Learning from the Past

[Beavah 205]

As I mentioned before if 99% of adult volunteers follow the program and only 1% did not, that would mean 12,000 adult volunteers are not following the program. Imagine the damage those 12,000 adults do every year.

 

Yah, seemed like a separate discussion of what we can learn from the past - past program features, etc., and what we can learn from others - other scoutin' programs internationally, other youth programs nationally - was in order.

 

I think BobWhite's quote above misses da mark, because it assumes that all former BSA program materials and all other scouting/youth program materials are so bad that they cause damage. Yah, I don't think that's been our lived experience, eh? Quite da opposite - I think what the BSA has done has often been successful, and what Hillcourt and BP wrote was successful and insightful, and what our brother and sister scouters in other countries do is successful and offers real ideas and perspective.

 

In a year and a half when the next Boy Scout Handbook revision cycle happens, will it make defenders of da current program "wrong"? If First Class Emphasis is done away with, would that make all the units that have been successful with it "bad" if they keep using it? Nah, I don't think so. Our current program should continue to inform the future and be used as a resource where it's helpful, eh? I kinda think the only "wrong" is when something doesn't do its job for helping kids grow.

 

So I for my part appreciate Kudu's insights; they've helped me help units do a better job with Patrol Method and other things. I think there's a great deal to be learned from past successes.

 

I also think that the BSA program revision model is quite a committified thing, eh? Writin' by committee has its advantages and drawbacks. Yah, it smooths out rough edges, but it also tends to set things toward least-common-denominator mediocrity. That may be why the BSA books written personally by Hillcourt seem to have a tighter, clearer vision.

 

My perspective, anyway. Feel free to use this thread to discuss. Even better, use it to share tidbits you have learned by lookin' at past program materials or other scouting/youth program materials - ideas that have enhanced, rather than damaged, your scouts' experience.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Bob White 20]

You cannot start with a false premise and reach a true conclusion.

 

This thread starts with a very false premise. Beavah bases it on an opinion he attributes to me that I do not hold, nor ever wrote in any post. It is an incorrect impression which he portrays as a fact.

 

Beavah wrote "I think Bob White's quote above misses da mark, because it assumes that all former BSA program materials and all other scouting/youth program materials are so bad that they cause damage."

 

It assumes no such thing. In fact the quote he refers to is not even about former BSA programs it is about the number of trained leaders today. Here is the quote he refers to "As I mentioned before if 99% of adult volunteers follow the program and only 1% did not, that would mean 12,000 adult volunteers are not following the program. Imagine the damage those 12,000 adults do every year."

 

So how does a comment about the number of trained leaders today give Beavah the impression that it has anything to do with programs of the past?

 

At no time in the post he refers to did I make any comment that negated the values of the past program elements and I even stated that many are still in use today. I can think of at least 29% of direct contact scouters who should be aware of that if they paid attention during the training (or if the trainers followed the syllabus).

 

This thread is based on misleading readers to think that I made comments I did not make.

 

BW

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Oak Tree 15]

Ok, Bob, I'll take a shot at explaining how I interpreted your statements.

 

Your statement implies that the 12,000 hypothetical adults who are not following the program are doing damage. Some of those people who are not following the program might be using an older version of the program that has been superceded by new materials. Some might be using a version more similar to something from another country. But your blanket statement suggests that generally "not following the program" does damage.

 

I'll also say that I think that it's a far greater percentage than 1% who don't follow the program. When I attend summer camp, way more than 1% of the troops wear a shirts-only uniform. When I attend Roundtable, far more than 1% of the attendees appear to be uniform libertines. When I talk with leaders about how they are implementing the program, they almost all indicate some use of judgement. It's much smaller than 99% who indicate that they always go 'by the book'.

 

The idea that all of these volunteers (1% in your example - probably more like 80-90% in my experience) who are using their judgement are somehow "doing damage" seems a bit far-fetched to me. The BSA has designed its program to run this way and seems to actively support and encourage units that do so.

 

And yes, Bob, I realize you didn't say these volunteers were doing damage. You just asked us to imagine the damage they were doing. I'm probably just leaping to conclusions when I assume you mean to imply that they are doing some non-zero amount of damage. :-)

[Gold Winger 9]

Bob, from reading your posts, I get the impression of a zealot. Whatever comes from Texas has to be right and if we deign to criticize what is coming from Texas, we are disloyal and bad.

[evmori 11]

How do we know these 12,000 Scouters we are to imagine the damage they are doing are not new to the Scouting program & have yet to attend training? We don't. And are they really doing any damage? And having 99% of Scouters following the program is excellent!

 

Ya can't blame the 29% of the participants of a training program for not following the program if the program they were taught in training was incorrect! Sound like the focus should be on the trainers, not the participants!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[Bob White 20]

Then we agree that the comment had nothing to do with learning from the past.

 

You will notice that it also has nothing to do with not wearing a full uinform, or delivering a rigid unflexible program. But that is not the topic of this thread, create a thread that relates to the comment and I will discuss it there.

 

BW

[FScouter 24]

Silly me, I thought Beavah wanted to discuss the value of using old program materials in today's program. But instead it appears you all (Beavah included) would rather discuss Bob White and whether or not he properly used the term "damaged".

 

Consider whether your comments add to the topic described in the thread title and if not, start a new topic. And please, moderate yourselves.

[Oak Tree 15]

Ok, I'll try to make this clearer.

 

I think that the use of old program materials in today's program can be fine. I do not think it damages the BSA. I think there is a lot to learn from in all of the old material. I like Kudu's posts (well, most of them, anyway). Some of the old program may be outdated (I don't think I'll have my wolves practice boxing), but some of it is great.

 

FScouter - is that on-topic enough for you? I'm starting to find your moderation in favor of Bob White to border on being over-the-top.

[Bob White 20]

And there is the problem Oak Tree. I never said that elements of the past could not be used, or were not already in use today. And we agree that not ALL the elements of the past are asppropriate for today's youth.

 

What I do not understand is why that was not mentioned in the opening of the thread or why an unrelated quote was used to misrepresent my opinion.

 

If the purpose of the thread is to say that some things from the past are good and somethings are not, then I doubt any of us would disagree with that. Certainly I have never said anything to the contrary.

 

 

[evmori 11]

Is it possible to get past something not being mentioned in the opening post & discuss the opening post so as not to damage the thread?

 

[Stosh 3452]

I have found that with most programs, whether they are BSA or not, are not linear in growth, but cyclical. There's an ebb and flow, i.e. bib overalls were "popular" during the depression, in the 1970's and will some day come back again. For all those who jump to the conclusion that when it's not stylish it's wrong might be over assuming the situation. If it's not stylish, it's just not-stylish. Wrong is if one shows up with two different colored shoes. I don't think that has ever been in-style.

 

I have found that by applying some of the older elements with the current program it offers a lot of diversity that holds the interest of the boys. I used Meyer's flags for neckerchiefs in my honor patrol in my previous troop and they of course played around with some Mores Code at one of the campouts. Is this wrong? Yep, because the Meyer's flag system didn't use Mores Code, it used a code of it's own. But I don't care if it was or not, the boys had a fun time.

 

People generally don't jump rope anymore, especially not boys. But I have seen boys with an old tug-of-war rope jump for hours at a time.

 

Too many times I have observed that people become quite rigid in the program that any slight variance or deviation is considered a mortal sin. Well, it just isn't so. Not all BS Troops will fit into the same mold. Some are big and some are small. The smaller ones can get away with a more relaxed, personal program, while due to the logistics of a larger troop they are a bit more structured. Anything wrong with using the military style of camping used at jamorees at a district camporee? Is there something wrong about a troop that doesn't show some organization and structure?

 

Why do things have to be wrong when the boys seem to like it and have fun with it? I use the 6' walking sticks as recommended by the 1911 handbook. The boys use them for the first-aid stretcher carry, patrol flag staffs, measuring height and distance, and there are even some boys who use them as walking sticks. Our council scout office sells 5' thinner staves. That must mean our staves are wrong?

 

I like to look at the possibilities for the boys to offer and suggest "something different". This may mean we do something by the book, something no one else has ever done, and maybe even something that was once done and discarded as no longer relevant. So what, it's new to them and it can spark some fun. Go for it and quit worrying about whether it's right or wrong.

 

Stosh

[Bob White 20]

If the Scouts enjoyed a campout learning Morse Code using Myer Flags (the precursor to semaphore) who is to say that any harm was done? Granted they will find little use of flag messaging in real life but what harm is there in appreciating the history of communications?

 

So you found a better supplier then the BSA for staves, I know of no breeech of BSA program or policies for that.

 

Tug of war a fine sport (its a good idea to provide work gloves for safety though).

 

None of these have anything to do with following the BSA "program" which is the BSA Methods, Policies and Procedures,

 

Is a small troop any less able to follow rules than a large troop? Can a troop of 60 not follow the patrol method as well as a troop of 13.

 

The use of staves and Morse code is hardly grounds for being considered outside of the BSA program, and I have not seen any posts that suggests it is.

 

The faulty premise that began this thread seems to be getting people worked up over nothing.

 

BW

 

 

[Hiromi 9]

Besides, those staves make superlative fighting staffs. Especially on logs over a nice brook. I one time found myself against a portly friar from our parish who had the audacity to not allow me to pass over the log first. He made quick work of me I can tell you! How was I to know he was once a Knight Hospitalier!

 

I'm off to join my band of merry men to make for mischief for the Sherif of Knodingham.

 

Tallyho Bob - you old Saxon Dog!

 

Pappy-hood

[OldGreyEagle 5]

"Nothing like a good piece of hickory"

 

Preacher

[Stosh 3452]

"If the Scouts enjoyed a campout learning Morse Code using Myer Flags (the precursor to semaphore) who is to say that any harm was done? Granted they will find little use of flag messaging in real life but what harm is there in appreciating the history of communications?"

 

If one actually ponders the depth of the suggestion rather than taking it at face value, one will quickly realize that it is the catalyst for generating other ideas in the boys. Some of which are good and others not so good. Does one realize that having "enjoyed" learning Morse Code, they did and do make quite some use of the system in real life. I have been informed that sitting in a boring study hall one can visit with their buddy who is all the way over on the other side without passing any notes. A pencil and patience is all you need.

 

The little exercise produced a few of the boys that have begun looking into American Sign Language. Who knows how far their imagination may take them.

 

"So you found a better supplier then the BSA for staves, I know of no breeech of BSA program or policies for that."

 

Again, the point being made was not on acquiring walking sticks. Campcraft skills, using one's imiagination, realizing the importance of something as simple as a stick and how it applies to the skills one is developing in scouting.

 

"Tug of war a fine sport (its a good idea to provide work gloves for safety though)."

 

But their imagination took that rope and they began using it differently than what it was intended. This builds creative problem solving skills what does apply to many of the methods and goals of scouting.

 

"None of these have anything to do with following the BSA "program" which is the BSA Methods, Policies and Procedures,"

 

Here is where we will agree to disagree. Much of what we do is done on a deeper level than what most people see as superficial and irrelevant. When the high school kids run around with their 5# bag os sugar to teach them responsibility, showing up at a flag ceremony with full uniform and staff seems to reflect many of the same responsibility dynamics. Proper use of the staff with no fighting with it also shows that the boys understand it's importance and respects it's usage.

 

"Is a small troop any less able to follow rules than a large troop? Can a troop of 60 not follow the patrol method as well as a troop of 13."

 

And I have no idea what is meant by that statement.

 

"The use of staves and Morse code is hardly grounds for being considered outside of the BSA program, and I have not seen any posts that suggests it is."

 

With what I have done in my new troop, I have found that the boys, even those who have taken the NYLT program in it's entirety have repeatedly come to me requesting leadership training because the BSA program doesn't cover it in a way they understand like when I teach. It is also obvious that many people don't accept the concept of patrol-method I use either and claim it's outside the realm of BSA, and I don't buy into the limited size troops that BSA suggests. I have a program that is attracting boys, they seem interested, they are asking for leadership training, they are showing responsibility and the future looks bleak because BSA police are going to come in and put a halt to the whole thingy!" :^(

 

"The faulty premise that began this thread seems to be getting people worked up over nothing."

 

I didn't see any faulty premise. I think that if one takes the time to stop and think about it in a variety of different perspectives, it is quite interesting.

 

Those who don't learn from the past are destined to relive the mistakes.

 

"Some men see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say "Why not?" -- Robert Francis Kennedy

 

To me the BSA is the stepping off point for some great things for these boys. It's not the be all to end all.

 

Stosh