Crosswalking the Aims, Methods, and the Youth Program...

[John-in-KC]

All the talk of FCFY/FCE got me to thinking...

 

In the Army, I took Instructor Training. Learned how to present content to students. I also took Systems Approach to Training ... which was how to develop information into content.

 

In the civilian learning models world, Systems Approach to Training I believe is called Instructional Systems Development.

 

You determine an outcome you want a person to have, and you work through a process to determine what needs training, how its trained, where its trained, and what proficiency standard it needs to be trained to.

 

So, I look at what we in Scouting do, and I'm seeing some major league disconnects:

 

WE SAY... The Outdoor Method is a major tool and the principal program delivery vehicle of Scouting. It supports all our AIMS.

 

At S-T-2C-1C, we have ropes and knots at S-6, T-4a, 4b, 2C-NOTHING, and 1C-7a, 7b, 7c and 8a. Thereafter, we drop the subject for S-L-E. Pioneering is not on the Eagle Required List, and Camping MB has no requirements for knots or lashings.

 

Let's take another example:

At T-2C-1C, we have food and cooking at T-3, 2C at 2e, 2f, and 2g, and 1C at 4a, 4b, 4c, 4d, and 4e. Thereafter, a module of Camping MB (requirement 8) requires cooking, but we dropped Cooking MB from the Eagle Required List.

 

Now we have those wonderful new requirements for anti-bullying that National implemented on Jan 1. BTW, National has yet to update the BSA REquirements #33215 webpages on their site to include these. Hello, National... keep your content current! Has anyone looked at Family Life and Personal Fitness Merit Badges to integrate the new requirements further up the life cycle of the young man?

 

Down in the unit trenches, we have a lot of volunteers who are charged with using the program materials National provides. Those leaders, and the Scouts they serve, deserve the very best support possible. This should include Standards, even as models. Right now, the standard is "Do the requirement, no more, no less." That leaves a lot of discretion, which may be the desired goal. After all, a 12 year old talking about the Constitution for Citizenship in the Nation will have a different knowledge base than a 17 year old who put CIN off to very late in the day.

 

It seems to me the folks in Irving, who get some very big dollars from National fees, profits from Supply Corporation, and the National FOS campaign should produce world-class support materials which which clearly demonstrate how A relates to B from the time a young man is a Tiger to when he (Venturing he/she) ages out at 18 or 21.

 

From what I see, it's not necessarily there.

[Bob White]

Consider this John,

 

There are very successful unit programs and there are very unsuccessful unit programs. ALL have the same resources, the sme opportunities the same support netwoork, the same advancement requirements, the same age and stages of development in youth served, the Same Aims , Methods, and Mission.

 

So what is the variable that determines the difference in the quality and results of the Scouting program.

 

In other words. I give two builders the same plans the same materials, and the same tools, one builds a great house, one builds a poor house.

 

What is the variable that caused the difference?

 

It is the skills and abilities of the people responsible for building the house.

 

The BSA program gives every unit the same tools and materials, the kind of unit that gets buit will depend on the skills and abilities of the unit leaders.

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[John-in-KC]

BW,

 

Units can and will have varying degrees of effectiveness with the existing program. Quality of leader training, willingness to use, quality of support from the District and Council all influence the final product.

 

Final effectiveness in the unit, though, is not why I posted, nor why I asked my questions.

 

My point is, systemically, the program appears to have gaps or cutoffs in the development of tasks.

 

My issue is how do volunteers work through the system work to be agents of systemic change?

- If ropework is important enough to be mandated at S-T-2-1, why does it become optional for S-L-E? Why isn't it important enough to be mandatory?

- If anti-bullying was important enough to be force-fitted to the 2008 requirements (with no grace periods this time) at S-T-2-1, why didn't the National Advancement Committee go the rest of the way and push this stuff into FL or PM MB's?

- How do volunteers and Professionals in the field give feedback which results in change up the line? After all, feedback is a gift, as is active listening (in this case, reading).

 

[FScouter]

"How do volunteers and Professionals in the field give feedback which results in change up the line?"

 

Boy, PL, SPL, PLC, SM, troop committee, CO, district committee, DE, council committee, national committee. Each level passes on feedback to those than can effect change.

[Beavah]

Here's some other ones to add to John-in-KC's observations

 

Fitness (X, TF, X, X, Pers. Fitness) - big gaps, no repetition at 2C and 1C

Service (X, X, 2C, X, S-L-E) - gaps at TF and 1C.

Oath and Law (S, TF, X, X, X, X, X) - never brought back except in the guise of Scout Spirit.

Plan a Project (X, X, X, X, X, X, E) - no prior project-planning advancement until a lad gets hit with it at Eagle.

Position of Responsibility (X, X, X, X, S, L, E) - no prior patrol-level POR before hittin' a troop-level POR.

 

All da places with X's are places where a troop needs to be alert to keepin' that skill alive through other methods, or supplement somehow.

 

Da best example of a good progression is

First Aid (X, TF, 2C, 1C, FA MB, Camping MB, Lifesaving MB, Hiking MB, Cycling MB, Swimming MB) - that pretty much guarantees a progression of First Aid development and reinforcement throughout a lad's advancement program.

 

Beavah

 

[John-in-KC]

Thanks B. I will say that in the fitness loop, swimming at 2C and 1C starts to cover the gap, and the "master a sport" MBs (Swimming/Cycling/Hiking) help develop a fitness skill on the trail.

 

We have the "age appropriate" matrix in the G2SS. Does it seem really that difficult that the Professionals serving the Boy Scout Division and the National Advancement Committee can't publish a task crosswalk? I'm a graphic learner, I can absorb a process when it's charted out.

 

B, I do like your thoughts on learning to develop a project and learning about leadership before taking it on. Now, I will grant there is a smidgen of project development in Personal Management. Maybe the National Advancement Committee needs to place it in the queue certainly as a pre-requisite to beginning the ELSP, and optimally before earning Life.

[local1400]

I hear you John. To go along with what you're saying, you need to "show that you know first aid for the illnesses or injuries..." in 24 different MB's including Golf and Surveying, but no longer need First Aid MB for FC. When I look at todays requirements compared to my skill award days, you just need bits and pieces of knowledge on some subjects and you are halfway to Eagle.

[Bob White]

Keep in mind that Tenderfoot to First Class skills are not meant as the be all and end all of skill development. They represent basic skills.

 

You and the scout have nearly 7 mores years to build upon them in the troop program alone. If a scout earns First Class rank and never has an opportunity to learn more about first aid or practice the skill until he is 17 and working on his first merit badge....shame on the troop leader responsible for that unit's program.

 

The gaps you identify are supposed to be filled by something called the unit program.

[local1400]

"shame on the troop leader responsible for that unit's program." Sometimes teenage boys can't think of everything. It's their program, they're responsible.

[Bob White]

The Scouts are involved, they are leaders in training, the Scoutmaster is responsible. Check out the Scoutmasters job description. The very first line reads "the Scoutmaster is responsible for the program and image of the troop."

 

If the skills learned from Tenderfoot through First Class are not being practiced, applied and built-on as an intregal part of the troop program then the Scoutmaster is responsible for the gap, not the BSA, not the advancement program, not the Scout, not the PLC.

 

 

[evmori]

Did the home builders learn their trade from the same master builder? I doubt it. The same can be said of Scoutmasters throughout the country. Yep we all have the same resources available but we don't all learn from the same teacher. The great variable is training. Done by local volunteers who learned for other local volunteers.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Bob White]

Absolutely right! As Other posters and I have said the quality of the trainer is as important as the quality of the leader that attends. Trainers need to follow the BSA syllabus and know and understand the resources that support the BSA program.

 

But as Beavah pointed out there is the Boy Scout Handbook the Scoutmaster Handbook and other resources availeble to every Scoutleader. It is not difficult to read the few handbooks and know whether you trainer is following the program.

 

Attending training is not the end of learning.

[BadenP]

Bob

Just because someone follows a syllabus DOES NOT make them or the training they are giving to be of a high quality. You don't give a instructional book to a college student on neurosurgery and then tell them to go teach it to others. Good, sound and solid knowledge as well as experience is crucial to the success of any training or program, unfortunately most of the scouting leader trainings, as well as many of the sylabi are poorly written and pathetically delivered. A book is a guide it does not make a person a quality leader or a skilled leader, all bookwork and no hands on practicum is the main weakness in most scout leader training classes. All you have to do is ask the people in this forum.

[Eamonn]

John-in-KC,

Having just tried to follow the thread that this one was is related too.

I'm still a little lost.

I have read what you have posted and it kinda seems to me that maybe? You are trying to make the Scout fit the program and not the program fit the Scout.

Just as in most cases an older Lad will be bigger, stronger and more coordinated than a younger Lad. There will be a better understanding of the aims with older Scouts.

Every now and then when the mood hits me, I like to read what we promise boys who want to become Scouts. You know that page near the front of the Boy Scout Handbook.

I'm at times a little taken back at how much we promise!!

As I see it the road to First Class is our way of keeping this promise. We give the Scout the skills needed to take on bigger and more challenging adventures. Which of course is the "Stuff" we find in our vision and mission statements.

(I'm still working on what Bobwhite has said -Knowing my luck by the time I have worked it out the thread will be long gone!!)

Ea.

 

 

[Bob White]

Bob

Just because someone follows a syllabus DOES NOT make them or the training they are giving to be of a high quality.

 

It sure makes the odds of having the right information taught a whole lot better than by NOT following the syllabus!

 

I think most participants' first expectation is to get accurate information. An engaging presenter is a welcome bonus.