Jump to content
TAHAWK

Training requirements for Wood Badge

Recommended Posts

I see the value in a leadership course.  I personally have seen adults wise in the ways of the rope, axe, and dutch oven who chase boys away from lack of leadership skill.

 

I still regret the lack of any BSA course that goes beyond the bare introduction of IOLS  - which now does not include first aid. I believe that more competence in Scoutcraft, given an adult who can lead and understands his role, should lead to better program and, thus, better retention of Scouts.

 

I can hope that the effort in the third version of WB to motivate and inspire may lead Scouters to learn more on their own.  The information is certainly available.

 

As for "it never was," the first version of WB was expressly designed to teach the Scouter how to teach "Scoutcraft" through First Class.  I witnessed that version as "Junior Staff" (an experiment that did not result in permanent change until the third version of WB) and have the course syllabus.  As a result, the course was about 90% Scoutcraft.  As the "learners" were mostly quite experienced and Scouting was still "Bill Scouting," they needed little teaching about the Patrol Method and the Outdoor Method."

 

The second version of WB (circa 1972), which I took as a "learner," in 1984, was built around eleven "Leadership Skills" but still used perhaps 1/3 of it's time for advanced Scoutcraft skills. (Helicopter Chicken anyone?)

 

WB COULD be used to teach the Patrol Method, but it ought to be taught at the "basic" level since it is fundamental.  As it is, WB assumes the participants know about the Patrol method when few actually do.  Certainty, some at National Council  could use the training: " Patrols are one component of what we call youth-run, or youth-led, troop."  Others at National Council are Patrol Method champions and are fighting the good fight for Boy Scouting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WB COULD be used to teach the Patrol Method, but it ought to be taught at the "basic" level since it is fundamental. As it is, WB assumes the participants know about the Patrol method when few actually do. Certainty, some at National Council could use the training: " Patrols are one component of what we call youth-run, or youth-led, troop." [/size]Others at National Council are Patrol Method champions and are fighting the good fight for Boy Scouting.[/size]

I agree there should be more than IOLS for teaching the fundamentals, but when a focus is put on adults mimicking aspects of the program like patrol method, history has proven those adults go back to their units and force the boys to mimic their experience. Their personal ambitions get in the way of understanding scouts learning from THEIR choices. You wouldn't think that would be the way, but the adults use their one experience to run their troop everyday. But boys do patrol method different because there is a world of difference in their maturity from the adults. The adults get frustrated because the scouts aren't doing it like their WB experience, so they intervene to set the boys strait. This is why National killed the old course.

 

From my experience of creating and directing a council level patrol method youth leadership course, I found teaching the ideals of patrol method was challenging for both the boys and adults. In my opinion, the best way to teach patrol method to the adults is have them observe a youth leadership patrol method course. Then they can see the dynamics of the boys in action without their personal biases or ambitions getting in the way. If they don't have any investment in the boys performance, they are more likely to see the bigger picture.

 

Barry

Edited by Eagledad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Killing an ineffective course without replacement is the wrong decision IMO. An ineffective course is a result of curriculum design and/or implementation. Simply choosing to not do it anymore ignores the problem and send the message that the knowledge and understanding that should have been transmitted in the course are not necessary. Based on the description given it is easy to see (as a professional educator) why it failed. perhaps the BSA needs to spend more on developing effective educational tools for scouters and less resources on other things. I have noticed over the years the tools provided and being used are poorly designed and/or implemented as a whole. This is not necessarily the fault of the volunteer training instructors. Few if any have a real background in education (except as a student) so it is understandable they will not be experts in curriculum, lesson design or instruction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duct, given that the staff are told they must follow every tit and jot of the syllabus, defects in a course syllabus are anything but their responsibility.  

 

Most staffers refuse to teach what is patently erroneous or directly inconsistent with other, more authoritative B.S.A. statements, and they also do their best to compensate for weaknesses in the syllabi.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taw, I agree which is why I said it is not necessarily their fault. I have witnessed enough poor instruction to know there is a wee bit of fault, but only in delivery and implementation. Regardless, even an instructor with imprccable skills in pedagogy will do little to overcome deficits in curriculum as written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit, I've not taken the 1990a WB course or the new WB21C one. Back in my time, there was a specific Boy Scout leader WB, designed for adults who had completed training and had 2 years tenure in Scouting as an adult ( 2 years tenure could be waived on a case by case basis, but it was rare.) There was also a Cub Scout Leader WB designed more for CS trainers. Before my time there was an Exploring Leader version of WB.

 

Having one size fits all training does a great disservice to the Scouts in my opinion. For one thing, because you have different training requirements, when they are enforced, you have adults with different levels of experience and knowledge. I think it would be hard for a Cub Scout leader from an LDS pack which is not allowed to go camping, to have an understanding of Boy Scout patrol camping. Terminology gets watered down or changed into something that can make it intimidating or confusing for some, i.e. Course Director = SM, Also because all three programs, Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts, and Venturing, need to be incorporated, real life, applicable situations are shortened. Instead of an entire week as a Boy Scout, Cub Scout, etc, you only get a few days to get ti together.

 

Again you needed to have completed basic training and have tenure unless waived. First course I was approached to attend would have waived the tenure requirement because a) I had 20+ months in as an adult and b) I was staffing JLT. That tenure allowed  me to grow and get mentored in my role as an adult. Yes I was "trained" taking the old Scoutmaster Fundamental's course as an 18 year old ASM, but the tenure allowed my fellow adults to mold and counsel me when I reverted back to Scout mode, specifically SPL. I needed experience as an adult.

 

Which is why i like the tenure rule when it was around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... unless he adds to it.

 

E.g.:

 

B.S.A. now wants the third step of dish-washing to be a "hot" rinse (presumably to remove non-existent "chlorine residue") 

 

State health laws require that a hot rinse to replace a final chemical rinse needs to be 170 F for thirty seconds.  Water at that temperature burns exposed skin in .25 second.  

 

The Handbook does not warn about this burn hazard and shows the third pot being used barehanded.  

 

So one adds in IOLS that there is a burn hazard and that gloves, tongs, or net bags should be used.  

 

One might also point out that state law approves of the former B.S.A. method of three tubs: wash, warm rinse; tepid chemical rinse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WB is not intended to  strengthen program skills or ability to apply Scouting Methods as such but focuses solely on leadership skills.  Having served both in Cubbing and in Scouting, I found that "Leading ChangeProblem SolvingValuing People and Leveraging DiversityManaging Conflict, and Coaching and Mentoring"   are as applicable in Cubbing as in Scouting.

 

But where is the training in program that is only "introduced" in "basic training"?  As I suggested above, one can self-educate and there is "other" training, such as universities of Scouting. But the "advanced" program skills training incorporated in the first WB and, to a leser extent in the second version, has not been replaced.

 

So far, I cannot find out what the plan is for first aid training now that it has been eliminated from IOLS.

Edited by TAHAWK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Training requirements for WouldBadger elevate the perceived prestige of the course.

 

Beads are your admission into the 'Old Boys' club, so being a Wouldbadger is helpful if you want other scouters to talk to you as an equal.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Three of the last five Course Directors here have been of the female persuasion.   Are they admissible to the Old Joes Club?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@@TAHAWK,

 

I won't presume to answer for Joe Bob, but from my perspective, the Good Olde Boy Club is not exclusively one gender.   All persons who are willing to jump thru the prescribed hoops are eligible for membership.   The historic club name is just so darn identifiable one hesitates to alter it....

Edited by desertrat77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the goal is to have all Scouters take WB, it doesn't seem like a very exclusive "club."  But YMMV.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the goal is to have all Scouters take WB, it doesn't seem like a very exclusive "club."  But YMMV.

 

Indeed, but WB is the "first hoop" and yea verily, my mileage has varied with regards to many of the club members.   Thanks but no thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find in my OA Lodge quite a few of the WB folks copping an attitude with us just plain long serving Scouters. A bit of a turn off. I am tempted to make some woggles and a song just for fun. Our recent NYLT seemed very very Wood Badgy as well.

 

In my experience 2/3 of the folks in our Troop who did WB get sucked up into District and Council support and we don't see them that much anymore. (regardless of what ticket it supposed to be). I think when that happens it reinforces the notion that the Troop is the lower rung of the pyramid.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find in my OA Lodge quite a few of the WB folks copping an attitude with us just plain long serving Scouters. A bit of a turn off. I am tempted to make some woggles and a song just for fun. Our recent NYLT seemed very very Wood Badgy as well.

 

In my experience 2/3 of the folks in our Troop who did WB get sucked up into District and Council support and we don't see them that much anymore. (regardless of what ticket it supposed to be). I think when that happens it reinforces the notion that the Troop is the lower rung of the pyramid.

 

Tampa, your observations match mine.

 

At the end of the day, the issue isn't "wow, that's a club I want to join but can't."

 

More like:  "I see the hoops, I see the results...no thanks."

 

I'm sure the WB community will continue to thrive without me :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×