sherminator505

Jumping on the next slogan or fad simply so that some National employee can justify his position, at the expense of forgetting our purpose for being here in the first place, could very well kill the BSA.

Namecalling?! Kudu is using things that the CSE has actually said to underscore things that have already come to pass or are currently in process. If Kudu called anyone a name, I missed it...

Why is it that whenever some folks hear something they don't agree with, they shake their fists and point their fingers and cry "namecalling!" or "ad-hominem attack!" in a vain attempt to stifle any serious consideration of what is actually being said? Have we really become so insecure in our own beliefs that this has become an acceptable fallback position?

Personally, I'd like to see more balance in how our program is described and prescribed from National, from the Mission Statement on down...(This message has been edited by 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)

"I'm asking if you really, honestly believe it to be "snake oil" used to deceive an innocent person and rob them of the opportunity to learn a skill?"

I honestly believe that by specifying ONE method to teach a skill, you rob them of an opportunity to exercise some independent thought!

*in his best Yoda voice (which is actually quite good)*

Welcome to the campfire you are. But I am wondering - why are you here?

@KC9DDI-

I think we're talking about apples and oranges here. When we insist upon certain methods for performing first aid or CPR, building fires, using the buddy system or using the LNT ethic, we do so because there are well-defined reasons for employing those methods. Particularly in the areas of health and safety, it is important to ensure that methods are consistent and uniform.

What I have yet to see is a well-defined reason for using EDGE as the one and only method for teaching in Scouting. Evaluating effectiveness in teaching a Scout skill is not hard. One needs only to show that the learner has acquired the skill.

In my work, we have specifications that govern how a contractor builds public works. These specifications have evolved in recent years from prescriptive specifications (where the contractor is told exactly how to do the work) to performance-based specifications (where the contractor is told what measurable results are expected). Note that there are still some prescribed methods as well as prohibited methods, but those only exist where there is a well-defined reason for a more rigid specification.

Actually, sink or swim is not the most horrible method, and it is actually applicable in certain situations.

Welcome to the campfire.

It's a good thing you posted now, given the time table you provided (although I also wonder about the rush...).

One thing your son needs to be aware of is that some of the required MBs require a 90-day record of some sort. If he hasn't earned those yet, and he wants to finish by summer's end, those should start now.

Also, what's the status on his Eagle project?

Skeptic, the point of this thread is to expolre why EDGE has been declared the be-all, end-all of all teaching methods, and is prescribed in the Boy Scout requirements. Re-read the original post.

I have nothing against EDGE. Personally, I find it to be a useful technique that can be used to teach any number of skills. That said, I have a big problem with how specific the requirements are with regard to EDGE.

Suppose you were perusing a new set of Boy Scout requirements and you came across the following:

"Start a cooking fire utilizing no more that 4 oz. (100g) of tinder, 1lb. (450g) of kindling and two matches. Diamond brand strike-anywhere matches must be used to satisfy this requirement."

Would you find this requirement to be overly specific? If so, then you get the point of this thread.

We are often told that we may not add or subtract from the requirements. When you tell your Scouts "Do whatever, just be prepared for the question later," you are putting yourself in the position of doing just that. I'm not saying that is wrong in the grand scheme of things, but what is served by setting up that conflict in the first place?

I am not against EDGE philosophically. I just have one question:

What is the value of dictating it as THE method of instruction in our Boy Scout requirements?

"Does it really mean they must do it exactly as described? From my perspective, NO."

Now there's the problem. We are often told that we may not add or subtract from the requirements. As the current requirements are written, the Scouts are required to use EDGE. So what National has done is take away any opportunity the Scout might have had in deciding on the appropriate method to teach a Scout skill and exercising *gasp* critical thinking. That's MY problem with EDGE.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

OGE-

I'm not sure what you're looking for here. Some good methods of teaching have already been presented in this thread. I'm sure 8-10 more pages of equally good methods will follow in the coming days, because there are a nigh infinite array of ways to teach a skill.

What I am questioning is the premise of your thread. When you begin the question with "If EDGE is good/bad/poor...", you are assuming that EDGE, in and of itself, is the problem. I would argue that the mindset that created EDGE in particular and shaped its deployment as we have seen it, is the problem.

I don't think EDGE is bad/wrong/poor. I think the BSA'a emphasis on EDGE as the "only" way to teach a skill worthy enough to be embodied in its training and Boy Scout advancement requirements IS very bad/wrong/poor!

Ok. Burn bans I get. We're living with one now. Sometimes I get the feeling we're under a perpetual fire ban. You can have a great campfire program without a fire. I've seen them done with a fake fire (if you're lucky enough to be camped next to a "current bush") or by lantern light. Just do what you'd normally do and have fun with it.

Now, can somebody explain this "pouring rain" to me? I don't think I've ever seen that...(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

"This makes the Boy Scouts more likely to integrate, being the more tolerant program."

*shaking out the cobwebs, getting back up after falling out of my chair*

Now I KNOW this is an April Fools' thread!

Beav, you aren't a heathen, you're a heretic. A very realistic heretic.

I had to re-read this post to figure out exactly what was being said here. As the rules stand now, if there are 6 candidates on the ballot, there isn't a reason why all 6 couldn't be elected if they are worthy.

I agree with eaglescout1996 that you have a much greater problem here, and you hit on it. Your troop is fractured. More specifically, you have a clique that acted in decidedly un-Scoutlike fashion in determining the outcome of the election. The election procedure itself is not at fault here.

Now the problem is, what to do about it. The advice that I would give here depends greatly upon your role in all of this. From your post it is unclear if you are a Scouter, a Scout or a parent, and what your relationship is with the Scouts who were not elected is. This information would greatly assist us in advising you.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

I believe the Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy; however, I do not believe the the Order of the Arrow was involved in any way.

For my own part, I am not insensitive to what this boy went through. This incident should have been dealt with much better. That said, I wonder what kind of responses the OP was expecting when she came in with guns blazing and attacking Scouting. It seems to me that the OP came in, dropped a bomb, and was unprepared for the fallout.

"What I find most troubling in my council is how oblivious people are and how much they cannot believe that the Boy Scouts could do corrupt things."

I can see where you are coming from, and I'm sorry to hear that these things happen in your council, but in defense of those "oblivious" folks, isn't that the reputation that those of us in Scouting who try to do right would like to have?

Echoing BadenP - Scouting functioned quite well for many years without NSPs.

"Of course the scout leaders would like us to come back to "get to the bottom of it" but I can't let my son have to sit and listen to any more "male role models" make ridiculous excuses for the aggressive behavior of their friend's son. I mean the kid is sorry, I mean he has a great dad, nice guy!"

Well, it sounds to me as if this mother has already decided that this cannot be resolved, and has already made up her mind about "male role models." She also ascribes anti-woman biases to most of the troops in her town, save the one she let her son join.

Based on these preconceived notions, I'm not sure if she would accept any Scouting program as legitimate, as she seems to have made that determination before this incident ever happened. I also have questions about her attitude toward men in general, given her remarks about testosterone and so forth.

As such, I feel that I have already spent too much time on this thread. Toodles!(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

.

.

.