EDGE - why dictate it?

[sherminator505]

"In doing so I believe I'm also teaching them how to be law abiding citizens instead of throwing out those laws/rules/requirements they don't agree with."

 

Part of being a citizen requires that when we see a law/rule/requirement we don't agree with, we try to do something to change it. This does not mean disobediance. It does mean petitioning the "powers to be" to change the law/rule/requirement. This is precisely why the First Amendment was crafted.

 

Now the boys are not in a good position to do this. We Scouters are in a slightly better position to do this. Thus it is our responsibility to discuss these things through forums like this, as well as more direct communications with the "powers that be."

 

GOOD CITIZENSHIP DOES NOT EQUAL BLIND OBEDIENCE! (caps for emphasis)(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[Rockford8070]

There seems to be a lot of chatter over this. Negative, positive, indifferent. Here's something to think about. Do the requirements say that the youth have to use the EDGE method for everything? In every situation? No? I think I saw it a grand total of once, and that was for Tenderfoot.

 

Why not look at the EDGE method as a skill not as just a training method. The youth has to learn the skill, use the skill, and show proficiency in it. BSA mandates all kinds of skills that the youth have to learn. This is just one more. Will they use it later in life? Will they judge their entire scouting career by it? Probably not. And who really cares?

[JMHawkins]

Picking up on Sherm's post, to quote what the current Handbook says about A Scout is obedient:

 

If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he seeks to have them changed in an orderly way.

 

The first step in "an orderly way" is having an open debate about what's wrong with the rules in question. The first step in a disorderly, lawless society is telling people they can't disagree with the rules.

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, comparin' a children's program to civil law is just foolish, eh? They are two different things.

 

If anything, if yeh want to compare the BSA program to civil law, the American response would be "no obedience without representation!". That was why we fought our revolution, after all. . Blind obedience to a remote authority is not consistent with traditional American values.

 

BSA mandates all kinds of skills that the youth have to learn. This is just one more. Will they use it later in life? Will they judge their entire scouting career by it? Probably not. And who really cares?

 

I really care.

 

I don't know about other folks, but I do this work to help kids learn and grow. I believe in doin' the best I can by them. That means if I'm goin' to teach 'em first aid, I'm goin' to make sure they learn proper and effective first aid. If I'm goin' to teach 'em to cook, they're goin' to learn how to cook well. If I'm goin' to teach 'em shooting sports, they're goin' to learn the best practices for safely handling firearms. Even if they never pick up a gun or a spatula or a bandage again in their life, I've at least done my job of teaching 'em well and properly in case they do, and given 'em example of how to learn other things that they might use da rest of their life.

 

Can't see why teaching should be any different. We should do the best we can for the lads, and that means helping 'em learn proper and effective teaching and the current best practices. No different than for first aid or handling a firearm.

 

Beavah

[perdidochas]

Rockford,

 

It's part of Life Rank requirements as well:

 

While a Star Scout, use the EDGE method to teach a younger Scout the skills from ONE of the following six choices, so that he is prepared to pass those requirements to his unit leaders satisfaction.

a. Second Class7a and 7c (first aid)

b. Second Class1a (outdoor skills)

c. Second Class3c, 3d, 3e, and 3f (cooking/camping)

d. First Class8a, 8b, 8c, and 8d (first aid)

e. First Class1, 7a, and 7b (outdoor skills)

f. First Class4a, 4b, and 4d (cooking/camping)

[Rockford8070]

Again, you guys seem too hung up on it. Is it really the absolute worst thing in the world? Do you have to teach them using the edge method? Sure it might help them to learn it if you did. But it's not a prerequisite. Treat the EDGE method as simply another tool that they CAN use, not one that must be used all the time. How hard is that? Heck, every one of the steps in EDGE are used in some form or another any time you teach someone a skill.

 

And teaching a boy how to use EDGE doesn't take all day. It can be done very well in under an hour. I mean it's 4 steps. You can also teach them every other training method under the sun if you like.

 

Does having to teach a skill to a young boy bother you that much? Is learning that skill doing the boy a disservice? Or is it possibly giving him a tool that he can use when the situation calls for it?

 

Or is this just a thread to complain about having to do something differently? BSA is an institution. Institutions have rules, they have policies and guidelines, policies change, documentation changes, get used to it.

[perdidochas]

I've got no problem with EDGE. It's a good generic solution for people without teaching experience. Should work fine for the boys.

[Beavah]

Do you have to teach them using the edge method? Sure it might help them to learn it if you did. But it's not a prerequisite.

 

Yah, it is a requirement. That's the issue. The requirements for Tenderfoot and Life Scout are to use the EDGE method to teach a skill, not to use the most appropriate method to teach a skill. That's what's being debated here. Whether requiring a particular method which has no demonstrated basis in reality nor broad acceptance is appropriate.

 

BSA is an institution. Institutions have rules, they have policies and guidelines, policies change, documentation changes, get used to it.

 

Yah, take a step back and relax there, Rockford.

 

The BSA is a corporation. Corporations sell things, either goods or services. There are internal rules within corporations, but most of us here are not members of da BSA corporation; only if you're elected by your council to serve as a national rep. or selected for an Area, Regional, or National position do yeh have that distinction.

 

So most of us are just purchasers of da BSA program materials and services. As consumers/customers, it's right and proper for us to evaluate and comment on da quality of those materials. I've been a loyal Ford owner for a long time, eh? But that doesn't mean I can't comment on da strengths and weaknesses of my vehicle, or grouse about how Ford automatic transmissions are often lousy. No difference here.

 

If yeh don't like threads where loyal Ford owners grouse about lousy transmissions, just avoid 'em.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[packsaddle]

I like Beavah's rational approach and I especially like the analogy. If my Ford vehicle has an inferior radio (which they all do it seems), I replace the radio with one that works better. I'll keep the old one on the shelf in case the new one doesn't live up to claims but I'll swap things around to customize the vehicle. It's called 'local option'.

 

To use a political analogy, since the term 'dictate' is being used here, perhaps the choice is between the Egypt model or the Libya model. I'd really hope that BSA doesn't see itself as analogous to Gaddafi.

 

Edit: A little-noticed benefit from the Middle East rebellions is set of new analogies that protect us from having to worry about Godwin's Law. nice.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[OldGreyEagle]

Sometimes I wonder if the opposition to EDGE is merely the all American reaction of "Don't Tell me what to do, nobody tells me what to do" we see it in uniforming and now here

[packsaddle]

Or as Princes Leia would say in a situation like this, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin (BSA dictators), the more star systems (CO's) will slip through your fingers."

 

Charming...to the end

[FScouter]

Yeah I see all the "arguments" against the EDGE model as pretty much a lot of hot air. We hear a lot a complaints here on the forums about kids, even Eagle Scouts that can't tie a simple knot and don't know the first thing about first aid. Lots of crying about watering down requirements and merit badge giveaways. Not a whole lot of learning going on....

Not a lot of good teaching going on either. But DAMN if BSA tries to develop a method, present it in an easy to deliver manner, actually help boys and adults TEACH a few things. And such a cacophony of objection that arises! We want "local option"... to do what? To continue raising Eagles that can't tie a bowline? Or a knot expert kid that cant teach a Tenderfoot how to tie a square knot to save his life?

 

There's obviously a big factor of "NIH". If it ain't my idea, it can't be much good, and I know what I'm doin' leave me alone (to reinvent the wheel and fail a few times) there ain't nuthin I can learn about teaching Scouts - I've been doing this since Hector was a pup.

 

Im not a teacher and not an expert, but I do recognize bad and ineffective teaching when I see it. Folks can pick apart the EDGE model all they want but that complaining doesnt help one kid teach another. Kids dont instinctively know how to teach a skill. Neither do adults. And based on the results we commonly see (go to any Camporee), the customized home-brew methods they use dont work.

 

(Of course, YOUR troop is the exception.)

 

[KC9DDI]

FScouter - I haven't seen many people trying to "pick apart" EDGE, or even really argue against EDGE. What I'm seeing mostly is people questioning whether or not EDGE is actually an effective model for teaching. And, if it can't or hasn't been shown to be effective, why require it? The solution to the problem of Eagle Scouts not knowing basic Scouting skills isn't to just to require any training method, but the solution might be to require a training method that can be shown to actually work.

 

Sure, there's still the question of whether the BSA should require a particular training method at all. I think that you and I would agree that this in general would not be a problem. But, I think the core issue here is that they chose to require a training method that has no evidence of being more effective than no training method at all.

[packsaddle]

FScouter, as I see it the EDGE method (whatever) is not inherently wrong. I use parts of that method all the time while I am teaching but I also employ many of the seven components that Beavah listed in the other thread as well. I think the problem is associated with the assumption that a single very simple model (which EDGE certainly is) can be applied by all persons to anyone in all learning situations. If Dilbert is the model for every Boy Scout, then EDGE will probably work fine.

 

Dictating a method like EDGE makes an assumption about the way this works that many of us (especially those of us who actually do teach) recognize is unrealistic. Not very many boys are going to understand EDGE well enough to apply it effectively and many of their pupils may not respond to even a perfectly-delivered EDGE method...because different people just respond differently to different approaches to learning. A good teacher will spot the needs and adjust the methods to fit those needs. I don't see this in the EDGE method and I sure don't see persons who are not of receptive mind figuring out even how to apply EDGE properly in the first place.

 

When Beavah wrote in another thread, "I think EDGE is just poppycock. There's a difference. . Bad yeh oppose. Poppycock yeh just smile and make fun of so people don't buy da snake oil without thinkin'.", I agree and this is, I think, what is happening in this thread. We're applying some ridicule to an idea which, if it really has strong merit, will survive nicely because it works so well. I'm not going to bet the ranch on it though.

[JMHawkins]

The solution to the problem of Eagle Scouts not knowing basic Scouting skills isn't to just to require any training method, but the solution might be to require a training method that can be shown to actually work.

 

Actually KC, I think this highlights an important problem. The solution to poor results (assuming Eagles not knowing how to tie a square knot is a poor result) isnt' to make random changes to process, but rather to tighten up the feedback loop and let feedback drive process improvements. If we don't want Eagles who don't know their stuff, we need to be more demanding in the sign-off process, not the teaching process. Process engineering requires a feedback loop, otherwise you're just guessing.

 

And ultimately, that's one of the big debates here about EDGE - is it just guessing about what works, or is there documented feedback on it?