Adding vs. Interpretation

[Hunt]

Let me suggest we try stepping back from particulars and think about this question of what is "adding" to requirements and what is "interpreting" requirements. I think the problem here is that whenever an organization gives discretion to members (or employees) to interpret rules, there will be outliers from what most people would consider a reasonable interpretation. When that happens enough, the organization may have to refine the rule.

 

How can I judge whether my interpretation of the rule is a reasonable one, or is an outlier? Well, clearly if my intepretation is contrary to the words of the rule, or to clear explanations of the rule in the organization's literature, my view is an outlier. In addition, if after discussions and investigation, I find that a significant majority of others in the organization hold a contrary interpretation, that's pretty good evidence that my view is an outlier. Although because it's a matter of opinion, it may not be "wrong," exactly, but it's inconsistent with what other people are doing, and that should give me pause.

 

This problem occurs so often with BSA because of the large number of rules we have, and with BSA's decision to leave many of them with room for interpretation. Then, a forum like this probably selects for people who like to debate the minutia, and we're off.

[SemperParatus]

The most terrible fight is not when there is one opinion against another, the most terrible is when two men say the same thing -- and fight about the interpretation, and this interpretation involves a difference of quality. ~ Soren Kierkegaard

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

There will always be discord, even when there are specific rules spelled out in the G2SS, units will say, well this is a "family trip" or we will go as "just friends". Other times it may be a difference of just what is, is.

 

It would help if BSA was more specific on a lot of topics, but even if they were, we would still have plenty to tell each other how wrong the other was.

[Beavah]

Examples are probably easiest, eh? This is from an old Scouts-L posting. When a boy gets signed off for the 2nd Class first aid requirement for serious burns in your unit, what has he done? Be honest.

 

1) He watches as the counselor demonstrates first aid for burns, then gets signed off with the group.

 

2) He watches as the counselor demonstrates first aid for burns, then later that day or the next he is quizzed on what the steps are for burn first aid and answers correctly.

 

3) He listens to the counselor tell about how to do first aid for burns, and plays victim while one of his buddies bandages his "burn." He gets signed off that day with his buddy.

 

4) The counselor says "I have a second degree burn on my lower arm right here. Here's all the stuff you need. I'll talk you through it." Boy is signed off when done.

 

5) The counselor demonstrates first aid for burns. He then turns to the boy and says "Now you do it." Boy proceeds with occasional hints from counselor, then is signed off.

 

6) The counselor demonstrates first aid for burns and has kids practice. The next day he says "I have a 2nd degree burn on my arm, here's all the things you need." He doesn't give hints or suggestions. Any kid who gets something resembling a loose bandage on gets signed off.

 

7) Same as 6, except the counselor expects cooling first, then a "good" bandage. He takes boys one at a time, with the other boys watching. Only some boys get signed off, others (particularly the ones who went first) are given hints and more practice and told to try again tomorrow.

 

8) Counselor teaches burn assessment as well as treatment. Kids practice multiple times on burns in different locations, with different materials. The next week they review, then counselor takes first boy around the corner where other boys can't watch, and says "Ow, I have a burn on my leg." Boy has to cool the burn, ask questions to decide the degree of burn, find a first aid kit, select the proper materials, and successfully treat and bandage.

 

9) Counselor teaches assessment. Kids practice multiple times, using scenarios. On the next campout, counselor moulages his lower leg and stages dumping boiling water on his leg when only one boy is around. He screams and lies in pain, giving no help whatsoever. Boy has to assess scene for safety and secure it (ex. turn off the stove), cool the burn, assess the burn for severity, find a first aid kit, select the right materials, bandage well. At the end he is asked about proper follow-up care. Small mistakes or delays are accepted, but any major error means no sign off.

 

10) Same as #9, but scout also has to treat for shock and decide on and execute an evacuation plan.

 

 

#1, #2, and #3 are technically not OK, because individual testing wasn't done and the boy didn't "demonstrate" the requirement.

 

#4-#9 are all technically "legal" , though they are very different in how they view expectations and "learning". You could say they range from "light" advancement to "heavy" advancement.

 

#10 might be adding to the requirements; shock is a

different 2nd class requirement, and getting to outside help is a 1st Aid MB requirement. But is expecting a 2nd class scout to know how to call for help really that awful? Of course, if the plan involves transporting the victim, that's a 1st class requirement.

 

 

 

[Hunt]

Beavah, I like your example, because I think it demonstrates my point--the majority of people (I hope) would be somewhere between 4 and 7. 8 would be considered a pretty tough grader, and 9 would be an outlier. If you are in 9, you may not be "wrong" in your interpretation, but I think most people would think that your approach is inconsistent with what the majority of Scouters would consider appropriate for a Second Class requirement. Personally, I don't have a problem with somebody a bit to one side of the peak of the bell curve, but I think a person insisting on an extremely tough version of advancement requirements is unfairly burdening the boys who are looking to him for honest leadership, and is almost as problematic the leader who cheats the boys by letting them skate through without really doing the requirements.

[LongHaul]

The majority of the people on this planet at one time believed the sun and stars revolved around the earth. The majority of the people on this planet at one time believed that the earth was flat. As my mother used to say to me "If everybody jumped off a bridge would you jump too?" What the majority does only indicates what the majority does not what is correct or incorrect. Adding is when the rule says one thing and we wish to change what the rule says. Interpretation is when the rule uses terms which must be interpreted; "may", "at least" , "with the approval of", "serve actively", "show leadership". BSA has put checks into it's program, troop committee,CC, COR,CO, advancement committees unit,district,regional,national to oversee the interpretations because National knows "one size does not fit all".

LongHaul(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

[acco40]

May I suggest the method they use (used to use?) to teach nurses to give shots:

 

11) Pair off the boys (buddy system). Have one Scout burn the other Scout and then administer first aid. After completion, reverse roles.

 

Seriously, I don't think the actual method (#4 - #9) is crucial. What I think is crucial is consistency. I hate to have Johnny signed off by doing #4 and two months later require Jimmy to complete #9 to get signed off. In our troop, I'm lucky to have a EMT as an SA. All of our First Aid stuff (all ranks) I funnel through him. Primarily because he is consistent and secondarily because he knows his stuff.

 

 

[Beavah]

Seriously, I don't think the actual method (#4 - #9) is crucial. What I think is crucial is consistency.

 

Yah, I agree acco. The person I stole this list from I think was advocating that only #8 or #9 was any good, though. Very different from Hunt, eh? So units can have different expectations.

 

That's fine until a boy transfers to a different troop, or leaders change too quickly. Then there can be some friction. Some friction, too, when Eagles meet from different style programs, perhaps.

 

I don't mind the difference myself, as long as the units are reachin' kids in some way. But there are some here who believe that it's important for there to be consistency like you suggest across all troops; that individual CO's and SM's can't set their expectations "light" or "heavy" according to their own aims or best judgment.

 

I don't think that's an argument worth havin' most of da time. At best, a friendly commish should gently prod the #1-3's to tighten up a bit, and prod the #10's to lighten up a bit. Both in a friendly way that doesn't annoy people who are generous volunteers.

 

[acco40]

Good advice Beavah. People seem to forget that our goal as Scouters is not to teach first aid or knots but to build character, foster citizenship and develop fitness.

[Lisabob]

Acco writes:

 

"Good advice Beavah. People seem to forget that our goal as Scouters is not to teach first aid or knots but to build character, foster citizenship and develop fitness."

 

 

I agree that the specific skills are simply a vehicle through which we are teaching less tangible aspects of development. On the other hand, if we are going to tell a boy that he has adequately learned and demonstrated some skill (first aid being a good example) then we have a responsibility also to make sure that he actually does know how to use that skill. Otherwise we are misleading the boy into thinking he knows something that he does not. That can be dangerous, as well as undermining the boy. We do no service to anyone by signing off on tangible skills that the boy really has not learned.

 

So to that extent, yes, we are in the business of actually teaching first aid, or knots, or whatever; it is just that our actual end goal encompasses BOTH the specific skill and the larger issue of growth and development.

 

Lisa'bob

[Hunt]

"The majority of the people on this planet at one time believed the sun and stars revolved around the earth."

 

Whether the sun revolves around the earth or not is ultimately not a matter of opinion. Whether an adult scout leader is interpreting the advancement requirements too harshly or too leniently is a matter of opinion, and the prevailing opinion of the majority of leaders should be persuasive, if not dispositive.

 

"At best, a friendly commish should gently prod the #1-3's to tighten up a bit, and prod the #10's to lighten up a bit. Both in a friendly way that doesn't annoy people who are generous volunteers."

 

I agree with this.

[Beavah]

Whether an adult scout leader is interpreting the advancement requirements too harshly or too leniently is a matter of opinion, and the prevailing opinion of the majority of leaders should be persuasive, if not dispositive.

 

I'm goin' to disagree "lightly" Hunt.

 

I think it's important to remember in da BSA system that the CO's goals are the ones that are most important. So the question of whether the adult (or youth) leaders signing off on requirements are being too harsh or too lenient depends primarily on how well their use of the method is achieving the CO's aims and purposes.

 

In such a case, the majority view of scouters across other CO's with different aims is clearly not dispositive, or even relevant.

 

For example, there's a CO in our area tied to a home schooling cooperative. They clearly have a much higher interest in using the advancement method to teach academic skills to a defined level of mastery, as part of their home schooling curriculum. I don't know them that well, but my impression is that they're on the "heavy" side of da list above. Another CO might be more interested in just "exposing" kids to new subjects, because their kids are already heavily involved in school and sports and other extracurriculars. They'd be on the "light" side.

 

Both are meetin' their CO's goals and the BSA's.

 

Another case where it's not worth the argument.

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Being a good citizen, having character and being fit is knowing your stuff and being able to apply it when it is needed. FB

[SaintCad]

What about the opposite extreme of not meeting the minimum standards (i.e. subtracting from the requirements). I've seen this in Cub Scouts in requirements for Bobcat, inspection, etc. so that the Cubbie can get his patch easily. For example, in this first aid scenerio it would be equivalent to:

1) Watch den leader put on a band-aid.

2) Open a band-aid and kind of put it over a cut. (Band-aid allowed to fall off).

 

 

 

[Hunt]

"I think it's important to remember in da BSA system that the CO's goals are the ones that are most important. So the question of whether the adult (or youth) leaders signing off on requirements are being too harsh or too lenient depends primarily on how well their use of the method is achieving the CO's aims and purposes."

 

I guess I don't disagree with this, although even the CO can't add to the requirements. I can imagine, for instance, that if the CO was the local rescue squad, it might want scouts to show real mastery of first aid requirements. But I have to say that I suspect the vast majority of harsh interpretations come from individual scouters, not from a policy of the CO--and there I continue to think that the opinions of others should be persuasive.