Evaluating NYLT

[BDPT00]

OK, so now that the NYLT season is over for most, what commnets do you have reagarding the new syllabus? I can think of several questions, but the main two would be: Was it effective for Venturers, and is it now more or less effective for Boy Scouts?

Oh, and one more: How can it be made better?

BDPT00

[ideadoc]

Ten pages of replies regarding the wearing of the Eagle patch by adults, no replies to a question of evaluating how our national organization supports our training of youth leaders. Interesting. I cannot evaluate the new NYLT as our Council has not run it yet.

[BDPT00]

Same here. I'm concerned about terminology, and about non-camping Venturers. I can't picture how this thing is supposed to work. Is it supposed to be better somehow for Boy Scouts? How?

BDPT00

[moosetracker]

Our Council has not run it yet either.. Maybe next year?? But I think even if they run the new one they may continue with the old one too. I guess that one would not be sanctioned for the official NYLT (whatever they get)..

 

They ran the old one this year rather then the new one, and they had over 2.5 times tha allowed people sign up and ran it way over full.. I do not know if it was scouts from our council jumping on for the possible last time the "good" program would be run (Personally don't know if old is better then new, but suspect it will divide like woodbadge with old timers stating the new program is far worse).. Or if it was people coming from other councils that were running the new program, and they came here for the old program.

 

I was surprised that they could run with an over flow, especially a 2.5 overflow..

 

My main concern is not so much the terminology, as the fact someone stated they don't run it as a patrol.. So what it is one large group?.. Can you get anything done, or form consensis in one large group?..

[KC9DDI]

There were some in depth discussions on this back in the spring, which I participated in. After staffing my council's course this past summer, my position is still basically unchanged from what it was last spring: that NYLT is a weakened, less valuable program now that it no longer trains Boy Scout leaders in the patrol method.

 

At my councils course, we had several lady Venturers, and a few male Venturers join us. There were no problems with their attendance, and it wasn't any problem making some of the logistical adjustments needed to accommodate male and female participants. My gripe is with the watered-down, generic program that does an inadequate job at training both Boy Scouts and Venturers.

 

Moose - I don't know how your council ran it, but maybe it is just a "terminology malfunction?" Rather than patrols, the new syllabus using the term "team." A "team" looks just like a patrol (but be careful not to confuse it with a Varsity team, which is something else entirely :-), but isn't called a patrol because it can include Venturers in addition to Boy Scouts. So while the patrol method is out the window, the course still divides up the participants into patrol-sized groups, that look and act just like patrols, but aren't actually patrols.

 

On that note, in our course we didn't whole-heartedly embrace the new terminology (we opted for our top youth leader to continue to be the "Senior Patrol Leader" rather than the "Assistant Course Director of Youth Operations.")

[Eagle92]

"Assistant Course Director of Youth Operations."

 

ROTFLMAO, you got to be joking, right?

[moosetracker]

Our Council hasn't run the new course yet.. They ran the old one and Venturers are not invited yet.. I am glad to here at least they are breaking them down into patrol sized groups. I could not fathom one whole free for all big group and getting anything accomplished..

 

I agree with you & Eagle92 "Assistant Course Director of Youth Operations" is a mouthful and not something that will stick with you.. "ACDOYO" for short..

 

[SR540Beaver]

I agreed to be the backup CD for our council's course next June. I go to the CD Development Conference the first weekend in November. I have not seen the syllabus yet. We had a course split into two weekends like WB that was this past weekend (Fall Break, Thurs thru Sun) and then next Saturday and Sunday. I drove out and visited for a few hours on Saturday and discovered all of the generic features......much to my dismay. Utilizing terms that bear no resemblance to Boy Scouts or Venturing? Heck, even WB which covers all programs chooses to use the Patrol structure as it's basis. I don't have an issue with making it co-ed and inclusive of Venturing, but doing the generic thing is just silly. If adults in WB can take the lessons dressed in Patrols back to the Packs and Crew, I think the kids can too. Especially when you look at the membership numbers of Boy Scouts vs Venturing. I'm going to follow thru on my commitment and see it thru to completion next June and then make a decision on whether or not it is something I'll continue to support.

[Basementdweller]

That is sad......The troop committee had just voted on paying for our two most senior scouts to attend this coming summer.

 

So how would a fellow know if it was the new course or old course.......

 

Sounds like the Troop leadership needs some due diligence before we sign our scouts up for the course.

 

 

I remember someone posted that they were still putting on the old course.....who and where was it????

[moosetracker]

This summer the old course was held in NH at Camp Bell.. They are talking about the new course, but I also know they will fight to keep the old course. Last I heard they were going to see about running two seperate courses..

[Eagle92]

My understanding is that like WB21C, all CDs for NYLT must, repeat MUST, follow the new syllabus, and that includes generic terms and allowing females. So no more old courses.

 

 

I agree, if WB21C can use the patrol concept with CS and Venturing leaders, why not NYLT.

 

I'm glad i did the old school courses.

[BDPT00]

So ... back to the original question: How might it be made better?

The other questions:

Is this new syllabus better for Boy Scouts? I think not.

Is it any good at all for Venturers? I have no idea? I haven't heard.

BDPT00

[moosetracker]

Oh I do think that if they run the old course, the participants wont get the doo-dad at the end of the course no more (They don't get beaded except for 1 or 2 Adult positions could get a 3rd bead, what doo-dad do NYLT participants get?)

 

But this board has stated some places still run the old WB & BrownSea etc.. My guess is that if they want to, they will continue it unofficially.. We will see if they do, and if they do if they continue to bring in the numbers (as stated this year they more then doubled the max limit of the class, so many people wanted the old course not the new one.. And they overbooked to accomidate them.) I am unsure they will overbook again, our Council Chair was not happy they did that as she felt it would be hard to manage and the participants would be the loosers.. But, I think they just had so many begging to be able to take the old course, and they felt bad turning them away.

[KC9DDI]

back to the original question: How might it be made better?

 

From where it is now, I think we need to drop the generic, one-course-fits-all-programs method, and instead focus on providing targeted, specific, advanced training to Boy Scouts and to Venturers, directed towards the unique elements in their own respective programs. In other words, we need scrap the most recent modifications to the course.

 

If we reach that point, I think we need to practice what we preach and evaluate the effectiveness of the current curriculum. For example, are all of the "buzz words" and acronyms effective, or do the Scout's reject them as too childish? Could we better balance classroom time with Scoutcraft and activities? Could we better balance the video portions of the training sessions with "live" interaction between the staff members and the participants? Unfortunately it seems like these types of curriculum questions have fallen to the side when we unnecessarily tried to introduce Venturers to the program.

 

Now it could be argued that I'm just resisting change of any kind. So a bit of a history lesson: back around 2005 or so, a major revision to the NYLT program was made. The program name changed from JLTC (Junior Leader Training Conference) to NYLT. The syllabus received a huge overhaul, and the NYLT program and JLTC program don't have very much in common at all. At the time when the changes were being made, there was a great deal of suspicion, unhappiness, stamping of feet and ruffling of feathers. However, after running the new program for a year or two, it became obvious that NYLT was much more effective at actually training youth leaders, and developing valuable skills. Sure, there are one or two specific areas that I feel the old course did better, but overall NYLT was a huge improvement in nearly every area. So, in my experience anyway, even those who were initially most opposed to the new program quickly came around, because it was so obvious that the youth responded better to it.

 

What concerns me is I'm not seeing this with the recent changes involving Venturing. I'm not seeing a drastic improvement in the benefits that Boy Scouts or Venturers are getting from the course, and I'm not seeing any evidence that any of the long-time staffers are becoming comfortable with the new program. Which has me very concerned about the long-term success of NYLT in general, unless National wakes up and starts making some changes.

 

 

[BDPT00]

Still waiting. Is there anyone who has seen the new syllabus in action who thinks that it's a good course for Boy Scouts? Is it better than the old course?

The other question: Is it a good course for Venturers?

Was the neutral language of any value to either program?

There must be somebody out there who participated this summer. What did you think?

I haven't heard anything positive yet. There must be something good about it.

BDPT00