BSA Urban Myths--Busted!

[Ditro]

I got a crazy one: You don't become an Eagle Scout until you are presented with your badge. Do I even have to state the truth??? Thank God only a couple people that I know believed that (until the rest of us corrected them).

 

Ditro

[GaHillBilly]

Early in this thread, it was stated that it was the "trained leaders" who were "myth-busters". I'm glad that is true in your Council, but it most definitely is not, in my area. At OLS, we were taught by Wood-Badged trainers that:

1. sheath knives were prohibited,

2. patrols could not camp alone (I provoked this, by asking),

3. and, that liquid fuels were not allowed.

 

In addition (and I'm holding grudge about this one), I let the Wood-badged knife / axe trainer demonstrate knife sharpening on my 15 year old 'I won't leave the house without it' Gerber EZ-Out. It was useless for the rest of the trip, and it took me an hour on return to repair it!

 

Likewise, in my son's first troop, he was taught by his Wood-badged SM that Scouts could never sleep alone. BTW, this same Wood-Badger could not whip rope or tie any knots besides the square knot, the bowline and . . . TA DA! . . . the one-handed bowline, which is apparently a Wood-Badge specialty in this area!

 

 

On the other side of things, while there is no EXPLICIT requirement that "you are retested for every requirement from every previous rank and you can fail the Eagle SMC by doing the clove hitch wrong", the new EDGE training requirements come close to mandating this IMPLICITLY.

 

The reason is simple: EDGE is just a new mnemonic for the original Scout practice that 1st Class Scouts teach the skills . . . but with a serious omission. The COMPLETE mnemonic would be (K)EDGE: (KNOW) => EXPLAIN => DEMONSTRATE => GUIDE => ENABLE. Without (K)nowing the skill, EDGE is just a tool without a task!

 

One of the last classes I taught, before my son & I gave up on troop scouting within driving range of our home, was a ropes and knots class focused on the under 1st class troop members. As was his practice, the most senior (and now, Eagle) Scout in the troop was sitting back, sniping, and distracting other Scouts. So, in my tender hearted manner, I had him come to the front -- after spending a couple of minutes explaining how basic the square knot was, and how many times a senior Scout like our erstwhile Eagle-candidate would have used it -- and demonstrate the correct method.

 

I let him fumble helplessly up front for 6 or 7 minutes, offering just enough help to keep him going before returning him to his seat, and having a Tenderfoot, who I had taught a week before, demonstrate it. Two weeks later, the then SPL, up for Star, told an outright lie during his BOR about having learned to whip rope. Unbeknownst to me, he had promised to do so, in exchange for a pass on his 1st Class BOR. Earlier that same evening, we had taught whipping, but he was too senior to pay attention.

 

While I know that some senior Scouts in some troops have real skills, I also know that the situation I encountered, of eager junior Scouts being stalled and sidetracked by skill-less senior Scouts, is not rare. As bad as that troop was before, I cannot imagine what it will be like when the Scouts have to fake skills, during mandated EDGE training, they don't possess as they 'teach' the junior Scouts.

 

GaHillBilly

 

[acco40]

While I don't dispute anything in your post, please remember that Wood Badge and EDGE are not "scout skills" type courses but more "process" type courses.

 

I've taken Wood Badge and have taken/taught IOLS. The course content is very different.

 

Also, keep in mind that I've learned such skills as knot tying many times. In fact, I've forgotten so many knots that I've had to "relearn" them again and again!

 

One of the difficulties of moving the joining requirements south in age is that we have 17 yr olds with 10 yr olds and that is a strange mix. Not too many high school upperclassmen relish thought of spending time with 10 & 11 year olds (that's why I like peer based patrols). However, if they choose to hold a position of responsibility such as instructor or SPL, they really should welcome that interaction.

[GaHillBilly]

acco40 wrote:

'While I don't dispute anything in your post, please remember that Wood Badge and EDGE are not "scout skills" type courses but more "process" type courses.'

 

 

Of course. I noted this myself. And there's nothing wrong with process . . . as long as there is SOMETHING to 'process'.

 

But, taking Hamlet out of context, "aye, there's the rub". Given the sort of leaders and Scouts we've encountered, there is NOTHING to process, because they don't have the skills and knowledge that the Scouting EDGE proposes to teach! And everything I've seen suggests such Scouts and such leaders are far from uncommon, and may even be the majority. No one was horrified, here, when GWB a year ago suggested that knowing that there were "big rocks" and "little rocks" and "rocks that might hit me" was sufficient, and that knowing more was irrelevant to Scouting.

 

This attitude is light-years away from BP's 'there's a right way to do things, and Scouts should know that way'. (Approximate quote -- I didn't look it up.)

 

That's why I said the method should be "(K)EDGE", not "EDGE". For Scouters and Scouts who actually possess the requisite skills and knowledge, they can learn just the method, without any need to learn the skills.

 

Unfortunately, for the sort of Scout and Scouter we've met in our area, it's either (K)EDGE or it's bogus. I'm very much afraid that, without a focus on the missing (K)nowledge, the EDGE program is going to take the BSA further down the path of smoke and mirrors without substance.

 

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

 

 

[FScouter]

More proof that training is worthless. Or rather perhaps that training is worthless if don't want any value from it.

[GaHillBilly]

Fscouter wrote:

"More proof that training is worthless. Or rather perhaps that training is worthless if don't want any value from it."

 

 

No, more EVIDENCE that misguided or out-of-order training is worthless. The difference is distinguishable by those who are not trying to dismiss criticism with careless sarcasm.

 

"Proof", like "pregnancy" is not a matter of degree. You either are, or are not, pregnant. There either is, or there is not, "proof"*.

 

The difference matters because people not only speak in words, they think in words as well. Sloppy word use not only renders precise communication impossible, it renders precise or correct thinking impossible as well!

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

* In logic and language, as in geometry, it is sometimes possible to have multiple distinct proofs of the same conclusion, but plurality (more in quantity) and degree (more in quality) are very distinct concepts.

 

Granted, many people seem unable to grasp that something may well be evident, and yet not proven.

[RememberSchiff]

GAHB - Some of us think in pictures.

 

I agree a teacher needs subject expertise to teach no matter what the "process to teach" used or the buzzword used to name it, but do not infer that if someone is an expert implies he/she can teach.

 

IMHO, these Train-the-Trainer, EDGE courses or whatever they are called should qualify students as subject competent first and then show them how to transfer their knowledge to scouts. Leave No Trace and Water Safety Instructor (Red Cross) use this approach.

 

Arguments can get lost in analogies and other references.

 

My $0.02,

[Get Outdoors]

Since so many myths are against National Policy and commonly practiced in the trenches, It makes me wonder if national policy can be modified, changed or added to at the District or Council level.

 

As one example, our council has a written policy that says "no scout can earn more than 5 MB's from a single couselor" (Publication 33088, page 13 says otherwise)

 

Does anyone know if they are permitted by National to make these types of changes?

[GaHillBilly]

RememberSchiff wrote:

"GAHB - Some of us think in pictures."

 

You're right, of course, that some do think in pictures. I should have remembered, because though my older son and I both had chemistry in college, he's much better, in part because somehow he 'sees' those molecules and proteins. But, he still has to communicate in words, and all the wild gesticulations he's prone to, as he 'draws' the molecules in the air, don't really help much.

 

And you are entirely correct to note that not all experts -- who possess real skill or knowledge -- also teach well.

 

On the other hand, NONE of the highly trained 'teachers' who lack subject knowledge or skill can teach well! This includes fully Wood-Badged, completely EDGE-trained 'outdoor skills who can't sharpen a knife, use an axe, start a fire without a 'cheater' kit, or distinguish a cardinal from a robin!

 

I'll take the untrained experts over the unskilled 'teachers', every time! The experts, at least, have a chance of success. The 'trained teachers' who lack subject knowledge have NO chance.

 

 

 

Get Outdoors asked:

"Does anyone know if they are permitted by National to make these types of changes?"

 

 

An interesting question, with more than one relevant answer. I'm sure you'll get the correct 'official' answer from many others.

 

But, I've seen enough Scouting now to offer another answer, that may be equally relevant: a troop, or district, or council can do ANYTHING that someone doesn't stop them from doing! In my area, troops do all sorts of things that violate national and/or council policy. And, they "enforce" all sorts of rules that 'violate' national's documents.

 

So, I've gradually realized that that may be the most important answer to your question. In your specific case, your council can, and probably will, continue doing as they are till someone confronts them and possibly forces them to stop.

 

This could be seen as a weakness, or a strength. B-P explicitly wrote of his preference for minimal oversight of the patrol and SM. Of course, he didn't always act accordingly.

 

But, some of the best troops I've heard of seem to operate around the edges of the regulations and local council precedents, keeping low on the radar precisely to avoid the sort of confrontation that tends to be a mess, no matter who 'wins'.

 

Again, in your case, I bet if your troop quietly submits more than 5 MBs from a single counselor, and says nothing, no one will notice. In this area at least, they can't even keep up with the data entry they are supposed to do. Trying to create, and then run, custom data reports that would detect 'violations' of your council's policy would be utterly beyond my local council's skills or time allotment!

 

I'd guess the only time your council has ever noticed violations would be when one or more boys submitted MB completions of 5 or more MBs all at the same time.

 

So, don't do that.

 

 

GaHillBilly

 

[Eagle92]

It depends on what the topic is if council can add to the rules. For example, council's can age an age requirement for shooting sports, ban sheath knives outright, etc if it violates local laws (NY gun laws, some counties in NC) of if they feel it's a safety issue.

 

Advancement they usually leave alone b/c that is BSA policy made without regulations from outside influences, and are easily appealable.

 

As for the council policy on no more than 5 MBs from a single counselor unless they limit the number of MBs a counselor can teach, I don't see how that's enforcable since SMs select the MBCs a scout goes to. At one time I was an MBC for Swimming, Canoeing, Lifesaving, Motorboating, Rowing, First Aid, and Sailing as I was duel certified as a BSA Lifeguard and YMCA Lifeguard Instructor, with some expereince via the Sea Scouts.

[Oak Tree]

A council, as an independent entity, can pass anything they want to. And National can threaten to revoke their charter, and has made such threats when councils passed non-discrimination policies that contradicted National.

 

According to the rules, what can they change? They can make safety requirements more restrictive, but not less. They can decide on how they are going to interpret or implement various requirements. They cannot outright contradict National.

 

The 5 MB limit would contradict National policy, I believe, and would be prohibited. How would it even be enforced? We don't ever tell council who did the counseling for merit badges.

[Eagle92]

Oak,

Problem is a MBC is supposed to be registered as such to cousel a MB. Grant you I know that in some districts/councils they don't even have uptodate lists of MBC and aslo teh advancement report that is turned in doesn't list who has the MBC the scout used, but by the regs a MBC must be registered as such, in addition to any other registrations.

[Oak Tree]

Yes, good point. If a council only accepted merit badge counselor applications along with a list of merit badges that the counselor wished to counsel, they could then restrict a counselor to only signing off on five merit badges per Scout, (at least until the Scouter changed his or her registration.) However, this strict limit would be in contradiction of national policy, as I read it.

 

I don't think our council requires a list of merit badges when you register as a counselor, though. They certainly don't ever collect the names of the counselors that a Scout uses. So all of a Scout's merit badges would be signed off by a registered counselor, even if he wasn't "officially" associated with that particular badge, whatever that means in an individual council.

 

Quoting from my copy of Advancement Committee Policies and ProceduresThere is no restriction or limit on the number of merit badges an individual may be approved to counsel forNow, they also say that an individual must be approved by the committee for each specific merit badge, which clearly doesn't happen in my council, but even if it did, I would think that the above statement would mean that the advancement committee could not choose a limit (what part of "There is no limit" would they not be able to understand?), but I can see how it could be maybe arguable.There is no limit on the number of merit badges a youth may earn from one counselorAn approved merit badge counselor may counsel any youth member, including his or her own son, ward, or relative.I will add right away that there are all kinds of other statements in the ACP&P that don't remotely match what my council does.All merit badge counselors must be trainedThe district or council advancement committee will follow through to be sure that the merit badge counselors are working effectivelythe district merit badge list...should be mailed to every unit leaderthe council advancement committee sends a letter to existing merit badge counselors who are to continue for another year

 

When the council and district do nothing at their level on this topic, it's hard for me to spend lots of extra time on it for no apparent benefit. The council of my youth did this pretty much the way it's described, and we had a council list that we used. But for me, with the number of adults associated with my troop, it's much easier to just go with a troop list.

[Eagle92]

The way I've seen it done, and I beleive is suppose to be done but don't have the Advancement guidelines in front of me, is that whenyou fill out your application to be a MBC, there is anotehr form that you fill out from national that lists teh MBs you want to teach, and whether you got the expereicne through Work, training, or Hobby. For example I am currently a FA MBC b/c of work, Swimming, Canoeing, Lifesaving, and Rowing MBC b/c of training and a Indian Lore MBC becaus eit's a hobby ( I dance Northern Traditional and Southern Straight; ) ) The advancement committee is suppose to review the applications and the extra form to see if you truly haev the expereince to teach the MB.

 

Now does it happen that way everywhere, no it doesn't.

[BrentAllen]

This is the form Eagle92 mentioned:

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/34405.pdf

 

If that isn't being used, and MB Counselors are just turning in the Adult Application and can then teach any MB - what a SNAFU. MBCs are supposed to be approved for each MB they teach.