Eagledad

I know this is for qwazse, and I look forward to his opinion. The problem with positions like Webmaster, librarian, historian and bugler is that many units have very few expectations for those positions to hold scouts accountable. Without accountability, there is little growth or learning. For a position to have value in the big picture of the whole program, it needs to have value in contributing to the whole program. If scouts don't see themselves contributing to the big picture, then likely the position isn't really required in the program. Our PLC voted to end the bugler position. It was a sad day for the traditional side of me, but the practical side of me agreed. So, for any position to have values (expectations) in the troop, the SM needs to arrange a concept of skills and habits that develops growth in the scouts behavior (character, fitness, and citizenship). Then those expectations can be given to the scout when he gets the new position so that he and the mentor are on the same page. The mentor doesn't have to be the SM, or even and adult. I developed our JASMs to mentor first year scouts in the Grub Master and Cheer Master position. A good PL is also a good mentor as well. We used those positions to start new scouts in the habits of communication with the patrol to develop menus and skits for the monthly campouts. The mentors guided the scouts in how to communication, and researching for new ideas. The BSA doesn't do a good job of teaching adults that PORs are more about developing character than advancing stature. But if the SM can focus on the character part, the stature part naturally follows. By the way, like quazse, I pushed service projects as a great way to get leadership experience. I didn't give them POR credit, but it was a great way to get noticed by the older scouts for future leadership. Barry

I believe, that you believe what you post. I'm just suggesting respect for posters with other opinions. Barry

I find it curious how you present your unsubstantiated theory as rational and acceptable, while presenting a different line of thought as a purposeful misrepresentation. Shesh. Barry

I worded it wrong. I am not suggesting you were acting arrogant in your job. I'm confident you are selfless and work very hard. But when "my" SPL (or ASMs, or Committee members) suggest that we compensate for scouts who can't or won't make the effort (either by asking them to leave or doing their job for them), then I point out that they aren't letting the program work as designed. If the scout doesn't improve performance or take himself out of the game, he hasn't experienced is responsibilities enough. It is true that a percentage of scouts will fail at expectations and not learn anything from the experience (or want to learn from the experience). But the objective is for them to see their personal limitations so they can make good decisions in their future. My younger (introverted) son learned quickly in scouts that he didn't like leadership, so he stayed as far away from it as he could. Ironically he, at age 17, was delegated the team leader of a non scouting group (soccer team) on the 3rd day of a Northern Tier trek because it became obvious that he was the only person with the kind of wilderness experience to get the crew thru the planned trek. I was told by the adult members of the group that he saved their trip from becoming a disaster. It wasn't so much that he was the natural leader, he just became obvious that only he the kind of experience needed for the crew to complete the trek. But I know my son would have declined going on the trip if he known that he would become the team leader. Even now as an adult, he turns down promotions that require him to manage other people. He doesn't understand that even in his quit understated manner, his style expresses confidence. A lot of people feel comfortable around people like that. qwazse (should I capitalize qwazse?) hinted earlier that the expectations of programs are based mainly from the SM. You and your SM are a team and so your goals should be about the same. I imagine you are meeting your scoutmasters expectations quit well and he is very proud. I shouldn't be so forward in suggesting your troops performance based on my expectations. And I apologize for that. Folks here will tell you that sometimes I go two steps back for every step forward. Barry

Well it's not easy letting failure happen, it goes against our human nature. I'm curious what your SM says. We have a local troop that has a great reputation as a well run troop. It's over 100 years old and the alumni always try to recruit the best Scoutmasters. One of their SMs was a mentor for me when I started as a SM. About 20 years ago this troop of about 70 scouts had two senior scouts that were outstanding leaders. I knew these scouts because they were my son's friends at school and they joined one of our Philmont crews. These two scouts were so good that their adults didn't have to do anything for about four years while they led the troop. Well, when they aged out of the troop and went East (MIT) to school, the troop fell flat on its face. The Troop lost almost half of it's membership in a years time. The simple cause was that these two senior scouts never trained any scout with the leadership skills to perform up to the "expectation" of leading the troop. The two scouts just assumed the next generation of leaders would be as good as they were. But because these two scouts did all the work, the next generation never experienced the kind of leadership required for meeting the expectation of leading a troop. They never really understood true leadership even at the patrol level because the older scouts jumped in for them when the PLs struggled. I don't have an answer to your situation because I don't know your scoutmaster's expectations. But you would be doing it wrong in our troop. What is the worst that will happen if your PLs don't do their job? I don't need an answer, I've heard them all. I'm just throwing out the question for you to consider for a while. But, I would tell my SPL that he is being prideful (arrogant) thinking he is better than his PLs. Failure is more of a teacher than success. The Scoutmaster that the OP is talking about appears to me to be afraid of failure. And because of that, he is afraid to risk allowing the SPL prove himself by succeeding. It's easy doing someone else's work when you assume they will fail. The real challenge is figuring out how to motivate them to rise up and succeed. It's a skill that will be used for a lifetime. I know your doing your best and trying hard. I'm not asking for more because you might be doing the best in your situation. And for that, I'm excited for your accomplishments. Barry

Yep, that's what they all say. The thing is that SPLs shouldn't see themselves as the Troop leader, instead he is the Patrol Leader's working model of a servant leader. I don't know if you realize it, but the Patrol Leader position is the most important leadership position in he troop. There are many reasons why, but as a SM, the PL is the most important position because it teaches a scout more about his character than any other position. There is no position as stressful as the Patrol Leader position if the troop is running correctly. And there is no better motivation to learn new habits and change old habits than stress. A person can only change when they see and feel the consequences of their choices. If the SPL does for them what they should be doing for themselves, then he is robbing the scouts an opportunity to learn and grow. Success isn't a well performing troop under your leadership. Success is well performing patrols under the Patrol Leaders leadership. The more you do for them, the less they will do for their patrol. In most cases, the Patrol Leaders are new to the experience of leadership, so the SPL should be a model of leadership skills for PLs to learn from. And remember, we humans learn best by watching, not by listening. Patrol Leaders watch everything the SPL is doing. So show them how to be a servant to their scouts. Treat the PLC the way the PLs should treat their patrol. Serve your PLC so they learn how to serve the patrol. Run your PLC meetings the same as they should run their patrol meetings. All the PL's look up to the position of SPL, so set the example of servant leadership by "looking up" to the PLs as the main leaders of the troop. Treat them with the respect as the top tier troop leaders and you will find that your humility will be rewarded with the same respect. It's pretty cool to experience really. Sounds like you are pretty good SPL already. I look forward to learning what you gain from your experience. Barry

Something qwazse said reminded me that the main skill I wanted SPLs to practice was delegating. Actually delegating and patience, they go hand-in-hand. But I find that delegating is one of the least used skills by adults. That skill gives the average leader leverage for being a good leader. If the skill can be learned at a scout age, imagine their leadership ability when they are adults. And thinking about this scoutmaster; through my struggles in learning to be a better scoutmaster, I tried to balance my pride with the humility of learning something new from all our youth leaders. There is so much that could be learned in this situation. Barry

I've been thinking this way as well. It seems that no matter how hard we try, the world ends up rotating around us. And yet it happens so often. I received many calls in the evening from Scoutmasters asking me how to remove scouts from their PORs. It is so disheartening when adults see bad decisions as bad scouting. I tried so hard to teach otherwise in Scoutmasters Specific courses, but vanity blinds us from the noble objective. Barry

One of my marketing phrases I gave to visiting Webelos parents is: "The troop program is the real world scaled down to a boys size. We want our scouts to learn from their many experiences of making decisions so that when they grow up, they can deal with situations like waking up to a sick wife, three hungry kids and a boss calling about a deadline. Barry

This pretty much is normal operation for National. We only need to refer to the coed change discussions to find ourselves reflecting on the same thought. In fact, where is the transparency for any changes pushed on the membership. Is there any method for volunteer members to hold professionals at National accountable. Maybe they come up with some of these ideas at the water cooler or coffee pot. I would like to know that my opinion on their performance counts. Barry

Everyone's comments are on mark. The reason we don't react to other kids bad behavior like react to our own is that we think we can make a difference with by lecturing. But we learn after a few examples like yours that we have very little leverage for motivating change of behavior. That is why the better leaders don't try to change behavior, they find ways for Scouts to see the repercussions of their behavior so that they feel motivated to change. Anyway, we learned to quit working around the parents and include them on the team. We talked a lot to the parents basically bragging about and how they were doing in the program. Then when we needed to talk about bad behavior, they didn't feel like we were dumping on them. We are a team and work problems out as a team. Saying that, sometimes the parents weren't willing to contribute to the team as much is required, so it was no surprise that they quit. Most parents are all in, but once in a while, you will have to let the scout go to save your sanity. My advice from hard learned experiences is the same as others here, get the parents involved with their son's behavior in the program. Don't let their kids be just your problem. This is sound advice even in their late teen age years. Barry

I had a similar situation and my SPL assured me he would make sure the event he would be fine without him because he was working hard with the team that was running the activity. I was concerned because this Scout had a past. But the activity when off very well and I was very proud of him. It seems odd the SM wants him to quit at this point. It sounds more like a temper tantrum than mentoring wisdom. Scouting is all about boys learning about themselves from their choices. Maybe the SM has some investment in the activity and is blinded by the opportunity for your son's growth. Frankly letting your son deligate the troop activity is a risk for the SM. The results are far bigger than your son learning from the experience. Especially if your son fails. A lot of folks don't do well with risk. But Scoutmastering at its best is risky because allowing Scouts to succeed (or fail) for the Scouts growth requires understanding the dynamics of the scout program and values. If it were me, I would tell the SM that I see an opportunity he for my son to learn greatly from the experience. I would desire, if not beg, for his understanding and help in giving my son a once in a lifetime opportunity to be a better man that both of us would be proud of. Of course I would guide and mentor my son of his experience, but wisdom coming from his SM would have much greater impact. I envy your son's opportunity and hopes it is the life lesson it could be. Barry

The loss of membership as a result of burnout is so bad that I am willing to sacrifice the Tiger program for better marketing of the Wolf age entry level scouts. I have been saying that for almost 20 years. Barry

I'm gunna disagree. The problem with preK to first grade (toddlers) is the large gap of maturity with the 2nd to 5th graders. The challenge adds a lot of complexity for planning and running pack level activities. I also disagree with the challenge of sports, at least until 2nd grade. We had a couple packs defy Counsel pressure by starting their entry level at the 2nd grade instead of 1st grade. They maintained the same membership number that they had five years earlier with their Tiger program. I believe there is so much pressure on 1st grade parents confronted with the multitude of entry level programs competing for 1st graders that they are relieved to hold off a year. Actually I know this to be true because they told me. BUT for those adults who are concerned about competing programs, I would propose a program like the Girl Scouts have of a preK to 1st grade program that is separate from the pack. That way both programs can be designed independent of the maturity issue. And possibly help the burnout issue by not taxing the pre-k parents. Barry

Experts say volunteers of any volunteer organization give about 20 months before burning out. Asking a volunteer who is starting to burn out after 2 years to give one more year is not hard. I've done it many times. The problem is asking a burned out volunteer to give another two or three years (Bear Leaders). The heaviest drops in cubs when I was on district during the years around 2000 were from Tigers and 2nd year Webelos. I have heard that drop outs have increased during the bear and 1st Webelos years as well. I'm not sure why those years increased. I could only attribute it to a heavier Tiger program, but I didn't track data that long for all the cub years. Barry

I was on the District Membership Committee when National introduce the new and improved Tiger program in 2000. We had heard it was coming and we had hoped it was a scaled back program because we were already struggling with the burnout loses. Instead the new Tiger program required more adult time, not less. In fact the Tiger program alone require about 50% of the total pack adult volunteer time if done as requested. We predicted that troops would see a larger than normal decline of membership in 2005, and they did. I don't have the total cub numbers, but I believe less than 25% of Cubs from the Wolf age make it into the troops. I don't start with Tigers because the loses were huge in our area. A family program might stabilize that number some, but that one-hour-a-week will still be killer even with the whole family involved. Barry

We did this by getting a senior scout involved with the SM instead of the ASM. SPL, JASM, Troop Guide, or just an experienced respected older scout, it doesn't matter. The point was getting the scouts used to trusting the older scout as the trusted assistant of the SM. As a SM, I used the experience to get older scouts more mentoring experience. It starts out a little slow, but as the older scouts age and mature, they get used to the idea of being the trusted role models and mentors. Barry

Yes, making a program more interesting for older scouts is less about better activities and more about getting older scouts involved in the day to day management of the program. That is what you have been doing with your program. Once the older scouts have bought in to being the leaders of the program, they will naturally make the activities more attractive for all the scouts. The program will move from a First Class skills development program to a outdoors adventure program. Barry

The poor program causes the other problem of pulling the boys out. You have heard me say many times that is the parents pullout with their support, their sons will follow. Like all outside activities, scouting requires stamina for those dry times when the scout just isn't in the mood. When the program is so boring that the scouts are always whining, the parents eventually give in. The problem Sentinel is that this is a harder problem to solve than the Cub burnout issue. I could fix the burnout issue overnight simply by shortening the cub program. The troop issue has more to do with not providing a program that is interesting for older scouts. Much harder. Barry

Finally, a voice of reason. "Most" (more than 50%) new Venturing Crews in our area don't last more than five years because the adults of bad troop programs start the Crews. If they can't run a troop, what makes them think they can run a crew. Five years is about all the interest the adults have. Still, the BSA's biggest membership killer is a top heavy Cub program that drives families. Ironically the best way to fix the membership problem would be to bring the girls in at the 10 year age so the families aren't lost as a result of Cub program burnout. Barry

True, but the unit committee will make the choice for them. Unfortunately, that often leads to conflict. Barry

As someone who has a lot of experience working with multiple units in a single sponsor, as well as dealing with the struggle of finding enough volunteers, I can't see two separate programs working side by side. The charter will have to either pick supporting a single gender program or mixed. The forces of economics don't allow it any other way. Barry

It will be interesting. I've said here before that we had several mothers that specifically put their sons in our troop for the exposure to male adult role models. They made it quite clear they that while it was up to the SM, they would rather not have females camping with the boys (we had no restriction). We had several female committee chairman and they were up front that male role models would dominate the program. I also find it interesting that todays parents don't get that. I think the feminist have won in confusing equality with equal abilities. Barry

Demonstrate Scout Spirit and Living the Scout Oath and Law has been a source of contention since the day it was given power to judge a boys behavior. It's nothing new. The struggle is that there isn't a defined set of actions for Demonstrating Scout Sprite, and the result are different adult interpretations of Scout Oath and Law. You would not believe how many times National deals with this conflict on Eagle applications. And 9 times out of 10, the scout wins. Or maybe it is better understood that the troop leadership looses. So what is a parent supposed to do when they feel their child is being wronged by some self-righteous adult whose only authority is some traditional paper hierarchy of a national youth organization. They stand up against the oppression of course. Sadly, the side with the greater pride is the winner because after all, volunteerism isn't worth the heart-ach. And, ironically, Scout Spirit takes a beating because the adult role modes can't play nicely. As our program grew and the Scoutmaster matured along with learning from the experiences of dealing with the high expectations of parents, we got better at explaining what new families should expect from the program. And I know it worked because I got fewer calls in the evening from parents who felt they weren't getting their monies worth. Of course no matter how much we preach our expectations and methods of reaching those expectations, some parents still struggle with their son's less than perfect performance. So, they try to push back. Units the deal with these conflicts the best are the ones that maintain a consistent program. Troops with strong Committee Chairman have the least trouble because they usually work side-by-side with the SM. It doesn't matter how strong or weak the scoutmaster's perform, everybody look's up to them for program direction. So if the CC and SM have a full understanding and agreement of the vision (expectations) and the methods for working toward those expectations, the program is strong; no matter how weak it is. That is why I always encourage CC's take the Scoutmaster Fundamentals training with the SM. They rarely do, but the point is understood. Generally units search first for a SM to build a strong program. But I encourage units to first find a "strong" CC, because they will find the "strong" SM and the two together will build an outstanding program. I kind of went off on a rabbit trail or two, sorry. Barry

I had a few scouts transfer out after my head to head meeting with the parents. I listened patiently and then quietly replied to how and why my actions with their son were appropriate, and supported by the troop committee. I would remain consistent with my scoutmaster style. I tried to not lead the meeting a do or die type of conclusion, but I did leave them an out that there are other programs in the area they might find more acceptable for their family. Sadly, in most cases the scout didn't want to leave. I did track many of those scouts through my sons and about half them aged out of their other troop program because their parents stayed involved. Barry