Eagle76

In re-reading the thread it seems I may have misinterpreted the original meaning of "non-advancement" activities as originally posed, and they are not the "playtime activities" as I jumped to conclude. I guess I have been guilty of skewing things based on my own experiences/perspective. My apologies.

Regardless, I think limiting them to no more often than every two months to allow for activities which provide advancement opportunites still holds.(This message has been edited by Eagle76)

First, to give my opinion on the original question, a "non-advancement" activity every two months is probably not unreasonable. I may lean more toward one every three months, and would say one a month is too much.

My reasoning is, in general, a troop should have a campout every month and one additional activity. This keeps the number of events for the boys to plan to a manageable level. Some of these activities should be opportunities to meet advancement requirements: 2nd class 5 mile compass hikes, nature hikes for plant identification, 1st class orienteering hike, service projects, etc. With only one non-camping activity a month, they shouldn't all be what I call "playtime activities".

Now, as others say, the boys should decide things through the PLC. However, in ericjude's case, with all new boys the troop can't be run the same way as a mature troop with experienced older Scouts. The ultimate goal, which must never be forgotten, will be to become a boy led troop as described in the literature. But you can't get there all at once. At this initial stage the adults will need to have more input into planning, making suggestions and guiding the Scouts. Boy input may consist of them choosing from suggestions offered by the SM. It is the responsibility of the adults to teach the Scouts what a Scouting program is and what it looks like, because the boys don't know. If the boys are given a free hand to plan their program without guidance, it will be nothing but going to the movies, visiting video arcades, going skateboarding, etc.

Now, my warning about "playtime activities". They are very popular in my troop. They are better attended by far than campouts, hikes, and "Scouting activities." Saturday night bowling in November, a bike ride in December, and the big day in January where they go rock climbing during the day and play broomball at an ice rink at night. And why shouldn't they be popular? The adult committee puts them on the calendar because their boys enjoy them, the adults do all the planning, organizing, and running, and all the boys need to do is show up and have fun. What's not to like?

Now before you all protest, remember this was a warning. I am well aware of all the things wrong in the previous paragraph, and I am working to change them. Having said that, I am not saying playtime activites should be eliminated, but that they should be limited, as ericjude initially suggested, and that the boys should play a role in planning and running them as much as they are able, same as for the "Scouting activities".

Here's another idea. (A Scout is Thrifty)

When our Little League wanted to have a radar gun booth at their fundraising event, they contacted the city police officer who visits elementary schools, runs the D.A.R.E. program, etc., and through him they were able to borrow a radar gun from the police department.

Maybe you can contact your own police department and arrange to borrow one.

Since my comments seemed to set off this debate, I'm going to try to play mediator a little.

In my original post I said that in some cases combining patrols may be the lesser of two evils. I was just saying that we shouldn't jump to it too quickly or automatically. In the Klondike example under discussion, I like CNYScouter's idea of encouraging the PL's to contact their patrol members to try to encourage them to attend. This is making a worthy effort to strengthen patrol spirit and to get them to work together. However, if this effort failed, then I would not prohibit the two small patrols from joining forces.

Does that make sense, or am I being wishy-washy?(This message has been edited by Eagle76)

In our troop, sign-offs for rank requirements for Tenderfoot through First Class are only done by Scouts Star rank and above.

However, I have observed quite a number of Scouts who didn't seem to be able to perform a skill (knots, lashings, etc.) which they should have been capable of based on their rank. Also, we recently had a Scout come up for a Scoutmaster Conference for First Class, only to have his advancement postponed because, although the requirement was signed off, he had not yet served as patrol cook on a campout, procured the food, etc. I don't believe this was due to dishonesty; I believe the Scout, a relatively new-but-eager-to-advance Scout, did not understand the requirement, and the Scout signing him off did not take the proper time to verify it had been completed properly. (I know, training and instruction for the older Scouts is needed.)

However, at the risk of hijacking this thread somewhat, for which I apologize, part of our troop's problem as I see it is that young Scouts are expected to approach older Scouts for sign-offs before or after the troop meeting. Often they are told there is not time, to come back later. They can be put-off numerous times in this way, and when the sign-off is finally done it is often in a rushed manner, since the meeting is about to start or the Scouts are in a hurry to get home.

So my question is, how do other troops handle testing for requirements and sign-offs? Based on my observations, maybe time needs to be set aside during the troop meetings to do have the time to do it right.(This message has been edited by Eagle76)

I'm going to weigh in on funscout's question, and elaborate on the underlying issue.

"Are the leaders supposed to over-ride their decision and tell them they MUST stick with existing patrols only?"

First, there may be specific occasions where combining patrols or creating temporary patrols is the lesser of two evils. However, in general, we should be striving to create strong patrols which work together. We should not be too quick to abandon the Patrol Method.

The underlying question, I think, is when do adults override the boys. You may have a better understanding after taking Boy Scout leader training, but I know people who have take training and have not reached that understanding, IMHO.

There are some things the boys may "decide" to do which adults must veto in order to maintain the standards of the BSA. If they do not, they are not delivering on the promise of providing a Scouting program for the boys.

For example:

The boys can't "decide" not to follow the Ideals of Scouting.

The boys can't "decide" that they will not wear the Scout Uniform

The boys can't "decide" that they will not operate with the Patrol Method.

The boys can't "decide" to forgo all Outdoor activities, and become a card-playing or video gaming club.

I think you see what I'm driving at. The decision making authority of the boys does not extend to altering the 8 Methods of Scouting. Yet I have seen instances where adults have allowed boys to take the easy way out, in ways which contradict or at least weaken the Methods.

Sigh.

My troop isn't responsible, but...

I live in my own troop's Scouting for Food area.

In 2004, no bag was left on my doorstep, so on pickup day I took my bag of items to our assembly point and added it to the pile.

In 2005, a bag was left, so I thought "Good, it was a one-time goof," and left my stuff on my porch. But, it didn't get picked up.

Why? I don't know know who's at fault. Did our Scoutmaster goof when he handed out the map sections and not assign the area? (I know first-hand of a case where he assigned a couple streets to two separate teams.) Did someone get a map with our street assigned and get confused/lost and miss or street? (It's possible when working back and forth, into cul-de-sacs, etc.)

I may never know.

Lazy? I don't think so.

Ineffective? I guess so.

Human, thus subject to making mistakes? Yes.

How to fix it? Other than just to try, try again, I don't know.

What an interesting idea!

I don't have the answer, and I'm thinking on the fly but, here goes.

Each patrol has a designated leader.

Make the 2 patrol tasks similar, but different. Something relatively simple like, each patrol has a basket full of balls, half red, half blue. One patrol is supposed to take the blue balls out and put them in a bag, the other patrol is supposed to take the red balls out and put them in a bag. A timed contest, of course.

First, the boys are supposed to plan what to do, who's going to do it, and how, without touching anything.

Then you scramble the patrols. Maybe you swap halves, leaving a leader, maybe you swap everyone except the leader, maybe you make it so both leaders are in one patrol.

Now the task must be done, with no speaking.

Watch the fun!

If you swap half the boys, the job might get done by the "original" members, probably with the new boys left out.

If you swap all but the leader, it will probably be confusing, but the leaders may be able to get the directions across (or maybe he'll have to do it himself!)

If you have both leaders together when you scramble, who knows? I'm now thinking this is most like "virtual patrols". One group will be 50-50, with different "training", with no leader, and the other will be 50-50, with different objectives, with 2 leaders with opposite plans. If you do the prep inside, in two different rooms, then take the groups outside, then tell them to perform the task, with the groups split 50-50 and being in a different environment, who's to say which group is "supposed" to extract the blues, and which is "supposed" to extract the reds?

Now I've thought of another variation, maybe the best yet. You scramble the patrols, 50-50, with NO leaders. They get to stand on the sides and watch how their patrol members function without them. Maybe this adds to the lesson, driving home that while it's important for patrol members to attend outings so they can learn to work together, it's even more important for the leader to be there to provide leadership.

Comments?(This message has been edited by Eagle76)

EagleInKY, Oak Tree, and others,

You confirmed my own interpretation, thank you. However, my troop contains some of those "overzealous Scouters" mentioned...

Tomorrow I depart for a campout with 2 other adults, and 8 Scouts. One patrol is young (1st years) who are eager and enthusiastic, the other patrol is older, jaded, and likes to sit around. There's a 300 acre lake nearby with a 4 mile circling trail. We'll see what happens...

d;-)

I have a hypothetical question that I would like opinions on.

Situation: A campout with 2 patrols, 4 boys each, and 3 adults. One patrol wants to go on a hike around the lake, the other patrol wants to stay in camp. 1 adult is going to accompany the hiking Scouts.

Question: Is this a violation of Youth Protection guidelines, since there is only 1 adult with the hikers? Or is this exactly why YP requires 2 deep leadership on outings, so that the group can split and still have an adult with each group?

Thanks.

SueM, NeilLup, and Lisabob, thank you for your thoughts. You made me blush, and you made me think. I've been thinking about this very hard all week.

SueM says I can't do it on my own, and she's almost certainly right. NeilLup says Wood Badge can help complete my list, and I'm sure I'll need it. The classes I attended at University of Scouting last Saturday were OK but short on specific ideas and tools. And as Lisabob points out, there are short, intermediate, and long term goals involved. We need to conduct youth leader training next month, and we need to get the PLC more involved in the annual calendar in a few months, but chances are there will be plenty of room for improvement for the next time they come around. In one sense they're short term, but in another way they're long term. It occurs to me I've been making the same mistake we sometimes accuse our corporate executives and financial analysts of making: Focussing on the short-term results and neglecting the long-term ones. When next fall comes, I'm sure there will still be many things to do, and I'll be grateful for any tools I can get that will help me.

So, barring conflicts with my job, I'll sign up. As for my biggest reservation, that WB will divert me from what the troop needs, it will be up to me to make sure that doesn't happen. One meeting and 2 weekends won't take that much away, and if it comes down to making a choice between working on a ticket item and doing something that will benefit the troop, I'll choose the troop without regrets, and I'll still have the advantage of the course experience.

Thank you all again.

Our troop elects its SPL in the normal manner, by troop election. However, one of the requirements to run is that the Scout must have attended Brownsea/NYLT. In order to earn the Brownsea trained patch, the Scout must complete 3 goals after the camp session in June. Normal expectation is for the goals to be completed by November, when a graduation ceremony is held. Our Scoutmaster has made it a policy that the cost of camp will be reimbursed by the troop only if the Scout completes these goals by November. Basically, Scouts volunteer or request to attend, and the Scoutmaster approves or denies the request. I'm not sure, but the troop may impose a limit of 2 Scouts per year. (We have troop of about 35.)

This may not ensure that Scouts will not quit within a year, but it does require a certain committment from the Scout.

I'm taking off for the afternoon for personal reasons, but before I go I'll paste in my list of things I want to see the troop do. If desired, I'd be happy to share my reasons and motivations next week. Don't parse the wording too harshly; these are just notes I made for my own purpose to help me keep focused. I guess my biggest concern is I don't want to be diverted from these things. I'd be happy to have any and all comments on these things. I guess I'll be using all of you as kind of a virtural WB network. ;-)

BTW, I'm taking courses at our University of Scouting tomorrow on Training Youth Leaders, the Patrol Method, and How to Make a Troop Boy-Run.

1) Leadership Development

a) Provide youth leader training, and do so regularly and consistently after each troop election

b) Guide PLC to produce the troop annual calendar

c) Get youth leadership to follow through with leadership of troop outings

d) Get youth leadership to play a role in planning playtime activities

2) Patrol Method strengthen by:

a) Promoting camping by patrol

b) Promoting cooking by patrol

c) Interpatrol competition

d) Patrol outings?

3) Outdoor Program

a) Increase opportunities to participate in backpacking outings

b) Identify new places to camp and hike

c) Raise menu standards to require more cooking. No pop tarts, cold cereal, cup-o-noodle dinners

d) Require dishwashing/clean-up to Boy Scout standards

e) Implement patrol duty rosters

f) Plan scouting and/or advancement activities for campouts

4) Advancement

a) Incorporate requirements to 1st class into troop meetings and campouts on a scheduled plan

b) Provide/schedule time for testing and sign-off of requirements

c) Appoint Troop Guides for New Scout Patrols

d) Appoint ASM to New Scout Patrol to work with Troop Guides and monitor advancement progress

(This message has been edited by Eagle76)

Thank you all for your responses. After I posted my question, I dug up some old threads, including a couple posted by Old Grey Eagle about 4 years ago on the same topic. Between your responses and the earlier ones, I think I have a better idea what it's all about.

However, it seems that a perception developed amongst some of you that I will soon be attending Wood Badge training, and that is not the case. Although, I guess my question was prompted because I have been idly considering it. My idle consideration started when someone said to me, "You should go to Wood Badge. You'll have a blast." My thought to this was, "Having a blast is all well and good, but what good will it do me?"

I see a number of areas where our troop is falling way short of the ideal depicted in the SM handbook. I have made a list, and I have been and will be tackling these many issues. Will Wood Badge training help me accomplish these objectives, and could some of them qualify as Wood Badge tickets? Thus the question I posted looking for examples, not to copy, but so I could gauge the scope involved. Or, are my objectives not suitable as ticket items, in which case, would I need to come up with ticket items which would take time, attention, and energy away from the important things I think need to be done? Thus my hesitation.

After my research, I suspect many of the most important things my troop needs would not make good ticket items, as they do not meet the "SMART" criteria I found mentioned; specifically some of them would be difficult to measure, and would be difficult to achieve in a short time span. Also, the next opportunity for Wood Badge training isn't until September or October, and I certainly don't want to wait until then before trying to bring about various changes, and it's probably not cricket to create a ticket for something that one has already started.

So, at this time it is my intention to put off Wood Badge for now, and to devote my energies to bringing about the changes which I feel our troop sorely needs. However, you are free to try to change my mind.

I only know a little about Wood Badge, and I've heard the term "working your ticket", and that conjurs certain images in my mind. However, it occurs to me that facts are better than guesses.

Please post examples of ticket items, especially your own actual projects.

Thanks in advance.

Well, Scouter4321, you haven't had many responses to your last questions, so I'll stick my oar in, but bear in mind that I am engaged in the same struggle, and don't know all the answers.

First, regardless of what some of your committee members think, Scouting is not just a youth fellowship group. In fact, I plan to use this very argument in any future debates if there are objections to becoming more boy led.

Second, I think it is the SM's job to push the program toward being boy led, and provide the necessary guidance and support. It doesn't involve the Committee, and it's not the place of the "quasi-PLC" to bless, since they don't have the authority to vote not to follow the BSA program.

Third, in our own struggle we did exactly as you suggest at the most recent troop elections: spell out the responsibilities and expectations for the leadership positions.

Finally, I'll just add a "Hear, hear!" to SueM's last post, especially "We as leaders just have to not LET them cop out. They need a firm understanding of what their responsibilities and our expectations of them are and then the adults have to stay on top of them..."

The way msnowman says "this Troop is almost fanatical in being "boy run"" rings an alarm bell for me. I would characterize my troop the same way - until you use your own eyes. Then you see that although they talk the talk, they don't walk the walk. Just saying it don't make it so. As an example, see my "Ketchup" thread to see how automatic it is for some adults to dictate things that should be left to the patrols.

Thank you all for your thoughts. I had the same ethical concerns as all of you, but I didn't state them in my original post because I wanted to see if this opinion would come up without any prompting from me.

Wow, who would have thought that ketchup could become such a hot issue! But this has become an "issue" in our troop as well.

In the past, there were many leftovers after campouts, and they were divied up among the boys and taken home. My son was elected PL last fall, and was the patrol cook at the next campout, and he decided it would be more thrifty to save the less- or non-perishable leftovers for future campouts. Thus, we have in storage a started bag of pancake mix and yes, a started bottle of ketchup in the extra fridge.

Shortly thereafter, an adult announcement was made that everyone should bring extra ketchup packets home from McDonald's, Burger King, etc., to stock the patrol boxes, to avoid the recurring problem of always buying more ketchup than needed, and having the extra go home with one boy. I suspect our Committee Chair came up with the plan, and sold our Scoutmaster on it. I won't spend much time on the subject of whether this adult involvement is appropriate; I think this is a matter for the patrols to deal with, and the original thread contained many suggestions.

I had another idea, for the patrols to buy refillable squeeze bottles, as found at some snack bars or hot dog wagons. For the campout, the patrol would purchase smaller quantities of ketchup, mustard, mayonaisse, etc, from someone's family, calculating the fair value of the amount obtained. My question is, is this solution acceptable in the context of Scouts procurring their food, or must the purchasing be done at a grocery store?(This message has been edited by Eagle76)

A Boy Scout video game! An interesting notion; but nothing beats actually doing real stuff out of doors. This is where Scouting should have an advantage over video games.

I just want to comment on the first point made by Beavah in his original post, and put a different spin on it:

"* It is not adult-run. At all."

Later Beavah asks:

"My question back at you is: Can you tell us what we could change/improve about Scouting to make it as fun and addictive as video gaming? Or at least take a step in that direction?"

I would submit that there is plenty of adult involvement in a video game. With some possible exceptions, it is created by an adult, planned by an adult, programmed by an adult, and marketed by an adult. Many of the subsequent advantages noted by Beavah are the result of the plans made by the adult programmer: achieving levels, learning from failures, setting achievable tasks of increasing difficulty, etc.

Maybe the answer to the question lies here somewhere: A successful Scouting program requires adults to do careful planning, set goals and expectations, but then turn the boys loose, while at the same time monitoring things and keeping them on track to meet the program expectations. But isn't this already what Scouting program expects and teaches us leaders? Torveaux touches on the problem in his post:

"The real difference between the two systems in that regard is that the rules are consistent for the video game. In Scouting, the human element comes into play to change the rules in an arbitrary fashion."

Maybe a program which is unattractive, unappealing, and unexciting is a sign that the program not being run as a true Scouting program, that maybe the leaders have "changed the rules in an arbitray fashion" by doing things THEIR way, and that the solution is to re-examine the way things are being done and to strive to move them back to the way taught by the many Scouting resources available.

Some interesting points raised in the original post.

First, I've never heard of a troop setting up camp like this. I suspect the only reason you'll be given is the common trap of "It's the Way We've Always Done It." Even if you're going to set up in a line, why can't all the tents be set up at once? There's no reason to wait until one tent is done before the next in line begins. My vote is to categorize this as hazing, as it involves imposing a delay which serves no purpose, and ends up making the task unnecessarily more difficult by forcing it to be done in the dark.

Second, this is a common question for a SM confernce or BOR, for the reasons stated by others.

Finally, the comment that intrigues me most is the part about the debate going on among the adult leaders. I am encountering the same attitudes in my troop, and I'm trying to change things. The previous/current attitude is the hands-off attitude described. I liken it to teaching someone to swim by throwing them into the swimming hole. They may learn to swim, but in my opinion, that doesn't make it the best way. I believe a better way is to provide instruction, then send them out to try. The concept of "character building through adversity" and expecting them to "figure it out" will likely result in slow advancement, discouragement, and eventually dropping out. My belief is that if the adults take a hands-off approach to an extreme, they are neglecting their responsibility to provide direction for the troop, and to set proper expectations.

Or you get the situation in our troop. Nothing but car camping for the last few years; I guess the idea was that backpacking was reserved for Venture Crew. So now we have 12, 13, and 14 year olds who have never backpacked and are intimidated by it. Most (including all the youth leadership) took a pass on our short backpacking trip in October, but the 6 scouts who went (1-10 year old, 3-11 year olds, 1-12 year old, and 1-13 year old) did great, enjoyed it, and want to do it again.

At the moment, there is no program planned by the PLC for the committee to review. The idea just arose (among adults) and was bounced around a little. The next step would be to suggest it to the PLC for discussion, but that doesn't happen until after the CC plans to have it discussed by the committee. (Next PLC is 12/14, next committee meeting is 12/12.)

Some of the objections so far:

- This would be making an exception to our policy, and we've never made exceptions before.

- Our older Scouts are not prepared or capable of providing this training

- This would be changing rules and regulations after the fact, thus setting a bad example

- Making exceptions to rules results in a lowering of standards

- The troop has more urgent issues to deal with now more deserving of our time and attention

A big email debate has just begun in our troop. I will try to describe it briefly, and I would really appreciate input from this forum.

Our Council OA anually offers a Winter Awareness training course. Our troop requires Scouts and adults to attend this training course before being allowed to go snow camping. (I am trying to determine if we have a written policy, or if this has just been passed around by word of mouth until it gained the stature of law.) Some of our Scouts missed the course this past weekend because of illness or outside committments. Someone proposed that we conduct our own in-house training, using the OA syllabus. Our committee chair responded that this required committee approval.

My first question is, is this a subject for the committee, or is this something that falls under the jursidiction of the PLC with the SM and his ASM's? Second, what do other troops have in the way of such a policy?

Thanks.

How about this, particularly the last sentence, which is in bold-type in the G2SS:

Guide to Safe Scouting

Section VII - Fuels and Fire Prevention

Chemical Fuels

Knowledgeable adult supervision must be provided when Scouts are involved in the storage of chemical fuels, the handling of chemical fuels in the filling of stoves or lanterns, or the lighting of chemical fuels. The use of liquid fuels for starting any type of fire is prohibited.

The rest of the section seems to be pretty clear in allowing flammable chemicals only in chemical stoves and lanterns.