Wood Badge -Age Limits ?

[Eamonn 61]

At present there is as far as I know:

No tenure requirement to attend Wood Badge and as long as the training requirements are met, no age requirements -Other than those needed to be an adult leader.(21 for leaders and 18 for Assistant Leaders)

This does mean that 18 year old Assistant leaders can attend Wood Badge.

Of course some 18 year olds might at this young age have a real grasp of the program and have some idea of what their Vision and Mission might be.

Sadly it seems there are some 18 year olds who now see WB as some sort of award that ought to be picked up along the way. -Almost like a "Big Boy Merit Badge".

Our Council is hosting a course this year, which I'm not involved in (for lots of reasons.)

Already I have talked with three 18 year old Lads who want to attend.

These young Lads are very involved in Scouting, mainly the OA and Venturing. Yes they are on a charter somewhere listed as an ASM, but the real truth is that they just don't have the time to devote to being what I might call a "Real" Adult Leader.

I know I might be sticking my neck out a little, but I just don't see an 18 year old as being ready for the course.

I know that participants are supposed to be invited to attend. But as we all know in the real world most CD's are so worried about getting the course off the ground and filled, the only real requirements are having attended the necessary training's and a warm body. Heck as long as the fee is paid I'm not so sure if the warm body is required!!

I really do feel that there is a need to raise the minimum age to 21 years.

I welcome your comments.

Eamonn.

[John-in-KC 311]

E,

 

Had a 20 year old as my patrol mate. He is the only member of our patrol who my TG does not expect to get beaded.

 

To be blunt, many 18 year olds have not had that "ah-HA" moment that someone in 30s-50s has had. They aren't ready to get it done, come what may.

 

Now, that said, there are a few 19 year olds who may well be ready for WB. Most of them are young Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines who've already been to the sandbox and who have had their ah-HA moment.

[eagle-pete 11]

Eamonn

 

One of the concerns I have when a younger adult leader (be that in chronological age or by tenure) heads off to Wood Badge is that they are going to be presented material which is intended for adult leaders who have developed beyond the initial leadership stages. I remember when I was beginning as an adult leader I had a vague idea of how the BSA program was put together. I had no idea how to properly motivate and deal with the dynamics of parents/leaders/youth, except for the small amount of experience in professional and church responsibilities I brought with me, much of which didn't apply anyway. It wasn't until a progressive, step-by-step process which included basic trainings, seeing working examples of other units, advise from other very experienced leaders, my own leadership experiences in Scouting, and time that I was able to see a clear picture of the Scouting Program.

 

Another concern is that of developing the vision of Scouting. As you well know, this concept of a vision of scouting is huge in Wood Badge. And although I do recognize that even an 18 year old can develop their own vision of scouting, it is ultimately based on their personal experiences, which at age 18 is more limited than at age 25 or 30, hence the 20 Questions.

 

Ok, there's the rational for placing a minimum age requirement - Now for the practicality argument... Is requiring a minimal age practical?

 

Well, you have pointed out the problem. You might have an 18 year old who is prepared and ready for the course and on the other hand there are plenty who are not. You also bring out a very important issue... is an 18-20 year-old truly ready for adult leadership? Well, no... that is why they can only be assistants. Aside from the obvious chronological age problem, most 18-20 yr olds are simply not experienced enough to handle leadership, IMHO (perhaps with the exception of military personnel as John pointed out).

 

Now, in the U.S., an 18 yr old is legally an adult. They can sign their name, make their own decisions, and mom and dad can legally boot them out of the house. Age 18 is sort of a magic number. Our society, and the law, for that matter, considers age 18 as the "your on your own" age and we tend to let 18 year-olds decide for themselves what they want. We tend not to impose very many restrictions on them. So it's tough to say to an 18-20 year-old they can't come to Wood Badge.

 

Another problem you have described is filling the course with warm bodies (can I register my dog?). What CD is going to turn away an eligible participant from their course? Especially if the number of registered participants has not yet reached the magic number to hold the course! Absolutely the participants are invited... ALL of them. We may find that even if the minimum age is raised, it may be considered more of a suggested age, and under-ager's will slip in anyway.

 

I agree. The minimum age should be raised to 21. I also think that a minimum tenure should be considered. I don't think 2 years tenure as a registered adult leader is unreasonable, and it should be consecutive and should be completed within 6 months prior to the course start date. How's THAT for some harsh requirements!

 

Eagle Pete(This message has been edited by eagle-pete)

[purcelce 11]

Invited to WB. I thought they did away with that in the very old course. I didn't get a personal invitation. I saw flyer at the council office and signed up.

 

I'll agree with a minimum age and tenure.

21 and 2 years.

 

BTW alomost done with my ticket. All I've got to do is finish up my write ups, send it to my ticket guide.

 

Cary P

C-39-06

and a good 'ole Bobwhite too.

[John-in-KC 311]

Invite?

 

Seems to me these days the invitation is "It'd be really cool if you came to our WoodBadge course."

 

At our RT, I've given over space in the District Committee activity mall to the upcoming WB course of a NEIGHBORING Council.

 

I'm going to take a different tack than setting a floor age. There are 18-20 year old men (and women) who've had their life changing adult maturity moment. I think final acceptance should be a CD/SPL (in our area, the SPL is the heir apparent as CD) call.

[jr56 92]

I don't feel that it is necessary to have an age requirement for a wood badge course. Everybody matures at a different rate, and there are many young men out there under 21 who would get alot out of the course. You are never too young to learn.

I may get flamed, but the more I see, wood badge is becoming more like a "good old boys club", where if you rub the "right" people the right way, you will get invited back to serve on staff, and maybe even be a course director someday. If you don't fit in with the "click" you are politely snubbed and avoided. Sorry, but I don't have time for that kind of nonsense.

[eagle-pete 11]

John.. Wood Badge is two words.

 

And enough of the flip-flopping. We get enough of that from Washington D.C.

 

(Kidding - but not about the two words.. it really is)

 

Eagle Pete

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I don't see any reason to place a limit on attending Wood Badge, we don't have an age requirement on Eagle, I see no need to place a restriction on adults. I have seen many over 50 year olds too immature to understand the concepts of Wood Badge, but they took the course nonetheless. Maybe it will be over some 18-21 year olds heads, then agaon maybe not, if the leader is trained and wants to do it, what reason could we give/ You are not old enough? You need more seasoning? Not something I would want to say or have said to me

[eagle-pete 11]

OldGreyEagle

 

With all due respect, there are already some restrictions in place, just as there are age restrictions for being an adult leader. The question is, would requiring minimum age and tenure be of benefit to the participant. After all, this is a one-time deal. Whenever someone takes Wood Badge, either as a brand new leader, a young adult, or as a seasoned leader, they will not have the opertunity again. It may be to their best interest to go into this Advanced training with at least a little prep.

 

Eagle Pete

[SR540Beaver 116]

jr56,

 

I have to disagree with you to some degree on the "good old boys club". That used to be a problem with the old course and often the participants had to be deemed worthy of being invited to attend. The CD of the 21st Century WB has to jump thru hoops on staffing. Are there return staffers? Sure there is, it only makes sense. But the staff must contain at least 30% new staff. A lot of pressure is put on the CD to be as diverse as possible in the make up of the staff. The more minority members, women and Cub leaders the better. Our support staff who worked the kitchen is made up of almost entirely former CD's. That night give the appearance of a "good old boys club", but they are not the staff doing the presentations to the participants. We use them as a resource for the CD and staff. As a new Troop guide on our last course, I had some questions about one of my patrol member's ticket items. Our CD who by the way was a lady had more than enough to say grace over. Instead, I went to the former CD of MY WB course to get his input and assistance. Appearances can be deceiving. Many measues have been put in place to make WB inclusive rahter than exclusive and to keep bringing new blood into the staff process.

 

While I don't think it is needed, I'd have no problem with a 21 year old age limit. I don't know that I'd go with the 2 year tenure though. Many scouters drop out when their kids Eagle and drop. If a boy takes 4 years to make Eagle and his parent waited a year after the boy joined to register, you might have him just long enough to earn beads. Of course, that is a rather pointed scenario. Our CD had us heavily recruit Cub leaders to get WB principles into units earlier and try to retain WB trained people longer. If there was a tenure limit, I'd make it 1 year.

[Eamonn 61]

I fail to see how or where an age limit can be seen as part of the "Old Boy's" whatever.

 

I think my big problem (And yes I do see it as my problem) is that the young men I have talked too don't seee the course as I do!!

They seem to see it as something you pick up along the way -Some sort of an award.

I see it as a tool to help make you a better leader.

We have Sea Scouts in the Ship who are still considered youth members at 18 -Yet some of these are the very same people who want to attend the course.

Does an 18 year old with only a few months in as a leader really have a true vision?

Or is the vision still all about him or herself?

Ea.

(Boy -Would I like to read their tickets!!)(This message has been edited by Eamonn)

[Lisabob 13]

Looking at things from the cub leader perspective I agree that a 2 year tenure requirement would be problematic. Suppose a parent signs their son up for scouts as a Tiger or Wolf. Most parents do not jump in as registered leaders during that first year; they watch, learn, lend a hand, and perhaps step up to the plate sometime in their second year with the pack. Now Jr. is a Wolf or Bear. The 2 yr. requirement means that they would not be "ready" for WB until the end of their child's Bear or Webelos I year in this very common scenario. Perhaps at the end of the bear year will work (that's when I went to WB), but if leaders consider taking WB at the end of their son's Webelos I year, we are running into a practical problem: the boy will only be in the pack for perhaps 6 months after the WB course is over with. Around here most cub leaders switch from pack to troop with their boy. Six months may be enough time to finish one's ticket before leaving the pack, but it also means that the pack will most likely lose it's newly minted Woodbadger almost immediately, thus reducing the benefit to the unit. Consequently, the unit may be less willing to promote WB among its leaders, and it would be understandable if leaders decided to wait until their boy crossed into a troop before attending WB. By placing a 2 yr. tenure requirement on these folks, you would effectively cut out many, many cub leaders from attending. And, having gone through WB as a cub leader myself, I am convinced that there's an awful lot in the WB curriculum that is of benefit to cub packs.

 

Now, about that 2 year tenure. Would you re-start the clock when an adult leader switches programs, from pack to troop or troop to crew? I swear that even with all the training I could get my hands on it took me about 2 years to figure out the cub program and about 2 years again (with the added help of many people's wisdom here on this board) before I have begun to feel that I "get" the troop program. But, if I'd been limited from taking WB as a cub leader for the above reasons and then told I had to wait ANOTHER 2 years as a troop leader to meet this proposed "tenure" requirement, well forget it.

 

By the way in my WB patrol we had an 18 year old Eagle scout. He was the first in the patrol to earn his beads. Granted that he is an unusually thoughtful and mature individual for his age, but his perspective on things was different from those of us who are closer to geezer-hood, and that added a very nice dimension to the patrol. He kept us honest too, in terms of remembering who the program is really about (oh yea,the scouts!). Not to mention that his scout skills were superior to pretty much everyone in the cohort - except perhaps his father. In the four years since we finished our WB course, he has remained active in scouting as an ASM with the troop he grew up in. I'd hate to have seen him denied entry to the course.

[Gonzo1 10]

Arrrgghhh,

I don't like this 21st Century WB stuff. I attended the "old course" and did just fine. Sure, make the course accessible, get more people trained, but at what expense? Now we're talking about 18 year olds going to WB? To me, this seems crazy. They have indeed not had the "ah ha" moment.

 

I think we had some mention of diverity in my course, but it wasn't a focal point. I'm totally against "diversity" issues for the sake of diversity. By the way, I'm a minority, I'm Hispanic. Staffers IMO should be the best qualified, not the best qualified with the right skin color or ethnicity. For example, by having oh say, 15% female staffers, that's saying to the staffer, we need you because you're female, not because you're the best person for the job. I just think it's a shame to have to count people that way.

 

I thought MLK said he had a dream, when we would be judged by the content of our character, not the color of our skin.

 

The following is for clarification:

I'm not saying anyone is wrong, I just don't agree with some policies. I'm a good soldier, I can follow the rules, regs, policies, I just don't have to agree with all of them.

 

 

One more thing, staff cooking for students? .... Sheesh!

 

[John-in-KC 311]

Pete,

 

Thank you for the feedback (it's a gift ). Allow me to get the story straight.

 

Bottom Line: 18-20 certainly, 18-25 perhaps in general. Scouters desiring to enroll in WB in these ages should require close scrutiny from the course director and the SPL. CD/SPL should look for depth of maturity which will enable and support successful classroom as well as field work.

 

As I've said elsewhere, the leadership psych in WB is fairly common stuff. For some of us, it becomes well-plowed ground. I've had this stuff, in varying doses, since ROTC in college, 30 years ago.

 

Even so, for some, the exposure to this stuff is first time.

 

An essential characteristic of a good leader is being a good follower. Young people often have not had that "gut-check" moment of being a good follower.

 

In many cases, 18-20 hasn't yet matured to the point where taking WB is win/win enviroment. In some cases, they have, and we need to support them.

 

Make sense?

 

John

[emb021 16]

"wood badge is becoming more like a "good old boys club", where if you rub the "right" people the right way, you will get invited back to serve on staff, and maybe even be a course director someday. If you don't fit in with the "click" you are politely snubbed and avoided. Sorry, but I don't have time for that kind of nonsense. "

 

As another has pointed out, you are WAYYY off on this.

 

The OLD WB course had the reputation of being a 'good ol' boys club'. A LOT of changed were done in 21CWB to eliminate/prevent that. WB is NOT becoming a GOBC. It has been moving away from that for years.

 

In the old course, you had to get an invite to attend. As most councils only did the course every 2-3 years, this made it tough. But I can tell you that when I did the old WB in 88, I was told, 'you need an invite, but if you want an invite, ask'.

 

In the old course, councils had to jump thru a lot of hoops to justify allowing a new person to come on staff. (yes, this was official, documented, national policy!) Many councils just didn't bother. Plus you'd have people repeatedly being the CD, denying others the chance. Now course are required to have 30% new people as staffer. Being CD is a multi-course process, as you need to be on staff 2-3 times, be approved by the council, etc. Not a trivial thing. BUT, once you are a CD, that's it, you're out. This gives others the chance to be on staff/CD.

 

Is it perfect everywhere? No. In some councils there is still a WB clique. Other councils are more open minded and very progressive in recruiting new staffers. In one council I'm involved in, we will have the 2nd or 3rd female CD in a row. In most cases if you are a decent trainer and you want to be on staff, you will probably get on staff in most councils.