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

[Tampa Turtle]

....and this is the point in the thread where someone brings up the whole Flavor Aid thing...

[David CO]

2 hours ago, Tampa Turtle said:

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

...and this whole discussion on wood badge belongs in the wood badge forum.

[TAHAWK]

"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."

Per my experience and per the syllabus, the original course was intended to make the learner comfortable with teaching Scoutcraft through first Class. That ceased to be the case in 1971.  So "never" is incorrect.

I have several versions of the syllabus and the administrative guide for subsequent versions of Wood Badge, and you are incorrect too ragarding a change in goals.  Offering the "Eleven Skills of Leadership" became the formal, official primary goal of the course, with a much reduced focus on Scoutcraft.  Further, I both took and(three times) staffed the second version as well.  

"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."

That is your interpretation.  However, given the actual contents of the course,which I have taken and staffed, (for example the goal of learning the "Stages of Team development" is to know what the "leader needs to supply" tpo the team.) I believe that you are incorrect.  Patrols have always been described as "teams."  Ideally, in the well-developed patrol, every member of the patrol is to be a leader, just with different responsibilities.

"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."

Previous versions of the course were by invitation only and the learners were typically well-trained and experienced.  The course I staffed in 1969 was notable for the general understanding of, and devotion to, BSA methods.

I generally agree with your opinion about the cause of "most unit problems," but WB, like BSA generally, does not teach those roles.  Especially, it does not "explain" the Patrol Method at all (Ironic given the supposed adoption of EDGE as THE way to teach.) .  BSA asserts that WB demonstrates the Patrol Method, but teaching by a very brief demonstration (of the Staff being all-powerful) with no explanation has not proved effective.  This may, in major part, be due to the reduction in "requirements" to attend to breathing.  "Participants" with little experience and no training have a harder time "getting" more abstract concepts given the relatively brief time allocated.  WB WAS an eight-day course.   Now it's 5.5.

Also, those who have actually completed basic training are more poorly training on average than they once were given the significant reduction in the length of the basic training.  (Basic training in my council once took twelve hours for "classroom" sessions and twenty-six hours of outdoor training.  This year, twenty-three 1/4  hours was allocated for both "classroom" and outdoor sessions.  Subjects have been eliminated [first aid; safety] and more topics added for other subjects. And I hear dark muttering from the SE that we need to "help" the Scouters by significantly reducing the time for training.)

Those currently in charge of WB think the "old course" was the second course.  Not sure what you mean.

The "Coordinator"  in my council is fanatical on "the syllabus, the whole syllabus, and nothing but the syllabus."  "Where is the word 'bargain' in the Syllabus?"  The notion that some other version of WB controls is, in this council and the three others where I help, unrelated to reality. 

"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. "

The current course is a relatively short, non-camping course.  The "ticket" is an old business leadership tool, dating back to the 1920s.  It wroked just fine at AT&T and my troop.

"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 "

 

I take your points.  To explain, I believe that if program were important, then training would be important, and if training were important to BSA,  many things would be different:  selection criteria for staffers (I have tried to train many who have too little ability and too little knowledge of the material.  I have seen those types reading into their verbatim notes instead of leading a discussion.  But the "1/3 new staff" rules has been met.); time devoted;  meaningful evaluation of the quality of training and consequences from the results of those evaluations; coherent training materials; real pressure to get trained; recognition for use of BSA methods and pressure to use them; consequences  (including frank retractions vs. just having the misstatements crawl out of sight) when National employees make gross misstatements about BSA methods.  

They call it "Wood Badge" out of the same motivation as calling it "Journey to Excellence" - sales puffery.

 

 

 

 

[TAHAWK]

1 minute ago, David CO said:

...and this whole discussion on wood badge belongs in the wood badge forum.

True, but it fits the "Kool-Aid" theme as it is constantly brought up as THE explanation for all that is disliked.  One size fits all.

[Tampa Turtle]

2 minutes ago, David CO said:

...and this whole discussion on wood badge belongs in the wood badge forum.

This is the thread that just keeps on giving!

[qwazse]

12 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

This is the thread that just keeps on giving!

Did I miss my cue to really send things off the rails by bringing up the benefits of adults having to earn rank, and pointing out the link between striking Bird Study from the required list and the rise of climate change denial?

Edited December 20, 2017 by qwazse

[NJCubScouter]

2 minutes ago, qwazse said:

Did I miss my cue to really send things off the rails by bringing up the benefits of adults having to earn rank, and pointing out the link between striking Bird Study from the required list and the rise of climate change denial?

You are the only person I have ever met (or "met") in my entire life who thinks adults earning rank would be a good idea today.

But I seem to recall that at one point, in an earlier and happier (?) time, this thread was about physical contact between Scouters and Scouts.  If there is nothing more to say on that subject, we can start letting this thread do the inevitable scroll down the list until it disappears into the annals of history.  There has always been sort of an ambivalence in this forum about off-topic discussions, but lately it seems that many threads turn into a discussion of EVERY conceivable Scouting-related subject, all in the same thread.  And many of these subjects don't need to be in Issue and Politics.

[David CO]

31 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

But I seem to recall that at one point, in an earlier and happier (?) time, this thread was about physical contact between Scouters and Scouts.  If there is nothing more to say on that subject

I was going to compare (many pages ago) the recent trend to avoid physical contact to BSA's long past decision to ban nude swimming (my point being that times and sensibilities change), but then I thought better of it. I would rather keep the thread out of YP.

I agree that it may be time to let this thread go.

[Peregrinator]

On 12/10/2017 at 4:32 AM, Cambridgeskip said:

Interestingly all the instances of dealing with helicopter parents I've had this year has been parents of boys.

The dad who wanted to know why his son wasn't a PL yet. (He didn't get chosen by the PLC) The mum who wanted to know why her son didn't have his chief scouts gold and was left to do (why isn't your son having this conversation with me?) and various others.

had no such issues with parents of my girls.

In fact as a counter example I spent a few mins on Thursday chatting to one of my older girls about the last thing she needs to do for her CSG. She approached me. No need for mum or dad to be involve.

Just an observation 

It's almost like boys and girls are different.