DuctTape

edit: no comment

VHS? What about the slide show trainings? I was too young for those, but remember my father setting them up.

As with all things in Scouting, we as adults can do the research, shopping, etc... much more efficiently than the scouts. I always try to see how anything we as adults do can be a learning and growth opportunity for scouts. If an adult is a "tent expert", great! How do we utilize tgat expertise to help the scouts become more skillful and knowledgeable moving forward. Ultimate goal being the scouts become the future experts. If a scout cannot "do" yet, the adults should not just do it for them by themselves, but instead involve at least some scouts in every stage of the process. Even if the first step is the scouts "watch & listen". For example if I am calling a campground to inquire for camping availability, I do it with the SPL and ASPL there to hear the conversation. As they progress, they make the call with me listening. If I am internet shopping around for new tents, scouts will be doing it with me. Everything we do is an opportunity for scouts. They may not be ready to do it all by themselves, but they never will get there unless we show them and let them try.

or it could be done in reverse order. The QM in consult with the PLC determines what gear is needed, puts together a proposal to the SM who brings it to the Committee to approve the funds.

Your speculation is what I have witnessed. While some of the youth instructors might be well versed in the content, this still denies the scout an opportunity utilizing the adult association method. Even more so when the mbc abdicates his responsibility for testing.

That is only one wall in the (finished) basement. There are two more walls, plus the parlor which has all the scotch bowls, and other non-hangeable items. In the kitchen I keep just one skillet, and one griddle. I don't take the CI camping, I use stamped steel.

Almost all of my CI has come from estate sales. I have 4 different Eries, none are of collectible condition. Those are found at auction. Or once-in-a-lifetime in the wild. Erie's on bottom row.

Those old Eries are awesome. The rough bottom comes from pitting the iron by cooking over coal. Collector pieces are pristine. I wish I had some that were that nice.

The newer pans are not sanded because it is added labor and increases the cost. The older cast iron was very refined, not crude. One can how carefully, and perfect the sand molds were packed by looking at the casting details. The inside was sanded out, but it was all highly skilled labor. The best iron often has the maker's mark cast into it. This was how they knew who was better. Poorly packed molds would yield crappy iron, and were then melted down again. In todays world, this is all machine cast and thus quality is assured at the basic level but no more.

I love my cast iron. I have close to 100 skillets, griddles, bowls, ovens. All are older, some from the 1800s. Although for camping, I use a stamped steel skillet when I need to fry. Usually I just plan a menu which does not require a fry pan at all. The boys still like to make eggs, pancakes, and french toast. They have issues with food sticking regardless of the pan. That come with practice. If a boy can learn to get his eggs to cook without sticking to an aluminum fry pan, he can handle any material.

One thing to remember is that determining quality is most often subjective, hence descriptors not numbers. Quantity is easy to determine objectively, as it is a number already. Subjective measures are not bad, in fact they are usually found where quality is the highest. Michelin stars for chefs are solely from subjective analysis for example. Thus we should not shy away from subjectivity, but embrace it.

Exactly! Which is what I was attempting to describe as a better alternative system than what currently exists.

The JTE is not at all what I am envisioning as it is simply a checklist. There is no quality continuum. There is a vast difference between a troop that has 20 camping nights a year all planned and executed by the adults where the scouts basically show up unload stuff from the trailer and maybe cook their own food. vs a troop whose patrols plan independent camping trips on their own (in accordance with ypt) where each patrol member is responsible for some aspect such as patrol qm getting/returning gear from the troop qm.

Agreed. It should not be used as a ranking system, but one for self-evaluation. UCs could help with the self-eval and then provide training and support to help the unit improve. However, if a unit is functioning at a lvl 1 in almost all areas and refuses to improve then the council should not renew their charter as the CO is not providing the proper oversight, leadership, and is in default of the chartering agreement.

Good point. A place to start would be to define the core areas of the program, and describe what quality looks like at differing levels of competence. This is a different approach than "requirements" which are check-boxes. For example, if we define Uses the Patrol Method as a core area then the levels could be: LVL1. Patrols are created by adults. Patrols are mixed up at events based on attendance. Patrols make no decisions for themselves and rely primarily on adults. LVL2. Patrols are created by scouts with parameters decided by adults. Patrols sometimes stick together but usually not. Patrol decisions are primarily about menus and kp, and make little/no decisions about activities and rely on adults for most other things. LVL3. Patrols are created by scouts with guidance from adults. Patrols usually stick together at events. Some Patrol decisions are guided by the PL and made by the patrol. Most aspects of patrol activities are within the troop structure. LVL4. Patrols are created by scouts with guidance from senior scouts. Patrols always operate independently from each other. Patrols make all decisions guided by the PL. Patrol activities are independent of troop, however multiple patrols may choose to coordinate via the PLC. This example is just a rough idea to illustrate the concept. Many aspects are not included, and other core areas are obviously missing too. The idea is to first create a description of what a "perfect program" would look like, then break it down into different core concepts which are then "leveled" to assess a unit at each core concept. There should never be an expectation that a unit is "perfect" ie LVL4 in all core areas. There should be an expectation that they are not at LVL1. The purpose of levels instead of check-box reqs, is the levels provide specific descriptors to which strive.