Honor and Awards (pencil-whipped badges rant)

[OldGreyEagle]

Why thank you GW, and npw we can all hold hands and sing:

 

Kum-ba-yah...

 

 

[shortridge]

I worked with a first-year-camper program at a resident summer camp for several years, and found that many of the units were relying on the camp staff to teach their new Scouts the basics.

 

Aside from some very, very elementary skills - square knots, pitching a tent - we were starting from scratch, on everthing from campfires to folding flags. We also had to teach the patrol method, something quite a few Scouts had no experience with whatsoever, having recently crossed from Webelos. That really irked me.

 

However, we never signed off on any rank requirements ourselves. We were simply the instructors, and it was crystal-clear to everyone that it was up to the units to check the skills and sign off. Whether they did or not was out of our control.

 

To Eamonn's point about training: Because there were only 3-4 staffers working with the program, and 40-50+ Scouts involved, we asked each unit to send an adult leader to help - usually the ASM for the New Scout Patrol. Many were great, but we ended up having to teach some adults the basic skills, too - generally because the NSP ASMs had very recently crossed over themselves from their jobs as Webelos den leaders. IMHO, every adult leader who goes outdoors with Scouts ought to have a basic level of outdoor skills training.

[Beavah]

Yah, shortridge's observations ring true to me.

 

Could it simply be that the awarding of "bogus" awards is simply attributable to da adults lack of outdoor skills? (Or, in the case of MBs, to their lack of expertise in the subject matter of the badge)?

 

That would also explain why so many folks cling to the letter of the wordin', because they don't have enough skill or experience to interpret the meaning.

 

Beavah

 

[BrotherhoodWWW]

Here is what I've seen in my local area. Scouters that moved up to Boy Scouts with their boys from Cub Scouts without any idea of the changes in the program. These folks seem to think that the Advancement method is THE method of Scouting. They look for results in rank advancement rather than the knowledge or retention of skills needed to advance. They rarely ever attend training and when they do they only seem to listen to the parts that agree with their way of doing things. They look at summer camp and the advancement awards that might be earned rather than the experience gained by the youth. They are involved in Scouting for the purpose of what their boy will get out of it rather than all the boys in the Troop.

 

Here is what I am doing to change this: I am pointing out requirements that I feel are not being handled correctly and offering program corrections to ensure that they are adhered to in the future. I am encouraging other adults to take more training at every opportunity. I am planning to have an adult weekend outing where myself and another trained leader teach the other adults the needed skills that their youth should learn while advancing to First Class. I am taking more training when the opportunity is offered. I do what I can knowing that I am the only person that I am in control over. Others have to make their own choices on wheather they will follow. Over time those that will not follow will be left behind. Embrace Change!

[FireKat]

Brotherhood is on the right track IMHO. No one seems to tell the incoming scouts and their parents (especially) that the way of advancement has changed from a parent teaching/signing off to an independent advancement.

Many incoming scout parents think that they still can sign the boys books as they did in cubs. They also think that they can teach MBs without being signed up as a councilor since they taught them WeBeLoS skills before. Try to tell them the difference and you get since they have always done it that way so why must they change. Oh, dont mention training as they will tell you that they have done training (they do not see the difference between cub and scout training). It seems to come down to educating the parents before they transition from cubs to scouts.

I once watched a parent at a MB U follow his son and do all the work for his son. Too many kids in the group for the MBC to notice. I could see the boy was frustrated as he saw all the other boys doing the stuff themselves no parent hovering and doing it for them. Sad thing is the parent was a troop leader.

I think that the cubs need to do more to prepare the parents for the style change in scouts.

 

[Bob White]

It really funny how quickly some folks lapse into blaming others instead before first looking at themselves. Why would anyone expect parents to understand the program before they join unless someone in the program first take the time to explian it to them? That's the Scoutmasters job.

 

Who's at fault if a "trained" leader does not have the skills it takes to be a First Class Scout? Don't lay all the blame on the trainers, the Scout Leader should have his own handbook, if he or she doesn't do some reading and practicing on their own then it's their own fault. (Sorry I forgot that so many folks on this forum don't like to read Scout handbooks)

 

If you believe that a merit badge councselor doesn't actually know the topic then you have a responsibility to report that to the council advancement committee. However, if the problem is simply that you disagree then let's remember that the MB counselor is usually a professional or expert in their topic, there is always the possibility that they really do know more than you do.

 

Beavah, if there is a relationship between knowing the program, policies and procedures causes one to not know the skills of Scouting, you certainly have not shown it in your post. It's far more likely that someone who cannot follow or remember some simple rules will likely have trouble following or remembering some simple skill instructions.

 

[Gold Winger]

"Who's at fault if a "trained" leader does not have the skills it takes to be a First Class Scout?"

 

Hold the phone . . . didn't you just say that if the student doesn't learn, it is the teacher's fault?

 

[NeilLup]

"

Hold the phone . . . didn't you just say that if the student doesn't learn, it is the teacher's fault? "

 

I didn't read that at all. What I read was that if the learner has not learned, the teacher has not taught. Not a "fault" situation which implies that there is some kind of blame attached to it.

 

It is, or should be, rather simple. When the teacher has finished the teaching, the learner is given a test of the material. This can be simple or complex, theoretical or practical. To me, the ideal is simple and practical.

 

But the purpose is to verify that the learner has learned the material. If not, then the teacher says "Hmmm. I haven't gotten the material across. Perhaps I need to repeat the instruction. Perhaps I need to do another method of instruction or simplify the material I am presenting. Perhaps I need to verify that this learner cares about learning this material at this time and either do more to build their interest, come back another time or forget about trying to teach this material to this particular learner."

 

In this context, signing of Boy Scout advancement requirements becomes extremely simple. When the instructor verifies that the material has been learned, the requirement is signed. Until then, the requirement is not signed. It is a process with responsibility on both the instructor and the student.

 

Bob White has it exactly right as far as First Class in a year. This is not a burden on the Scout like the 4 minute mile or the 10 second hundred yard dash. Rather, it is a standard for the Troop. If the Troop is sufficiently active, then a Scout will, as part of their normal Troop activities, learn enough skills and carry out enough activities in about a year to become a First Class Scout. The Troop's responsibility also is to watch and track the Scout as he progresses and give him advancement credit for the things that he is doing in the normal course of activities. If that isn't happening, the first place to look is at the Troop program.

 

I would say that part of problem rests with Council and District Advancement committees. Very commonly, the only thing that these Advancement Committees care about is Eagle Scout Boards of Review. Yet isn't their responsibility also ensuring that all rank and other advancement, in both Cub Scouting and Boy Scouting is up to standard. This is and should be a collaborative effort. If the advancement committee concludes that appropriate standards for TF-2nd Cl- 1st Cl are not being met, possibly because of information given by Commissioners, they might work with the Training Committee to train leaders and even Scouts in the material. This might require the participation of the Camping Committee to provide the experts and instructors to do the instruction and might be reinforced by a Camporee or other activity by the Activities Committee to actually put the information into practice. It might involve getting some experts from some of the units to do some of the instruction and demonstrations and to work with Scouts from outside their units

 

My heavens! The several committees of the District plus the Commissioner plus units working together to improve Scouting and build skills at the unit level!! What a concept!!!

 

But no, it's so much simpler and more fun to sit on our duffs and grump about how Scouting is going to the dogs and setting a rigid percentage standard so we can turn kids down for Eagle if they don't participate in 63.814% of unit activities in a particular year.

 

It certainly is the case that there is a weaker level of knowledge about outdoor skills than there used to be. But that doesn't have to be. There are still expert Scouters out there who are happy to share their knowledge. There is instruction at REI, AMC, Sierra Club and other such places. There is prolific skills information on the net.

 

I believe that the first step is for leaders to care and then roll up their sleeves and learn things themselves and then pass on the knowledge.

[evmori]

When I read if the learner has not learned, the teacher has not taught my understanding is the teacher has not done their job. The responsibility for learning falls only on the teacher & not the learner.

 

Testing is only one method to see if a learner has learned. Application of what was taught is another method.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[NeilLup]

"Testing is only one method to see if a learner has learned. Application of what was taught is another method. "

 

True. Which is why the term "evaluation" from the previous generation of instruction was probably more appropriate than testing.

 

But regardless of what it is called or how effected, the idea is that the instructor verifies in some way that the learner has acquired the knowledge and (presumably) can put it to appropriate use.

[skeptic]

Let's look at this from the perspective of what our society in general does in education. "No Child Left Behind" has proven to be a wonderful idea, but not very practical in the way it is being pushed. Important cultural subjects are being put in the "if we can find time" category, while teachers are basically teaching to the test rather than developing independent knowledge. Passing the test is all that is important; it makes no difference if you forget it afterwards.

 

Scout skills need to be practiced, or they will not be remembered very well, especially pioneering, compass, and even first aid. So teaching the skill and having it replicated satisfactorily is only the first step. There needs to be a way to "keep the skill", by regular all inclusive troop practice and using it in the field if possible. We no longer can do many things in camping that we did even in the 60's due to forest and conservation restrictions. There also is far less need to actually "use" many of these skills. For example, most modern tents, even if they have guy lines, have wood or metal toggles to take tension. Every summer, I have to show kids and adults how to use the taut-line to take up the slack in wall tents, since the toggles are broken or missing. Few of them have really understood the "utility" of the knot.

 

When I was a newbie scout in 1955 I thought I would never make tenderfoot. We had to know seven knots, and in our troop, you tied them all correctly in succession twice. Miss even one, and you came back the next week. Then, even if you did it one week, you had to do it again the next or start over. That was the way it was. In camp, we actually needed to make gadgets because there were no pre-made ones.

 

So, where does that leave us? Find ways I guess to replicate the skills and make them useful? No easy answers, but no matter what, we really need to make sure the scout at least does it completely and correctly more than once, even initially.

 

JMHO

[Beavah]

It certainly is the case that there is a weaker level of knowledge about outdoor skills than there used to be.... There is instruction at REI, AMC, Sierra Club and other such places. There is prolific skills information on the net.

 

Yah, there's da rub, eh?

 

BSA Scoutin' pretty much relies on the adult leaders comin' in with a fair bit of personal knowledge of outdoor skills. In terms of outdoor skills instruction, all we really offer is IOLS in a weekend and a brief online Hazardous Weather Avoidance thing. Yah, sure, and there's efforts afoot to try to offer LNT Trainer.

 

If someone really is comin' in with fairly light personal outdoor experience, we really have to steer 'em to outside resources like REI, AMC, etc. Except those aren't readily available to most of our members. First Aid trainin' is similar, eh? With fewer and fewer young folks gettin' outdoors, it's a fair bet that if we have a problem with adults havin' outdoors experience, it's only goin' to get worse.

 

I can't see "readin' the manual" being a viable alternative for most folks. The BSA Fieldbook is our best outdoors manual, and it's pretty good. While it describes a kayak Eskimo roll pretty well, I don't think any of us would claim that's enough to learn an Eskimo roll. For someone who is a novice at buildin' fire, a book about buildin' fire is similarly not enough.

 

So what do those folks do, eh? After the 20 minutes or so assigned to axe use at IOLS, they go back to their units and duplicate that experience for kids, eh? They give a lecture about safety. They set up a bunch of rules about handin' an axe to people and setting up an axe yard, and then they give the lad a couple of swings and sign him off. They read about "treating for shock" in the handbook and then they quick-sign off a lad for doin' the same thing. But if yeh ask either of 'em what shock is, or what its symptoms are, they can't tell yeh.

 

That might be a reason for some of the "bogus" signoffs, eh? If so, I reckon the only way to fix it is with a lot more time and development spent on skills trainin' and coachin' for adults. Or screenin', I suppose, but I've yet to see a district actually verify expertise in any way even for MBC's. Mostly it's "I've been a scouter, so I can counsel Camping MB" or whatnot.

 

FCFY and camps and such have probably exacerbated that problem by puttin' a time limit on things, and not givin' folks a sense that they should take as much time as necessary to learn. Remember, it's the unintended consequences of a policy or program as much as its intended enactment that determine whether it's worthwhile or not, eh? Like skeptic says, NCLB was a well-meaning policy initiative, but its unintended consequences have been really harmful in some important ways. Same happens with BSA program sometimes, eh?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[BrotherhoodWWW]

Bob White wrote: "It really funny how quickly some folks lapse into blaming others instead before first looking at themselves. Why would anyone expect parents to understand the program before they join unless someone in the program first take the time to explian it to them? That's the Scoutmasters job."

 

What? Where in BSA literature does it say this is the Job of the SM? http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/trainingmodules/orientation%20for%20new%20boy%20scout%20parents.aspx The module for teaching New Parent Orientation places this responsibility on several adults in the troop. It mentions that the SM should be a part of this but not the sole presenter. Who is playing the blame game BW? I see most in this topic describing what they have seen in their local district/ council. Lots of speculation on the root causes. I even went so far as to detail how I am going to attempt to change the views of the adults involved with my son's Troop. I think that is really where this fight must be fought. Those of us with the skills and the ability to teach them need to find ways to do that. Afixing blame for others lack of skills is pointless. Understanding the factors contributing to the lack of skills, granted you even named on yourself, is of great importance to solving the problem. Adults do need to read the manuals. Adults do need to have the desire to learn and take the time to learn, yet ignorance is bliss and if folks do not know they will likely not care.

[Kudu]

GAHillBilly writes:

 

"Bogus ranks and bogus MBs are a festering pus-filled ulcer on Scouting's integrity and trustworthiness."

 

The ultimate expression of this festering pus-filled ulcer is the expression:

 

"Once an Eagle Scout, Always an Eagle Scout!"

 

This attitude that Scouting is all about "values" NOT Outdoor Skills is the exact opposite of Baden-Powell's system of "current proficiency" in which the holder of ANY Award (including Scouting's highest Awards) must re-qualify on a regular basis for ALL of his badges or forfeit his right to wear them.

 

Sure we can whine about lower standards and rail against political correctness. But the real problems are:

 

1) Bad Scouting Theory (the "Aims & Methods," and the new de facto aims, "ethical choices" and "leadership");

 

2) No Free Market; and

 

3) All-Pervasive Belief that Scouting is School.

 

This Toxic Trio of Scouting is neatly summed-up by the BSA's fake Baden-Powell quote: "Scouting is a Game with a Purpose!"

 

1) Bad Scouting Theory

 

You can find Bad Scout Theory in ANY interview of Chief Scout Executive Robert Mazzuca.

 

In a USA Today article he dismisses the importance of outdoor skills as "rubbing two sticks together:"

 

"Scouting builds people who are equipped to make ethical and good choices. Our goal is not to teach someone to rub two sticks together and make a fire. But when you rub two sticks together and make a fire side by side with an adult of good character, you're going to learn about who you are and go on to lead men."

 

Likewise in a Forbes article he says

 

"We're not a recreational organization. Our goal is not to teach kids how to build fires and pitch tents. That's the laboratory in which we do the things that we do, which have to do with character and leadership."

 

So clearly Bad Scout Theory asserts that it is not important that Life and Eagle Scouts know how to tie a square knot or two half-hitches. Once those skills are "signed off," its all about their "character and leadership." Period.

 

Bad Scout Theory further asserts that not only are Outdoor Skills unimportant, but expendable. When asked about the future of Scouting, Robert Mazzuca replies:

 

You can teach a kid about character and leadership using aerospace and computers. The secret is to get them side by side with adults of character.

 

This image of the adult replacing the Patrol can also be found in Scoutmaster specific training where an example of "the Patrol Method" is an adult telling Scouts to put a campfire out with water. At no time does the Patrol Method session EVER mention a Scout Patrol or a Patrol Leader.

 

When not teaching such Bad Scouting Theory, it is not uncommon to see Wood Badge experts passionately arguing against using the Patrol Method at summer camp because "the food tastes better" when adults do the cooking, and using Baden-Powell quotes to insist that Scouting bait its hooks to catch "modern indoor boys" who would rather be sitting in front of a computer screen side by side with adults of character.

 

Values-based Scouting (sitting side by side with adults of character), is the opposite of Traditional Scouting in which character is the product of significant adult-free encounters with the raw forces of nature.

 

2. Government Regulation of the Scouting Industry The reason that the BSA can get away with this is their abuse of the Congressional Charter: "The purposes of the corporation are to promote through organization and cooperation with other agencies the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916." The BSA interprets this to mean that the Congress protects their brand against competition in the marketplace by rival international associations that offer real outdoor Scouting as set forth by Baden-Powell.

 

Can you imagine if the Chief "Soccer" Executive insisted that the goal of his soccer monopoly is not to teach someone how to run and kick the ball down the field, but to sit indoors learning aerospace and computers side by side with an adult of character? Soccer fans would boot his Wood Badge lackeys out the door.

 

3. Scouting as School

 

Wood Badge experts often refer to learning Scoutcraft Skills in school terms, "When the teacher has finished the teaching, the learner is given a test of the material. This can be simple or complex, theoretical or practical."

 

This attitude dates back to the destruction of Wood Badge by the progressive leadership theories of Bla H. Bnthy, and is summed up neatly on page 155 of the 1972 Scoutmaster Handbook:

 

"In general, Patrol Leader training should concentrate on leadership skills rather than on Scoutcraft Skills. The Patrol will not rise and fall on the Patrol Leader's ability to cook, follow a map, or do first aid, but it very definitely depends on his leadership skill."

 

The final triumph of this aggressive anti-outdoor skills movement came in 2000 when Wood Badge dumbed "leadership" down to the Cub Scout level by neatly containing Outdoor Skills in ILOS, so that dainty Den Leaders and indoor Boy Scout decision-makers need not be exposed to the meat and potatoes of Scouting.

 

The alternative to Scouting as School is:

 

Scouting as Adventure.

 

In Baden-Powell's model of Scouting the purpose of learning outdoor skills is not to have them checked off a list in the Scouts' books, but use them in adults-not-allowed backwoods adventures of increasing difficulty. This starts with Second Class Eight Mile Hike, where a pair of Tenderfoot Scouts pit their own knowledge of map, compass, and other outdoor skills against a scary "Journey" without anybody's mommy, daddy or older brother.

 

Beavah mentions the BSA "First Class Journey" which was a 14 mile Expedition without adults.

 

This continual real-world testing and re-certification continues on through all ranks above First Class, ending with an Eagle-level expedition on foot or by water of at least 50 miles in wild country, or an expedition on Horseback of at least 120 miles in wild country, camping at 3 different camp sites.

 

Likewise the BSA's "Bfor Bla Bnthy" definition of a "Real Patrol" is one in which the Patrol Method is a real adventure in which a Patrol Leader (the most qualified older Scout, not a six-month temp) leads his Patrol on no-adults-allowed adventures and teaches Scoutcraft as practical no-adults skills.

 

A modest form of the Patrol Method as Adventure could be accomplished by allowing your strongest Patrols to camp Baden-Powell's suggested 300 feet apart on monthly campouts.

 

Kudu

[shortridge]

Forgive my ignorance in advance, but I'm genuinely curious.

 

In what stages or courses of BSA adult leader training today are leaders taught "how to teach"? And does this consist of hands-on instructional practice, or just standing up in front of a class with a flip chart and Sharpie?