stuff, the troop work is soooo last year.

If I run in to them with my troop I always take the time to have some of my scouts come over, I introduce them to some actual scouts, remind them that at the end of the day, this is why we are involved as adult leaders...an actual scout at an actual outdoor function, doing actual scouting stuff.

Often sarcasm and cutting edge humor is lost on the WB nation.  Could be my cracks about the pink hankies and kilts.....

Like I said I am willing to be convinced of the benefit to my Troop but so far have not seen it. I see a lot of Wood Badgers at OA events and aside from constant interrupting of events to sing about their animal they tend to just cluster amongst themselves and shun folks who aren't Wood Badgers. It is quite off putting and not a good 'selling job'. I am sure it is beneficial to some folks who were never exposed to management training (especially small business owners) and some 'tickets' probably benefit some camps and councils. The Troop tickets I have seen seemed like a LOT more effort went into the planning and reporting than the actual project (how modern day BSA --a lot like the recent Eagle projects I see).

It makes some people happy and as long as our Boys are not subjected to hour long beading ceremony I will look the other way. While I probably have had hundreds of hours of various fads and fashions of management, organizational, and leadership training WB without a lot of actual woodcraft just does not appeal to me. Personally I am convicted more by my OA Oath and Obligation to serve fellow scouts and others.

Just like the best way to run a Troop is bottom up from the Patrol up so BSA should be run at the Troop level not the district and council level. I think WB may, intentionally or unintentionally reinforce that top down orientation. And that will be more adult oriented as they are the ones, not the youth, going to those nights and weekends of extra inside meetings. 

[Eagledad]

19 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

 

"IMHO Current WB is a problem because it is now a management course and not a leadership course.  As  someone stated the pre-WB21C courses were different than today's course. Back then there were 2 to 3 different WB courses ( Boy Scout, Cub Scout, and briefly an Explorer courses). Not only did you have to complete specific basic training for the course, you also had to have 2 years tenure in the program was for. Only way to waive that was the 18 and 19 year olds who went straight from Scout to Scouter. Now WB is a one size fits all management course. And from everything I hear and read, including the syllabi for the different courses, the new course is a shadow of the original courses."

When WBII replaced WB I circa 1972, there was the introduction of leadership skills into the syllabus and a sharp reduction in the former 100% focus on Scoutcraft through First Class.   The first version of "It's All Wood Badge's Fault" was that the introduction of leadership skills was the Devil destroying Boy Scouting.  Ask "Kudu."

 

WB was never intended to be a leadership course. The course was always intended to be an adult  troop leader skills tune up course for "experienced" scouters. Problems occurred when the course staffs allowed the perception to become a leadership development course.  Eventually the course marketing morphed into a leadership course, but the syllabus was never changed to reflect leadership development. 

The original intention of the new course (WBIII?) was neither a leadership nor management course. It was supposed to be a team building and team management course. Most unit problems are the result of unit staffs not understanding the unit goals of the BSA as well as the duties for specific positions. So, the course pushed participants to understand the goals and objectives all the way from the BSA Mission and Vision down to expectations of each volunteer. It also spent time in managing the team to become efficient and productive. The hope was the scouts would get a better experience from adults who stayed within the boundaries of their understood goals. But, reputation of the old course and the desires of new adult leaders have kind of morphed it into nothing really specific at all now.

19 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

 

The one size fits all critique is fair, although Cub leaders complained to me pre-2001 that there were so very few Cub WB slots, unlike in Canada and the UK where there was a single WB program for all Scouting programs.  In 1989, my council was allocated one slot in Cub Wood Badge, and that did not go to a lady from my district.  The notion that Scout side adults should know something about Cubbing  also seems prudent given the common contempt of many Scouters for Cubbing..

 

Where I believe National failed is by giving this course the Wood Badge title. Nothing about it reflects the old WB design, but National tried to make a reflection of the old course by simulating patrols and typical troop organization. It shouldn't be a long camping course that it is. That being said, my observation is the participants gain the most value from applying their lessons to the Ticket Items. 

 

19 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

 Even worse than one size fits all, training, Scouters with no training are allowed to take WB to "Fill the Course."  I see this more as a matter of BSA indifference to program quality -- training being the traditional way to drive quality unit program.   Told that some Scouters found some training less than wonderful, one Scout executive told me the solution was "less training."  Apply that 'logic" to complaints about meals in the camp dining hall.

The quality of a given course depends on he quality of the staff, inclusive of the leaders of that staff.  That was as true in 1959 and 1984 as it is today.  The-one-size fits-all denunciation of all WB since 1971 or since 2001 is fairly described as simple prejudice, which is or is not accurate as the facts in each case dictate.

 

 

The one size fits all wasn't BSA indifference, it was intentional because the goals of team management for the program were equal for the Packs as well as the troops. I personally believe, National's mistake was trying to make this a WB course.

Barry 

Edited December 20, 2017 by Eagledad