FCFY Calendar

[BadenP 93]

[****]

[****] National does not consider the scouting skills printed in prior scout manuals to be obsolete, as long as the leaders use the current advancement requirements they can use information from past manuals, this is from my years in professional scouting, [****] There are actually more complete information on certain skills in some past books than in the current one, one is knot tying for example. Scoutmasters are allowed to use any approved BSA books in teaching their scouts, [****] the basic framework of many of the merit badge books were written in the 1950s.

 

Now I am not advocating not using current manuals, [****] what I am saying is there are many gems to be had from the past that fascinate my scouts, that does not make them obsolete but added skill sets that can be extremely useful. [****] Much of what made scouting strong and popular in the past has been slowly bled away over the years, now with rapidly diminishing numbers maybe it is time for National to take another hard look at the current program and make some alterations. [****] following a syllabus or manual verbatim does not make someone a great leader or a program a good one. Current BSA training has become mostly all lecture with a little fieldwork thrown in as an aside. [****] so many new leaders have a difficult time in delivering a solid outdoor experience, boy scout and venturing training should be 70% practical and 30% lecture based, not the way it is today.

 

When BP took those first boys out to Brownsea he did not sit them down and lecture to them for the week, he let them experience the outdoors and taught them the skills to live comfortably in the woods. That is what made the movement exciting and popular with the youth and the same is true today, unfortunately the program in trying to modernize has lost most of this excitement. [****]

 

Moderator note - demeaning and derogatory personal comments about a fellow forum member have been deleted in the places marked [****]

FScouter (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[evmori 11]

I would agree BadenP. The older versions on the Boy Scout handbook, while not as well organized, contained much more needed information than the current edition.

 

Man, If I used that much nasty language, my mom woulda washed my mouth out with soap! Also, didn't know using someone's name in a post was derogatory & demeaning.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White 20]

I agree with some of BadenP's post. I have not said that are not skills from the past that can be taught today, in fact many skills from the past are still found in today's handbooks. As are nearly every Scouting Method devised by B-P

 

AS far as the 70% hands on 30% Lecture that is mentioned. If that is not done in the troop, then that is the responsibility of the Scoutmaster. Certainly the BSA training follows that for developing Boy Scout leaders.

 

Of the 45 hours of basic training available to Scoutmasters and their assistants, easily 75% of it consists of hands on activities.

Any other posters who have followed the syllabi in delivering the training can attest to that.

 

So while I agree with BadenP that it should be heavily hands on, I do not see where it is the BSA program that is preventing a unit from following that model. If a unit's program is not mostly hands-on then they need to re-evaluate their leadership skills and understanding of the Scouting program.

 

Following a syllabus makes for a better trainer, in the same way as having a plan makes for a leader. It would be difficult to prove that good leaders do not have good plans. What good troop does not have a program plan, a troop meeting agenda, a campout schedule, a writen program for courts of honor, a budget?

 

All are plans that teach and support leadership. First Class Emphasis is no different than a teachers lesson plan. Are Scout leaders not teachers with the outdoors as a classroom? Why would we reject the notion of having a lesson plan.

 

AS far as what BP did at Brownsea you could probably not repeat the same program BP did at Brownsea and keep very many kids in scouting today. Aside from Kudu and perhaps a few others of us, has anyone looked at B-Ps agenda for Brownsea Island? I bet not. This is why knowing the past and trying to recreate the past are two different things.

 

His Brownsea Agenda is adaptable to today's youth and many units follow a similar agenda, I know I did as a scout and a scoutmaster. Of course we skipped the daily rub downs and tea time. You might also be surpise to learn that three days of Brownsea were largely lecture/discussion and that even days of hands on learning included instruction by BP using lecture or demonstration.

 

Things today are not what they used to be...but then again they never were.

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Beavah 205]

Following a syllabus makes for a better trainer, in the same way as having a plan makes for a leader. It would be difficult to prove that good leaders do not have good plans. What good troop does not have a program plan, a troop meeting agenda, a campout schedule, a writen program for courts of honor, a budget?

 

Yah, this is true, eh?

 

But it hides a subtle difference that I personally believe is vital. Leaders who have good plans made those plans themselves. A troop program plan is something the troop youth leaders put together themselves. A troop meeting agenda, same thing. Da campout schedule, the court of honor program, the budget - all of those things work because they are put together by the people runnin' those events. They're personal, and personalized.

 

Pickin' up someone else's syllabus and teachin' from it is a very different thing, eh? That's the equivalent of the SM handing the SPL a meeting agenda and saying "you must follow this". That wouldn't be how we would do Scouting, eh?

 

All are plans that teach and support leadership. First Class Emphasis is no different than a teachers lesson plan. Are Scout leaders not teachers with the outdoors as a classroom? Why would we reject the notion of having a lesson plan.

 

Yah, I think this is the difference of philosophy that was at the core of this whole thread, eh? Is Scouting school? With classes and lesson plans and homework? Or is Scouting a game, with fun and some coaching and a lot of learning-from-play?

 

The Founding Fathers of the movement were all adamant that Scouting was Play - a great game. They rejected, often emphatically, the notion of Scouting as School or Scouting as Business.

 

FCFY comes from the folks who are in the "Scouting as School" camp, eh? There's a certain amount of material to "cover" in a certain specified period of time. Syllabus, learning sets, exercises at school and homework. Same age kids in the same "grade" and classes. It's familiar to kids and to parents. It can certainly be "hands on". But it isn't play. They will learn stuff, eh? Though perhaps not as deeply or as practically as when they play.

 

I'm an old-school, conservative sort, eh? I think da vision of the Founding Fathers was the better one.

 

Beavah

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I decided to change my post, at first I was going to do a line by line disection of Beavah's post, asking how did he arrive at such conclusions and then it hit me, an epiphany as it were. All anyone can post here is their opinion. If someone gives the BSA publication number and page, well then, thats different. But anything else is an opinion whether they state so or not Beavah is welcome to his opinions. I dont have to like or accept them, they are just Beavah's opinions.

 

There I feel so much better(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[BadenP 93]

F-scouter

You know it is bad enough you hack up my post but posting false statements about what you deleted is really going over the line.

 

Why don't you leave it alone and let the others here decide if I was making rude comments, of which I was not by the way. In my opinion your baldface false comments destroy any credibility you have as a moderator. You may not like me, of which I could care less but at least quit being so heavy handed and STOP STATING ABSOLUTE LIES ABOUT MY COMMENTS!!!

 

Scouter Terry, I think you might consider replacing F-Scouter as a moderator and appoint someone a little more impartial in his place.

 

Bob, I was glad to see that you and I have at least some common ground on this issue. Nothing is indeed perfect in any youth program and we are here for the youth first and foremost and what interests them.

[FScouter 24]

Anyone with an interest in the deleted content may PM me.

[Bob White 20]

". Syllabus, learning sets, exercises at school and homework. Same age kids in the same "grade" and classes. It's familiar to kids and to parents. It can certainly be "hands on". But it isn't play. They will learn stuff, eh? Though perhaps not as deeply or as practically as when they play."

 

Absolute puffery, and misinformation. Even in the example you asked me to provide it was filled with games and hands on activity and practice, In fact in the first two months I never even mentioned the word test for any of the Tenderfoot to First Class activities.

 

You say "they'll learn stuff eh?" as if that were a bad thing.

They will learn specific things or you are not leading a Scouting program. Fun is a tool of teaching not an excuse for not teaching.

 

 

[Beavah 205]

Puffery?

 

School teachers conduct hands-on activities all the time. Part of science and music and art syllabuses at least, I should think. Having teacher-chosen and directed activities to "cover" certain material in a specified period of time is... school. As yeh write in the other thread, boys don't lead the program, only the activities. A teacher can choose a student to be a "captain" for a classroom activity, eh? It just doesn't mean much in terms of leadership; more an administrative/classroom management tool I reckon.

 

Kids learn things in school, too, eh? Or at least we hope they do. Memorize things for one-shot tests, at very least.

 

Baden-Powell admonished us not to "trench on the work of schools" in that way, though. Because we don't have the expertise or trainin' to do it well. I'm not a middle school teacher. Neither are you, eh? (especially not when yeh propose 6 learning sets in a single night! ). If I were to take da T-2-1 lesson plans that were done by BA's middle school teacher I'd probably just make a hash of it, though I reckon they're reasonably good lesson plans with some great ideas.

 

Instead of school, B-P proposed scouting as a Game. A kid playing with the world, and with his friends both youth and adult. Not sittin' in on T-2-1 curriculum and the Scoutmaster's Lesson Plan for the day. Goin' out with buddies for a pick-up game of their choice and havin' older boys give 'em a pointer or two, a SM occasionally whisper encouragement or an idea in their ear. Exploring and learning through natural inquisitiveness. Chasin' frogs. Playin' with fire. And most important - absorbing the examples of older brothers.

 

In my opinion it ain't the skills we teach that make it Scoutin'. It's the way kids learn. If it's more like school than a game - something we have control of rather than something they have control of - then it probably isn't Scouting.

 

At least not Scouting at its best.

 

Beavah