BSA training: Some thoughts from an outsider

[BartHumphries]

Baden-Powell went to schools (especially Charterhouse) that were dry and boring. Boys went through the perfunctory motions and were released into society with a modicum of book learning and very little idea of how to comport themselves or really do much of anything to succeed in society or to develop a good name as a person who could be leaned or who could lead. BP's comment on not being able to give a boy character through classroom methods in no way means that scoutcraft and leadership skills are in any way mutually exclusive.

 

The whole idea of scoutcraft is that you learn leadership skills while learning all the other stuff. By taking charge of your own activities, you learn to take charge of your own destiny. By learning to work well with others, you set yourself up to continue working well with others for the rest of your life. By learning responsibility, prudence and planning (the virtue of being prepared) in a situation where failure immediately and obviously brings the message home sharply (perhaps with an empty belly for an evening) you begin to self motivate to plan ahead, to think through things, to have dry runs if necessary. And, by working in a possibly highly changeable environment while surrounded with unknown variables, you learn how to make decisions quickly in a time of crisis -- how to properly and correctly think on your feet instead of grasping at straws.

 

Character is leadership. Nobody wants a person who believes themselves destined to lead and can't be bothered with any of the small stuff. Those types of people tend to rub others the wrong way and generally make the work environment a pain to be in. Studies have show that people will stick with a job with bad pay, bad customers, bad coworkers, in a high stress situation (do or die, like crab fishing), they'll stick with all of that as long as their manager knows how to work well with them. If the manager is a piss-poor stuck up individual that nobody likes to work with, then ultimately it doesn't matter how good the pay is, it doesn't matter how many benefits or perks are offered, people will ultimately leave that job and go work somewhere else. If you have a good character, you will be a good leader, because you know how to work with people, you know how to take advice, you know how to admit that you're wrong and change course if necessary. Leadership is ultimately all about your character, what type of person you are.

 

There are no magic wands for leadership. There are no special phrases that, if continually uttered in the absence of anything else magically make people like you and become devoted to their job and willing to work hard. It's all about you. It's all about your ability to motivate people, your ability to make people want to please you, to want to work hard for you, to want to support you and the business and everything else. A person can take all the leadership classes they want and if that person started as a jerk, they're probably going to continue as a jerk and all the empty platitudes and ISO 9000's and other management and leadership techniques just won't really affect the end result. The people that would have quit anyway will likely still quit and the opportunities that would have been lost and the missed possibilities will (in one way or another) likely still be lost and missed.

 

Just like there are no magic wands for leadership, there are no magical educational techniques. There are many teachers in public schools who are amazing -- motivational people that really know how to inspire and guide/encourage their kids on to excellence. I've seen them, some of my teachers have been like this -- my own mother is one of them. She teaches first grade at a local elementary and has won various awards, is on a number of committees at the school, teaches part of the teacher training course at a nearby university (required course in CA to get your teacher certification), honestly she's an amazing teacher. There are also many teachers in public schools who are piss-poor, merely going through the motions, who don't even really like what they're doing but are clinging by their fingernails to get that paycheck to keep on coming. Some of my teachers have been like this too. But most all of the teachers do pretty similar things. Only for the better teachers, their kids show dramatic improvement in scores and even the kids that flunk tend to like the teachers. It's all about character, it's all about how much you demonstrate that you're willing to work yourself, how much you pay attention to people, etc.

 

Now, these types of things, these leadership skills, this ability to lead, this ability to motivate and to plan and prepare, in other words to have a good character, these things can be taught anywhere in any setting. But to really teach someone they have to be willing to listen. Most boys tend to be, by virtue of their youth, unmotivated to say the least. So we take the easy route and sugarcoat all this book learning and how to plan and how to get along with people and all the things that a boy should know. We create really fun activities and like someone else mentioned earlier, we give them ice cream and hide a bunch of vitamins in it. We do this because we don't just want the amiable kids who'd learn this stuff on their own anyway (or who already know it). We want to train up every boy like this.

 

We train them to love the world around them, to protect and cherish it because we want the next generation to love the world, to protect and cherish it. We don't want the world to look like downtown LA or the northbound 15 at 3pm on the Friday before Memorial Day. They give themselves the knowledge that they are able to plan, that they will be able to learn about a task, try their best to prepare for it and at least have a battle plan for every battle. They gain resilience -- concrete evidence that they will be able to roll with the punches, toss the battle plan aside when changing conditions make it "useless" and go on to "win" anyway.

 

Scoutcraft is essential to Scouting and Scouting done right produces awesome men who will go on to become pillars of their community. They may have high paying jobs, they may have low paying jobs, depending on what sort of occupation they eventually settle on. But whatever it is they do, they will be a credit to their families, to their organizations, to their communities and ultimately to the world. There are countless organizations that attempt to work with kids, to give them leadership skills, literally hundreds of organizations. They don't produce anything close to the results that scouting produces, because as BP says, they don't understand how scouting does what it does. He said:

The whole object of our Scouting is to seize the boy's character in its red-hot stage of enthusiasm, and to weld it into the right shape and to encourage and develop its individuality so that the boy may educate himself to become a good man and valuable citizen for his country.

[Penta]

We've gotten a bit more philosophical and such than I think is necessarily a good thing. (Yes, I'm also trying to take the heat out of the budding flamewars.)

 

Allow me to nudge the conversation slightly by bringing up stuff you'd think people would learn in Scouting, but never seem to.

 

My list of Skills I Wish Scouting Teaches Or Had Taught, linked directly to their usability in Scouting. If I use military terminology, it's because in writing fiction lately I've had to immerse myself in that, and it's what's familiar to me. These are skills that might already *be* taught by Scouting, but don't appear integrated into the core program last I checked (by scanning the rank requirements at scouting.org) - they should not, IMHO, be limited to a certain MB or those who've gone someplace like Philmont.

 

1. How to give a briefing - This is something that should be learned by a Scout from day 1, IMHO; the fact that it'd deal with the reality that most kids don't know how to communicate with people to pass on information (and that college is probably too late to learn the skill) is a bonus. A "briefing" could be made more complex as the kid climbs in responsibility - At first the kid could have to brief the patrol on their part of the patrol's tasks on a campout. A patrol leader could have to brief the SM or PLC on the patrol's plan to execute tasks during a campout. The SPL could have to brief the SM on the troop's plan for an entire campout.

 

2. How to conduct an after-action review: Or a Roses and Thorns session, or whatever you want to call it, it goes by a lot of different names. IMHO, kids do not know how to do that, to evaluate a situation for what went wrong and what went right, how to give and take fair, honest criticism. If it were me writing the requirements, this would be an integral part of any troop activity.

[Kudu]

OldGreyEagle writes:

 

EDGE is a tool, the same as an Axe, Compass, or stove.

 

No it's not.

 

Ask any Scout who has ever taken an aptitude test:

 

Which does not belong?

 

a) axe, b) compass, c) stove, d) EDGE

 

100% of the Scouts headed for college will correctly answer "d."

 

Because EDGE is not a real tool.

 

EDGE is imaginary, like leprechauns.

 

OldGreyEagle writes:

 

It is the duty of the Patrol Leader to bring his Patrol up to the skill level of going on Patrol Outings.

 

No it's not.

 

Patrol Outings will soon be against the rules because Patrol Outings are what William Hillcourt defined as what makes a Patrol a "Real Patrol."

 

If you paid attention in SM-Specific Training, you would know that, OGE: It is the duty of the TROOP Guide "POR" and the TROOP Instructor "POR" to teach those skills: That's why we call PORs the "Troop Method."

 

OldGreyEagle writes:

 

EDGE gives a Patrol Leader a plan to teach his patrol members how to select a campsite, make a fire, cook food, read a map and perform orienteering.

 

No it doesn't.

 

EDGE is imaginary: What scientific proof do you have that belief in EDGE has ever taught anything to anybody anywhere any time any better than, say, a belief in leprechauns?

 

Here is a scientific experiment that any Scoutmaster can perform:

 

1) Divide your Troop into two equal numbers of evenly-matched Patrols.

 

2) Take half of your "Junior Leaders" on the EDGE-based Troop Leadership Training Weekend.

 

Teach each "Junior Leader" how to Explain, Demonstrate, Guide, and Enable.

 

Be sure to hand out those stupid "Official Leadership Position Cards that define each position in the troop." Make them read and sign them!

 

3) Take the other half of your "Junior Leaders" on a Weekend Leprechaun Hunt.

 

Hike them a mile into the woods. Have them to select a campsite and make a fire. If they select a stupid campsite, tell them it's a stupid campsite and have them figure out why ("Getting warmer, getting warmer, getting colder").

 

If they can't make a fire, have them yell out in the dark at the top of those Leave a Trace lungs:

 

"Just use a skill to teach a skill; Leadership is overkill!"

 

Then make another fire for them and stamp it out again until each and every Patrol Leader can start a fire while chanting:

 

"Learning just happens, Start a fire and vent it;

Learning just happens, A leader can't prevent it."

 

Be sure to record how long it takes each Scout to start a fire.

 

In the glow of Friday's campfire, use candy as a carrot/stick to bribe/force them to sing or rap the "Compass Bear Song."

 

Compass Bear Song:

 

http://www.inquiry.net/outdoor/skills/map_compass/index.htm

 

On Saturday morning bring out the Leprechaun Treasure Map and have each Patrol Leader rap the Compass Bear Song as he uses a compass to find the nearest Leprechaun Treasure on the map (which you previously stashed--a generous lunch and candy, lots of candy). That candy is thumb-tacked to two or three times as many trees marked on the Leprechaun Treasure Map as you have Junior Leaders.

 

I use the Skittles snack packs, which are red and easily seen from a distance. And they don't melt here in the south.

 

Also do some leprechaun tracking: Follow the leprechaun tracks in the dirt that you left previously (Unlike EDGE, Tracking is part of the 1916 Scoutcraft program required by the terms of our Congressional Charter).

 

Before the Saturday campfire, hand out the stupid "Official Leadership Position Cards that define each position in the troop." Tell the Scouts what they are, but forbid them to read them or to ever discuss among themselves what their "responsibilities" are.

 

Tell them that the purpose of Leadership Position Cards is to start fires. Prove to them how useful Leadership is by timing how long it takes them to start a fire by burning Leadership Position Cards and then compare that time to how long it took them to start the fire on Friday night without using the TLT course materials!

 

4) At the next campout divide the Troop into the same Fake Leadership Patrols and Real Scouting Patrols.

 

Have the EDGE "Junior Leaders" Explain, Demonstrate, Guide, and Enable their way through campsite selection, fire making, food, map, and compass.

 

Have the Real Patrol Leaders take their Patrols on a Leprechaun Treasure Hunt.

 

On Sunday have a panel of independent judges examine the Scouts' ability to select a campsite, make a fire, cook food, read a map and perform orienteering.

 

Report back to this thread: Which Patrols did better? The Troop Method sub-units that teach EDGE, or the Real Patrols that hunt leprechauns?

 

Waiting at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

 

American Scout Treasure Hunts:

 

http://inquiry.net/outdoor/games/wide/treasure_type.htm

 

English Scout Treasure Hunts:

 

http://inquiry.net/outdoor/games/wide/treasure_type_uk.htm

 

More Scout Treasure Hunts:

 

http://www.inquiry.net/outdoor/games/mackenzie/outdoor/treasure_hunts.htm(This message has been edited by kudu)

[BartHumphries]

I am not EDGE trained, Kudu, but that set of points you gave, Explain/Demonstrate/Guide are familiar to me from other contexts. It's probably familiar to you as well, something that you know quite well, but the context (how the words are used) are different enough that it's not immediately recognizable. Here's a good way to teach someone something:

 

1. You tell them how to do something.

2. You show them how to do something (you do it while they watch)

3. They do it (while you watch).

They are now trained in whatever that thing is.

 

In step 1, you want to describe why you do it one way instead of another way, things to watch out for, how you set things up in the beginning to make it easier later on. This can be a lot to take in at once and part of this is better given during step 2, while you're actually doing the activity.

 

In step 2, you do it the right way, explaining how/why again as you go. Do you have to grab the ruler from your desk drawer at this point? Do you have to bump the machine with your fist at this point? Do you have to hold a rope tight at this point? Do these things, explaining how you're doing it as you're doing it.

 

In step 3, there shouldn't really be any major surprises in store and they are ready to do it themselves, but you watch them struggle through it once so that you can offer good critique afterward (or during, if necessary).

 

This is basically the same thing as (or so I believe) EDGE's explain/demonstrate/guide. These steps hold true and work well for anything, whether in the office or the construction field or whereever. Break things down into "good-sized" steps. Not too small, but not too big. Build off what's come before. Long complicated things, like putting together a large bid proposal for a project, or rigging an entire ropes course, usually requires the new person to be working alongside a more experienced person, in a continuous "never ending" "teach/do/watch" or "explain/demonstrate/guide" cycle.

 

Again, I am not EDGE trained, but that phrase "explain/demonstrate/guide" seems to have some good features to it.

[OldGreyEagle]

"EDGE is a tool, the same as an Axe, Compass, or stove.

 

No it's not."

 

Well. I think EDGE is a tool, so in this case it's a difference of opinion, and that's OK

 

"EDGE is imaginary: What scientific proof do you have that belief in EDGE has ever taught anything to anybody anywhere better than, say, a belief in leprechauns? "

 

Well, No, EDGE is not imaginary, it's an Educational Model that is easy to remember for those who need to teach skills.

 

"Explain, Demonstrate, Guide, Enable campsite selection"

 

Heck thats easy, one youth explains what comprises a good campsite, shows them a good site, has them pick a good campsite with his help if needed then he sees of the patrol can find one thats one on their own

 

"Explain, Demonstrate, Guide, Enable a fire"

 

I don't know how to enable a fire, but I would have the youth teach HOW to build a fire, by explaining the steps, demonstrating the steps, watching the parol build a fire of their own with advice if required and then have them start a fire of their own without help. No Problem

 

"Explain, Demonstrate, Guide, Enable their food;"

 

I have no idea how to enable food. But I would have the youth teach HOW to cook food, what comprises a good camp meal. Demonstrate how to cook it with camp equipment, guide the patrol thorugh cooking a meal and then have them cook their own meal, Sounds Simple

 

"Explain, Demonstrate, Guide, Enable a map"

 

Never heard of enabling a map, but explaing how to read a map, demonstrating how maps are oriented, guiding the patrol to use the map and then have them use the map on their own, yeah I can see that

 

"Explain, Demonstrate, Guide, Enable a compass"

 

Again, since a compass is inanimate not sure how to enable it, I can see how a youth would explain how a compass works and why we use it, demonstrate how to use the compass and then help the patrol use a compass and then have them do a compass course, yeah I could see that.

 

Using EDGE does not replace the scout skills, its a plan of how to impart scouting skills to a patrol that does not have them. The Scouting Skills are still central to advancement, EDGE is a tool. If you don't think EDGE is a tool, well heck that's your opinion and I can live with that

 

"Hike them a mile into the woods. Have them to select a campsite and make a fire. If they select a stupid campsite, tell them it's a stupid campsite and have them figure out why. If they can't make a fire, have them yell out in the dark at the top of their Leave a Trace voices: "

 

Not sure how yelling at scouts is, well, scoutlike. Sounds rather silly and mean at the same time, I'll pass

 

"Then make another fire and stamp it out again until each and every Patrol Leader can start a fire while chanting:

 

"Learning just happens, Start a fire and vent it;

Learning just happens, A leader can't prevent it."

 

Be sure to record how long it takes each Scout to start a fire.

 

Use candy to bribe them to sing or rap the Compass Bear Song around Friday's campfire.

 

Compass Bear Song:

 

http://www.inquiry.net/outdoor/skills/map_compass/index.htm

 

On Saturday morning bring out the Leprechaun Treasure Map and have them use a compass to find the all Lepricon Treasures that you previously stashed (a generous lunch and candy, lots of candy). That is candy hidden in as many trees marked on the Leprechaun Treasure Map as you have Junior Leaders.

 

Do some leprechaun tracking, following the leprechaun tracks in the dirt you left previously. (Unlike EDGE, Tracking is part of the 1916 Scoutcraft program required by our Congressional Charter).

 

At the Saturday campfire, hand out the stupid "Official Leadership Position Cards that define each position in the troop." Tell the Scouts what they are, but forbid them to read them or to ever discuss among themselves what their job is.

 

Tell them that the purpose of Leadership Position Cards is to start fires. Prove to them how useful Leadership is by timing how long it takes them to start a fire by burning Leadership Position Cards and then compare that time to how long it took them to start the fire on Friday night without using the TLT course materials."

 

The Acronym, EDGE refers to Explain, Demonstrate, Guide and Enable. How that translates to the above passage I don't understand. Having the patrols go out, alone with a map of the area to look for Leprechauns now that sounds like fun, if any patrol finds one, I would imagine Notre Dame would pony up Scholarships for the lot

 

I would copy section 4, but I would have to understand it to comment on it and I don't Sorry

 

PS Whats the reference for not allowing Scouts to talk about their positions? I missed that(This message has been edited by oldgreyeagle)

[Twocubdad]

Of all the things you choose to get lathered up about, Kudu, I really don't understand why EDGE is such a problem for you. That it came from the "corporate" guys? Is it the fact that someone gave it a cheesy acronym? If we changed it to "Describe, Do, Help, Watch" and skipped the acronym, would you feel better about it?

 

How is this different from teaching tautline hitches with "two for the tree and one for me", or "left over right, right over left" for square knots?

 

[NJCubScouter]

Bart, OGE and TwoCub basically took the words right out of my mouth regarding EDGE. It is not really anything new, people (including Scouters and Scouts) had been teaching and learning things this way for many years without articulating it as a specific series of steps or giving it one of those irritating acronyms. The first time I ever heard of it was a few years ago when my son came back from his NYLT course and I was flipping through his notebook and comparing some of the content and terminology to what I remember of the TLD course I took back around 1973 (another favorite of Kudu's, I'm sure.) From back then I recall another acronym, GGI, Getting and Giving Information, which is not exactly the same subject but in the same ballpark. If I had my notes from TLD I would probably find something that was a better match, but with a different name and probably without the specific steps. But what I remember thinking about EDGE when looking through my son's NYLT notebook was, basically, This is just common sense. They spelled out the specific steps (and added one of those silly mnemonics to remember them by) so you would be less likely to miss a part, but it's really just common sense. When my father was SPL in ~1940, he probably taught Scout skills more-or-less the same way, he just didn't know what the steps would be called 70 years later.

[NJCubScouter]

Ok, I did a little exploring (oops, I mean venturing) on the Internet and found out what the 1970s version of "EDGE" probably was, "Manager of Learning." (See http://www.whitestag.org/skills/manager_of_learning.html) Now that my memory has been jogged, it does sound familiar (along with the other 10 "competencies", including GGI.) Obviously, from the URL we see that the TLD course I took in the early 1970's was part of the White Stag program, which I fear will send Kudu off on yet another historical rant, but so be it. I do not accept the idea that the training and leadership methods that I experienced as a Boy Scout were as terrible and counterproductive as Kudu seems to believe. I mean, what's wrong with things like "Setting the Example", "Planning" and "Evaluation" (more of the 11 competencies from the 1970's)? ALL good leaders do those things, regardless of whether you give them a name or make a list of them. So the current trend (since the 70s) is to make a list of them and give them names and sometimes irritating little memory assisters so you're less likely to forget. Is that really so bad?

 

So in the 70s, the 4 steps were Guided Discovery, Teach/Learn, Application and Evaluation. Now it's Explain, Demonstrate, Guide (as the learner practices) and Enable (the learner to succeed on his own.) Is it really that different? You can see how the steps overlap. I think EDGE is more useful, particularly to a teenager teaching a skill, than the 1970's version. Guided discovery? What's that? I've never really known. The EDG steps are much more concrete and helpful, and they are also the embodiment of "Teach/Learn." They actually tell you HOW to teach, so the skill is learned. And then Application is part of the last E and probably a portion of the G, and Evaluation is part of the last E. It's really a matter of terminology, but as I say, I think the current terminology is more helpful, especially to a young person.

[shortridge]

Eagle92 - Why do they think that outdoors experience is critical for a Cubmaster? It's not like he or she is going to be leading monthly pack campouts or anything. Just seems odd.

[Beavah]

How'd this get around to EDGE? I suppose it must be another Kudu rant. . Too bad, da original discussion was kind of interesting without da hijack.

 

I think EDGE is an amusin' BSA acronym. Far be it from me to tread on da turf of the psychologists, but I think they'd tell us that there's absolutely no evidence in da scientific literature on teaching or learning that anything as trite and simplistic as EDGE amounts to a hill of beans.

 

While I've certainly seen adult presenters EDGE (usually with a lot more of the first E than is necessary or appropriate), I'm not sure I've ever really seen a kid learn that way.

 

EDGE smacks of classroom education. Explain da problem on the board. Demonstrate the problem. Guide them on the practice problems. Enable them to do da problems for homework. Bah. Boring. Fine for school where yeh have only one instructor for 35 kids and you've put all da kids of the same ability together so they can't help each other. But much as it might be da way of the classroom, it's really not the way of Scouting.

 

Kids mostly learn by watching and example and trying, not by somebody blah blah blahing an explanation or demonstration. Yeh could probably drop da E and D and we'd be better off. Just be competent yourself so that they can see what that looks like, then guide and enable. Or pose 'em a challenge like a patrol competition or a COPE obstacle and have 'em work it out, eh? We don't explain, demonstrate, guide, etc. a COPE course. We let 'em work the challenge, maybe dropping a hint here or there.

 

Beavah

[NJCubScouter]

Beavah says:

 

EDGE smacks of classroom education. Explain da problem on the board. Demonstrate the problem. Guide them on the practice problems. Enable them to do da problems for homework. Bah. Boring. Fine for school where yeh have only one instructor for 35 kids and you've put all da kids of the same ability together so they can't help each other. But much as it might be da way of the classroom, it's really not the way of Scouting.

 

Kids mostly learn by watching and example and trying, not by somebody blah blah blahing an explanation or demonstration. Yeh could probably drop da E and D and we'd be better off. Just be competent yourself so that they can see what that looks like, then guide and enable. Or pose 'em a challenge like a patrol competition or a COPE obstacle and have 'em work it out, eh? We don't explain, demonstrate, guide, etc. a COPE course. We let 'em work the challenge, maybe dropping a hint here or there.

 

Beavah, I think the problem is that you don't understand what the BSA means with this method... either that or... (possibly less-than-Scoutlike comment deleted here.) You are making way more out of it than is intended. Nowhere does it say that there has to be a lengthy explanation for everything. It is going to depend on the skill being taught. If an older Scout is teaching a younger Scout how to build a fire, I am not sure much more needs be said in the first "E" than "Here's how to build a fire." If it's "Here's how to splint an arm", I think there also needs to be some "Here's WHEN to splint an arm." With knots and lashings, the "when" and the "why" comes in as well. But still nobody is saying it has to be a 15-minute classroom lecture. And since the "teacher" is often going to be an older Scout (especially now, see new Tenderfoot requirement 4c and new Life requirement 6), I don't think you will usually have to worry about a long lecture anyway. This will also be a learning process for the "teacher." I think if a 13-year-old Star Scout is into the 12th minute of a dry lecture about map and compass, without a map or compass yet in sight, he will learn something from the fact that his 10-year-old student(s) has turned his attention elsewhere. So for the first E, all they're really saying is, make sure the learner knows what it is he is about to learn, and if appropriate, when and how that skill should be used.

 

You say "watching an[] example and trying" is better than a "demonstration". It's the same thing. (Actually "watching an example" is the D, and "trying" is the first part of the G. If the learner is not doing it correctly, "G" continues with "dropping a hint here or there", which you also refer to as being a good thing.) Then letting the learner do it on his own, with some final words about when (and when not) to use this skill, is the final E.

 

It's not a big deal. It's common sense. It doesn't necessarily take any longer than it did when we were taught these skills decades ago. In fact, it doesn't necessarily need to BE different than it was then, if it was done effectively back then. It's just to make sure a young teenager doesn't leave out anything while he's trying to teach something. Why do people need to make it into a big deal?

[Twocubdad]

Except, Beav, your classroom example completely misrepresents the method. Sure, you can overdo explain and turn the lesson into a lecture. Or you can overdo enable and turn it into sink or swim. The key to the method is knowing when to switch gears.

 

You have it right, however, when you note that most people learn by watching and doing. While the student is watching and doing, the teacher is demonstrating and guiding. That's exactly the purpose. Explain, Demonstrate, Guide, Enable are the TEACHING tactics. From the students' perspective they are listening, watching, doing and mastering.

 

It's just a variant on the old watch one, do one, teach one that's been around forever, with the addition of a catchy mnemonic.

 

[Eagle92]

Short,

they don't just want the outdoor expereince, they want programing experience as well. Their theory is that folks who have been through the program know it best,

[sherminator505]

"Eagle92 - Why do they think that outdoors experience is critical for a Cubmaster? It's not like he or she is going to be leading monthly pack campouts or anything. Just seems odd."

 

I'm guessing they don't. That is the greatest fallacy of WB21 - Cub Leaders and Boy Scout Leaders and Venturing leaders each have unique training requirements that the BSA is attempting to meet with a single capstone course. And that is WRONG!

[AlFansome]

sherm-

Except that WB21C's outdoor experience isn't intended to teach outdoor skills. Cub Leaders don't go to WB21C to learn how to take a pack camping...that's what BALOO is for. WB21C is a leadership training course (whether you agree with the content or focus or not)...it's not an outdoor skills course.