Jump to content

KC9DDI

Members
  • Content Count

    477
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KC9DDI

  1. The value and benefit of the projects are clearly dependent on the specifics of each individual project. I think that in general the experience of doing the project is enormously beneficial to the Scout. Clearly it should be of value to the benefitting organization, or they wouldn't have approved it. I don't think anyone really intends for the troop to benefit directly, other than potentially giving other Scouts in the troop the opportunity to accrue service hours and put the Oath and Law into practice. The approval process is quite bureaucratic, but I think that it actually serves a p
  2. SR540Beaver - You may be right about that one particular context. However, consider that EDGE is being push as the standard training delivery model for the Scouting program - how effective will it be in preparing new Boy Scouts to work in the patrol method, to be safe and have fun camping and in the outdoors? How well will it work to prepare older Scouts for high adventure activities, that could turn dangerous without proper knowledge and preparation. How about for all of the Woodbadge, NYLT, Philmont training, and other youth and adult leader training at the district, council and national
  3. What I said: Not even the harshest critics of EDGE have claimed that there's anything wrong with the four components that make up the EDGE acronym What SR540Beaver said: Actually, a few people here have poo-poo'ed the whole concept of EDGE repeatedly That's not the same thing at all. Beaver - you used the phrase "the whole concept of EDGE" - that's what's being disputed, not whether or not there's anything wrong with the various individual concepts that go into EDGE. That's why this whole train of thought is a red herring. No one is arguing that there's anything wrong with explain
  4. qwazse - Despite your use of a bold font, those are in fact hypothetical responses to the situation. I'll grant that those are very real possibilities for some situations, but certainly not the only way that it could be handled at the unit level. There's also no saying whether the SE's response would be any different, or any better. To avoid speculating on how the SE would/could/should respond, is there anyone with any first hand knowledge of the policies (if any) that guide how a council follows up on a YP-related infraction by a volunteer?
  5. shortridge - Not at all. There's a clear difference between laws and a private group's internal policies. An SE runs a business. He's not a law enforcement officer, social worker, or investigator. As I said, any concern that a law has been violated should be directed to law enforcement. The SE can then be notified once the immediate danger to the youth's safety has been addressed. Why would the SE be better equiped than the unit leadership to notice a pattern of inappropriate behavior? Except in some rare cases where a problematic individual might be jumping between units, I wouldn'
  6. I agree with OGE. Is there a reason you couldn't use the standard BSA sized patrol patch? I've seen many colorful, fun, unique designs on that sized emblem. Seems like that would be the easiest way to have the best of both worlds - morale-boosting custom patches, and still being in official uniform.
  7. OGE - There's not much more going on. No one ever said there's a problem teaching using explanation, demonstration, guiding and enabling. No sense trying to find a way to teach without using those things. I'm not going to just keep saying the same thing over and over. Could I ask you to re-read what my last post in this thread? I tried to explain rather nicely the difference between the components of a teaching method, and the method as a whole. This desire to say "Well if EDGE is bad, show me how to teach without explaining, demonstrating, guiding or enabling" is a red herring.
  8. Right or wrong, BSA youth protection training states that we don't "use good judgment" to decide if we should report to the SE or not - we should report it and let the judgment fall with the SE and others. Just out of curiosity... why?! The SE and others are human, just like your unit leaders. But, unlike your unit leaders, the SE will have no first hand knowledge of the situation. Wouldn't it make more sense to allow those who are familiar with the situation handle it - especially seeing that it seems to be a relatively minor violation? Remember, this isn't the legal system we're
  9. It sounds like there's a huge number of failures and breakdowns in this situation, so like you said, you need to decide what's important and what's now. In my opinion, some of the potential issues aren't really relevant, and might as well be ignored for the purpose of your response to this situation. The way points for the camporee were awarded really isn't your problem. Maybe it was unfair, but that decision was theoretically made by the district-level volunteers organizing the event, so let them deal with it. The fact that some of the scouts have developmental issues isn't really rel
  10. Calico - Having never formally reported a YP violation to the council, I don't know for sure how the process would work on that end. Do you think that if, hypothetically, the SE were notified of this situation, and given only the same objective information that has been posted here so far, would he/she remove that SM? I'm asking because I honestly don't know. I would imagine that the SE might opt to just keep an eye on the situation, or have a private chat with the SM to re-inforce the policy. But are you saying that the official policy would be to just remove the SM?
  11. ruintherain - Discussions on this forum often remind me of one of those carnival rides where you're seated in a pirate ship that swings back and forth. (One of these things http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_ship_(ride) ) At first, the pirate ship gently rocks back and forth, not swinging too far from the center. But by the end of the ride, it swings rapidly back and forth between the two extremes. That's a similar dynamic to how this forum often works - the first few responses to a question aren't too far off from a moderate baseline. But, as people start arguing and defending those rel
  12. packsaddle - Me too. Unfortunately my cooking abilities are accurately portrayed in that analogy, so I guess its off to the grocery store before work :-)
  13. As I'm reading through the multiple simultaneous threads on this topic, I have to wonder if people either don't understand or disagree with the premise that the components that make up a training method are not the same as the training method as a whole. I have never read anyone criticise the processes of explanation, demonstration, guiding or enabling. The criticism seems to be towards the EDGE method as a whole - and there is more to EDGE than just explanation, demonstration, guiding and enabling. To use a cooking analogy, let's say that we're entering a cooking contest at summer camp
  14. No reason that you can't do both. The NYLT program (and JLTC before that) seems to take the approach of conducting leadership training in a setting that the Scouts should be familiar and proficient in - namely the patrol setting in the outdoors. The setup has the potential to give you the best of both worlds - Scouts get the practice leadership skills by working with their patrol to refine their Scout skills.
  15. Basementdweller - I turn my charter into a volunteer at roundtable, Who then turns it into a professional for processing I do my own advancement on scoutnet Which gets stored in a computer system maintained at the council level and higher I do my own recruiting including flyers and yard signs Fair enough, but I presume your council makes similar resources available for you if you want them? Economy of scale suggests that its cheaper for everyone for the council to produce certain materials en masse, rather than each unit develop its own. Especially when theres incentives
  16. 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 met
  17. SR - That really doesn't make much sense. Do you believe that if a finished product turns out poorly, then every ingredient that went into that product must also be poor? That's not the point that I've seen anyone make when criticizing EDGE, and I would strongly disagree with anyone who would argue such a position. In fact, I've said a couple times that one of the reasons I find EDGE to be a little hokey is that any trainer will at some point use some combination of explanation, guiding, demonstrating and enabling in the context of an effective training model. The problem is not with the i
  18. Beaver - The method itself has been categorized by some as "poppycock." That doesn't mean that the method doesn't contain anything of value, it means that the method taken as a whole isn't very good despite the valuable components it contains. I would think this would be obvious. Say that I have a computer that's very unstable and keeps crashing. Clearly I'm not going to buy the same kind of computer again, but I'm still going to buy something that contains a hard drive, memory, processor, etc. Or are you just going for hyperbole instead of conversation and discussion?
  19. I'm eager to see what those with more of a background in training and education have to contribute here. But could I ask why you want to leave out explaining, demonstrating, guiding and enabling? I wasn't aware of any reason why a successful training model couldn't contain those pieces, I thought the controversy was more over whether those pieces on those own constituted a training model...
  20. If I'm understanding you correctly, you have an adult that wishes to register as an Assistant Scoutmaster with a Boy Scout troop, and as a Tiger Den Leader with a Cub Scout pack? Provided he is qualified for these two position, I'm not aware of any reason that would prevent him from registering in this way. (I'm registered as an associate advisor in two different Venturing crews, no problem). As far as I know, the fact that your pack and troop share the same CO isn't relevant, as the regulations apply at the unit level, not the CO level. So, as long as his application is accepted by the co
  21. JMHawkins - Another way of looking at it might be that a good training model will account for different learning styles, and have the trainer adjust his delivery techniques based on the audience's needs. This is actually something that EDGE tries to do, by tying the different components of EDGE to different phases in team development.
  22. Beaver - That's a bit of a non sequitur. BP's goal was to create an outdoor program, so he made an outdoor program. It doesn't make sense to ask why he didn't prove that having an outdoor program is the best way to have an outdoor program. We're clearly not talking about the same things, so I'll leave it at this: A huge amount of research has gone into developing and testing training and education methods, and there are various methods which can be shown to be particularly effective, and worth teaching, and maybe even worth requiring in the BSA's program. The BSA apparently has sk
  23. Have you asked the CO if they would cover the cost from their budget? I would imagine the church you're chartered to has other volunteers that work with children (CCD teachers, youth ministers, etc) - are they expected to pay for these background checks out of pocket as well? I would hope that since the church is the one requiring you to do this, they would pony up the cost. I would arrange for a meeting between the your CC, COR and IH to raise your concerns about where these funds will be coming from, and explain that you don't feel that its appropriate to ask your volunteers to cover this
  24. Sherminator - Actually I think we're pretty much in agreement. My problem is that there are no clear reasons for requiring that EDGE be used. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that EDGE works at all. Now, I'd have no problem requiring the use of a training method supported by evidence showing its effectiveness, and maybe that's where we differ? Sure, its not a health and safety issue like the buddy system is, but I wouldn't have any problem with requiring knowledge of a worthwhile training model, much like we requiring knowledge of a worthwhile outdoor model (LNT). Beaver
  25. FScouter - I agree with you 100%. But the question is whether or not EDGE is a good method. That can't be determined without evidence comparing its effectiveness to the "old seat-of-the-pants-figure-it-out-on-the-fly method." Would you let your doctor write you a prescription for a medication that's effectiveness can best be summed up as "in theory it might be better than nothing at all"? It seems like that type of reasoning is all that has been used to support EDGE. I'd really be interested to learn how the BSA found/developed EDGE, because I think that if they released that in
×
×
  • Create New...