KC9DDI

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 purpose. Developing the organizational and communication skills to present the idea to the appropriate parties, get feedback and make adjustments are all good skills that will serve you well beyond Scouting. Same as building the communication, time management and scheduling skills to work with the benefitting agency.

I think that a good project will absolutely build leadership skills - in terms of recruiting the appropriately skilled people to assist with the project, coordinating between multiple involved parties, measuring progress and success, and overcoming obstacles and changed plans.

So, in general, I certainly don't have any problem with the Eagle project. I'm sure that there's some units/districts/councils/Scouts/Scouters that make the process more/less complicated than it should be, and alter the value and benefits that results, but I don't see any problem overall...

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 level?

EDGE may work to teach a simple knot once. But its surprising to be asked to devote so many resources, at a nation-wide level, to a training method whose effectiveness cannot be substantiated.

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, guide, enable or demonstrate as individual discrete concepts. No one has said that an effective training method cannot contain these four individual components. There's no purpose to try to argue that these four components are good or bad, because it seems like we all agree that there's nothing wrong with them, individually.

The point that I'm trying to get across is simple: that an ineffective training model may happen to share some common components with an effective training model. Just like a poorly made cake may share some common ingredients with a delicious cake. I think that before this discussion can go anywhere further we need to iron out this issue - would this be something that you agree with, or not?(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

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?

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't expect that the SE would be much help in identifying patterns of questionable behavior. I would think that the unit leaders and parents that interact with the adult in question regularly through Scouting and through other community settings would be more likely to notice these type of issues.

I guess I'm wondering what your goals are in this case? I would say that protecting the safety of our Scouts, protecting good leaders from potential unfounded accusations and liability, and training leaders on appropraite policies would be the priorities, roughly in that order. I personally don't see how involving the SE in this particular case could contribute to any of those goals, so why bother?

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.

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. Not even the harshest critics of EDGE have claimed that there's anything wrong with the four components that make up the EDGE acronym. The alleged problem is with the way the method as a whole has been put together.

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 talking about, this is a private organization's internal policies. And by kicking this minor issue up to the SE, you're relinquishing control to an individual whose motivations may not really match that of your unit's leadership. If we were talking about a situation where an adult actually did something illegal, obviously we would notify the authorities and let them deal with it. In a case like that, I would think that notifying the SE is mainly so the council can do some media control.

In the specific situation runintherain is talking about here, I really can't see any benefit to involving the SE, unless there is concern that someone actually did or intended to do harm to a child.

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 relevant. Presumably they have gone camping before and the troop should be familiar on working with their unique needs. I think even the disrespectful behavior isn't really the core issue here.

If I were an SM in this situation, I'd be most interested in how the youth and adult leaders that were present addressed these problems as they arose. It sounds like the leadership was considered by some to be sub-par - a scout hiding in camp, failure to communicate the whereabouts of the youth to their parents, and presumably lack of constructive discipline to address the behavioral issues suggest a breakdown of leadership by both the adult and youth leaders.

It sounds like a discussion is necessary between you and your ASMs, and you and your PLC, about leadership expectations on events where you are not present. I think that ideally the PLs and SPL should have stepped in to address the inappropriate and disrespectful behavior. The ASMs present should have backed them up, and maybe addressed the flag ceremony issue as well. Clearly the adult leadership needed to communicate with the Scouts' parents about their plans to stay and help with cleanup.

I'm not sure if I'm reading too much into your choice of words, but I noticed that you refered to the ASM an camporee staff as "Their ASM" - as in, the ASM assigned to the "troublemaker" patrol. I don't think its bad practice for a troop to have unofficial assignments of ASMs to each patrol, but it sounds like maybe everyone needs a refresher on the troop's chain of command - patrol members report to their PL, who reports to the SPL, who reports to the SM or his/her designee. While an ASM may unofficially be assigned to support a given patrol, that ASM needs to understand that the patrol is lead by the PL, SPL and SM, and that he or she should not try to insert him- or herself into the chain of command. I may be reading into this too much, but maybe that contributed to the communication issue regarding Scouts returning from the event - the ASM decided to keep "her" patrol around to help her, even though that shouldn't have been her decision to make. Maybe some of these ideas need re-enforcement, and maybe you should reevaluate which adults are assigned to assist which patrols.

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?

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 relatively moderate positions, exageration and hyperbole take hold, and the discussion evolves into an argument between two (or more) extreme positions, that don't always relate real well to the original question. I guess that's just something you need to get used to here.

I think I understand what you're saying, and I think its a pretty good way to handle the situation. I also don't think that you'd be wrong to gently mention something to the SM. Strictly following the YPT requirements can be a bit of a challenge sometimes, and I could see where it might be easy to overlook something at the end of a long weekend with much activity and little sleep. Maybe the unit just needs a little reminder to get itself back on track as far as YPT goes.

And clearly if you notice a pattern of YPT violations, it would be appropriate to follow up more formally with the SM, CC and council level people. But, it sounds like this was an isolated incident, and not necessarily indicative of a larger problem.

packsaddle - Me too. Unfortunately my cooking abilities are accurately portrayed in that analogy, so I guess its off to the grocery store before work :-)

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. Say that you take some flour, milk, sugar and eggs, along with some other ingredients, and make a fantastic pound cake. I take some flour, milk, sugar and eggs, along with some other ingredients, and try to make a coffee cake. But, I don't use the correct quantity of each ingredient, and I mix in ingredients in the wrong order, and I bake it in the wrong size pan, and I burn it a little bit. Naturally, you're delicious pound cake is going to win the cooking contest, and my attempt at coffee cake will lose. Even though my coffee cake still has some nutritional value, probably won't kill you if you eat it, and you may even find a handful of people that are willing to eat a slice of it. Now say I go to the judges and say that your pound cake and my coffee cake are essentially the same thing - they both contain flour, milk, sugar and eggs! - if my coffee cake is so bad, how can his pound cake be so good?

That's exactly how this conversation on educational methods seems to be going. There's nothing inherently wrong with the discrete concepts of explanation, demonstration, guiding and enabling. The concern is how the BSA took these four concepts, along with some other concepts that didn't make it into the acronym, tied them all together and presented them as a finished product. So why is everyone so focused on picking out an effective example of education, and identifying where explanation, demonstration, guiding and enabling were used? Of course those methods will be used at some point - but that doesn't mean the educator was using EDGE as a method - it means he was using some training method which happened to share some components with EDGE. Like in the cooking example - the pound cake contained flour, milk, sugar and eggs. The coffee cake contained flour, milk, sugar and eggs. Would anybody try to say that they're the same thing?

I guess I'm wondering if people disagree with this? Or if I'm misunderstanding the point that OGE was trying to make in his last post?

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.

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 for both the council and individual units to conduct recruitment.

I have never seen the SE, ever.

I run into our DE once in a while at council events and occasionally at roundtable.

Where would you like to see them, and what would you like them to do for you?

I think that when we as unit level Scouter immerse ourselves in the nuts and bolts of the Scouting program - outdoors, advancement, leadership development, etc - we somehow expect that the professionals exist to fill these same roles. This is not the case, and in fact, the duties of many Scouting professionals are fairly generic, and not really related to the Scouting program - accounting, bookkeeping, PR, supply chain, IT, legal, miscellaneous paperwork, and yes, fundraising. Expecting a professional to get heavily involved in program production (even at a council level), or to offer your unit personal guideance on whether a Scout met the "Scout Spirit" requirement for rank advancement, or to head out to every district and council camping function and spend the night in a tent, would be like expecting a member of the IT staff at the local elementary school district to head into a 4th grade classroom and teach a math lession. Sure, both the IT guy and the 4th grade teacher work for the school district, but their roles are vastly different. And just because the IT guy doesn't directly engage in teaching children, doesn't mean he shouldn't be paid a salary to do his job. Likewise with the professionals - just because they're job isn't a mirror image of what volunteers do doesn't mean that they don't need financial support.

As far as council events being self-sufficient, I think that's true to some extent. The NYLT course in my council, for example, charges a registration fee which is intended to roughly equal the expenses needed to support that Scout for the week. But, when our program program needs to buy or replace very expensive items - large rain flys, staff tents, cooking equipment, etc - the council covers that. Also consider all the behind-the-scenes stuff that volunteers typically don't have to handle or organize - building and health inspections at council properties, salaries for property rangers, equipment for the rangers (tractors, vehicles, fuel, tools), building maintenance, preparing insurance plans, dealing with the media, dealing with lawsuits and legal matters, etc.

Sure, some councils may not manage money very honestly or effectively. We've all seen our councils neglect areas that we think deserve financial attention, while putting money into areas that seem less essential. And clearly the fundraising tactics employed by certain individuals and councils can come across as offensive. I'm not saying these aren't problems that we shouldn't be angry about, but that's certainly not the whole story. Also, in my experience, its also been fairly easy to find out at least generally where the council is putting money, and even some explanation for why certain financial decisions were made (eg, "We decided to give the council office a face lift because that could be done for a few thousand dollars, while fixing the 40 year old pool at camp would have cost tens of thousands of dollars to repair and bring up to today's building and safety codes.")

Just pointing out that Scouting is not an "a la carte" organization, and that part of being a unit affiliated with a council and the BSA as a national organization involves being able to support that council and national organization financially.(This message has been edited by 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.

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 ingredients or components, but with the finished product as a whole.

I really enjoy reading everyone's take on these issues, and hearing differing view points, and defending my position when its challenge, and adjusting my position based on others' convincing arguments. I think that this kind of discussion is beneficial for everyone involved. I'm not sure that setting up a straw man argument is quite so helpful though.

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?

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...

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 council and by both units, I wouldn't see a regulatory problem. You may want to have a chat with the adult to ensure that he is OK with the time demands of holding two positions, though.

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.

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 skipped over all of this research, as its not clear from where EDGE came, and whether or not its any good. Hence the opposition to requiring something that can't be shown to be worth investing any time in.

Claiming that people naturally use certain elements from the EDGE method when teaching is evidence that the BSA's method is worth teaching and requiring. Likewise, saying "try it, and it maybe it won't not work," is also not evidence that it is a method worth teaching and requiring. Same as saying that EDGE is probably better than having no standard method. Even the fact that you may be able to successfully use the EDGE method sometimes is not strong evidence that it should be standardized on program-wide.

You may not see the need to have strong academic research in place before using a given education method, and that's fine. But, such research does exist on these topics, and the BSA as a national organization has access to this research and to experts in this field. Thus, it is suprising to me that the BSA is choosing to standardize all of its program materials on a training model that hasn't been shown to be worthwhile, rather than taking advantage of the opportunity to work with existing research and experts to standardize on a model that has been shown to be particularly effective. While it may not be a big deal for you as one Scouter, consider all of the effort and resources that will be put into EDGE throughout the BSA's nation wide program: program handbooks, training manuals, Woodbadge, NYLT, train-the-trainer type courses, and now every Scout working on a rank requirement. When you look at it from that perspective, it seems silly to put all of that effort into something that might just possibly work, in theory, maybe.

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 cost out of their own pocket, and that you're concerned about being able to cover it through the troop's budget.

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 - Regarding CPR specifically, the new compressions-only approach was not developed to dumb down anything. It was developed because research revealed ample evidence that compressions-only CPR is substantially more effective than pausing CPR for rescue breathing. It has nothing to do with rescue breathing being too difficult - it just turned out to be more effective to focus on doing quality chest compressions. And I think "consistency" refers more to keeping the BSA's program material in sync with what experts in the wider world have found to be the most effective ways to do something.

It comes back to evidence. The CPR recommendations were changed because new evidence strongly suggested there was a better way to do it. EDGE, on the other hand, does not seem to be supported by evidence. Saying that you once learned something where the instruction consisted of some combination of explaination, demonstration, guiding and enabling something does not mean that it used the "EDGE method," and is not evidence that EDGE is effective. It means that the method they used happened to involve explaining, demonstrating, guiding and enabling. I think it also means that EDGE is so poorly defined and conveyed that you can point to any education session, effective or not, and claim that it uses the "EDGE method."

I don't think there's any argument that these four techniques aren't legitimate tools for instruction, I think the argument it makes any sense to take the four tools, turn them into an acronym, tell people its a new "method" and then force scouts to use it.

(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)(This message has been edited by KC9DDI)

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 information it would help clear up a lot of the controversy surrounding the method. Does anyone with friends in high places (aka Texas) have any way of getting some more information right from the horses mouth?