Learning from the Past

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Hey, I edited one of my own posts, OGE (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Beavah 205]

I think it's helpful to look at examples, rather than just abstractions, eh?

 

Here's some of the things Kudu has actually mentioned as being worthy program features of the past (IIRC - Kudo, correct me if I blow it). Rub downs weren't on the list, but things like:

 

Patrol Leader training that focused on practical skills rather than "leadership theory." I read that as "if two tent-mates are having an argument, here's what to try" rather than "here are the four leadership styles Blanchard proposes in his academic paper on organizational theory."

 

Outdoor challenges that demand personal skill proficiency. So a 15-mile no-adult small-group overnight rather than a 5-mile in-town day hike for second class.

 

Emphasis on skill proficiency and retention (through retesting), rather than one-time testing. Very similar to CPR and BSA Lifeguard certification renewal to maintain proficiency, rather than pass-a-class-and-done school-like approach.

 

Learning through playing the scouting game (video-game type learning), rather than learning through instruction (school-type learning).

 

It's OK to do "old" stuff - signaling, tracking, etc. Kids are still interested in that. After all, more than half of the video games they play involve medieval-era stuff.

 

Greater emphasis on patrol method.

 

All those things seem pretty worthy things to remember and consider from the past, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[Bob White 20]

This is a great example of the needing to know and to use the scouting program.

 

Patrol Leader training that focused on practical skills rather than "leadership theory." I read that as "if two tent-mates are having an argument, here's what to try"

 

You cannot expect ANY course to be able to provide an example of how to solve each problem that may arise. That would be impossible to do. So instead the leadership training teaches leadership methods that can be applied to most any situation that arises. It is the 'teach a man to fish' rather than 'give him a fish' method and it is far more effective that trying to provide a scenario for every possible situation.

 

"Outdoor challenges that demand personal skill proficiency. So a 15-mile no-adult small-group overnight rather than a 5-mile in-town day hike for second class."

 

There is no reason why units should not be doing this. The program certainly allows it, the scouts would certainly welcome actual adventure. What is stopping you? It is amazing the outrageous number of leaders who do not even know that Patrol activities are a part of the program dispite the fact that it is taught at training and is in all the handbooks. Do leaders need EVERY activity they should be doing to be a rank requirement in order to get them to deliver the program. You need to read the handbook beyond the requirements pages.

 

I first brought up the topic of Patrol activities 6 years ago on this forum and many poster, some of whom are probably still on the forum today were not aware that a patrol could go out without adult leadership, and I would be willing to bet that 6 years after learning they could that many of those same leaders still to this day do not use that part of the Patrol Method.

 

"Emphasis on skill proficiency and retention (through retesting), rather than one-time testing."

How often do you take the drivers portion for your license? I took it took it once 35 yars ago. Since then I apply the skill pretty much daily. IAs long as I am successful at it I will not need to kae it for about another 20 years.

 

If you want scouts to mainatin proficiencey them give them the need and the opportunity to put the skill to practive, either in games at the meetings or during outdoor activities. pasrctice is what makes you proficient at a skill not testing!

 

Learning through playing the scouting game (video-game type learning), rather than learning through instruction (school-type learning)."

 

Tallk about a red herring. Every part of scout training at the adult and youth level to this day teach hands-on, active, fun learning. If a unit is doing sit down lectures for any siugnificant part of their program then they are not using the scouting model of teaching. Anyone who thinks that the scouting moedel of teaching is a sit down lecture style is simply ill-informed about the past or current methods.

 

"It's OK to do "old" stuff - signaling, tracking, etc. Kids are still interested in that." You are right that it is OKAY to teach it. But don't expect proficiency unless you can give them opportunity to apply the skill. Nowhere does the BSA say you cannot teach these things to scouts, they simply are not a current advancement requirement but that does not mean they cannot be taught.

 

We had a camporee a couple years back co-hosted with the Pheasants Forever organization. During the course of the weekend scouts learned about pheasant habitat, how to train hunting dogs, how to reload shells, the different tyles of hunting firearms, hunting safety, field stripping wild fowl. NONE of thses activities are related to BSA advancement. You are allowed and EXPECTED to teach other things!

 

"After all, more than half of the video games they play involve medieval-era stuff."

You would have to show the statistics on that one.

 

"Greater emphasis on patrol method."

The Scout Handbook, much of the Scoutmaster handbook, All of the troop meeting planners, all of the Scoutmaster training, the PL Handbook, the SPL Handbook, All STRESS the PATROL METHOD. If a leader or a unit has, after 97 years, not figured out that unit scouting is centered around the Patrol Method then I do not know how much more training or how many more resources must be provided. They obviously are not paying attention to the ones that are already available.

 

"All those things seem pretty worthy things to remember and consider from the past, eh?

 

And no one has said they aren't just that NOT EVERYTHING FROM THE PAST is worth keeping and doing. If there is something you want to introduce the scouts to from the past as long as you do it withing the safety policies of today's program you can teach them any past skill that you can interest them in.

 

Why do some scouters continue to say that they can't teach skills from the past? the only thing stopping them is the same thing that evidently stops them from delivering todays skills as well.

 

I first brought up the topic of Patrol activities 6 years ago on this forum and many poster, some of whom are probably still on the forum today were not aware that a patrol could go out without adult leadership, and I would be willing to bet that 6 years after learning they could that many of those same leaders still to this day do not use that part of the Patrol Method.

 

That is not the failure of the ascouting program, that is choice of the leadership. 29% of direct contact leaders have attended basic training. Do not expect scout leaders to learn the program by reading hard to find past handbooks when they don't read the easily to find current ones.

[BadenP 93]

Bob

 

I agree with you that training is important and should be taken by EVERY scout leader, however the point some of us are trying to make is that the current style and content of training is woefully lacking the necessary skill sets necessary to mount a quality outddor program for the youth. Another piece of the problem is the quality of many if not most of those doing the training who lack the first hand outdoor experience nessary to teach. You can not read a syallubus alone and be qualified to teach a skill set without first obtaining first hand experience in the field. Do you not agree?

 

The point about using information from the old handbooks is that there are some great information in them missing in current handbooks, you yourself mentioned knot tying for one, I will add pioneering skills for another, as well as many others.

 

When we have serious legal questions in this country the legal minds go back to the Constitution, written in 1789, no one has ever suggested that this document is now obsolete. My point is that when you go back and read the writings of the founders you get a better sense of the true intentions of those founders, and in the case of scouting a true sense of the focus and motives of the program. New does not always mean better.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

"Emphasis on skill proficiency and retention (through retesting), rather than one-time testing. Very similar to CPR and BSA Lifeguard certification renewal to maintain proficiency, rather than pass-a-class-and-done school-like approach."

 

Where did you ever get the idea that this was part of the BSA? Is not the entire program of a Troop to be reinforcement of scout skills? If people decry the Eagle Scout who can't tie a bowline, is it the BSA that allowed that or the troop that did not have knot tieing as part of its program that is the issue? Anyone who does a pass a class and done approach deserves scouts who know nothing. Who here advocates that?

[Bob White 20]

"The point about using information from the old handbooks is that there are some great information in them missing in current handbooks, you yourself mentioned knot tying for one, I will add pioneering skills for another, as well as many others."

 

WHY Beavah do you continue to so boldly misquaote me???

 

I never used knot tying as something missing from the current handbooks. I used knots as an example of older skills STILL IN the current handbook, as I might point out is Pioneering,

as well as in a current merit badge.

 

I must insist you show more care and integrity in how you represent what I and others have said.

 

 

To think that many of the older skills are gone is simply unsupportable. Many of the older skillsare still present in the BSA. If you or other choose not to recognize that it is not the BSa programs problem.

 

Look at the eraly skills of scouting; conservation, emergency preparedness, first aid, fitness, knots, pioneering, wildlife identification, hiking, cooking, camping, swimming, canoeing, wilderness survival, religious beliefs, citizenship, leadershp, patrol method, even astronomy are all still a part of the CURRENT program.

 

The only skill I can readily think of that is not in the current program is tracking, and that doesn't mean it can't be taught (I don't have my Field Book handy but it might even be in there).

 

So while some may "feel" that the original skills are not in the program, there is so much current evidence to contrary that such a claim cannot stand up to the light of day.

 

Basicallly its just an excuse used by some who cannot or donot lead a quality program. Its a smoke screnn for them to say "oh you can't have a good program like the good ole days because the program has changed.

 

Rubbish, the problem is untrained leaders not program elements.

 

(This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[FScouter 24]

rather than pass-a-class-and-done school-like approach.

"Who here advocates that?"

 

Nobody advocates that. But it sounds good to characterize the "other side" as holding a ridiculous point of view made up by the antagonist himself.

[Beavah 205]

LOL . I just tried to clarify da points I thought Kudu was makin', eh? Take it easy, guys! And Bob, that was BadenP's quote, not mine, eh? I don't reckon he was even talking about anything you wrote.

 

I'll make one additional effort at clarifying. The issue has nothing to do with what anybody here on these forums advocates, eh? Nothing in my comments nor Kudu's (I think) are personal. They're all programmatic.

 

And the program questions are somethin' like this:

 

Which of the following statements of the requirements best conveys what we want to see happen in Scouting programs, to adults who admittedly have limited training:

 

1) To make First Class, a boy should be able to demonstrate all the Tenderfoot and Second Class Skills and then use them on a 15-mile, adult-free overnight hike with a small group? or

 

2) To make First Class, a boy cannot be required to re-demonstrate any of the Tenderfoot or Second Class Skills, and only needs to go on a 5-mile in-town day hike (with adults)?

 

I reckon if an adult with limited training reads #2, it is unlikely that they're gonna sit there and say "yeah, but we could do all this additional stuff and that would be great for kids!". More likely, they'd claim (correctly) that expecting anything like #1 is "adding to the requirements." A cardinal sin in modern Scouting. But if they read old documents, or stuff from other scouting associations, or what the Founders wrote, they might get new insights and understandings into the current program and its possibilities that they didn't have before.

 

If 70% of adult leaders don't in fact understand scoutin', we might consider where we're not being as clear as we should be. If we really want the entire program of da BSA to be the reinforcement of scout skills, then let's say that, eh? Retesting / recertification is expected, for both adults' training and youth requirements. Or we might say "great - whatever materials you can find to help you understand scouting better - go for it!"

 

I'm not necessarily an advocate of Kudu's position, eh? But I'm sympathetic to it enough that I don't think it should be dismissed out of hand.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Bob White 20]

My apoligies to Beavah, it was BadenP who is miquoting me now, and I said it was Beavah. With all the misquoting going on its getting hard to keep the players straight.

BW