Eagledad

A successful discussion with a scout in regard to behavior is successful when the scout shows that he knows the difference from his displayed behavior and your desired behavior. Once a scout knows the difference, then the burden of making the right choice is on him. Your goal isn't getting the scout to admit his mistake so that he satisfies you to get out of the conference, your goal is to get him self motivated to make better choices in the same situation when nobody is watching. That is a very difficult task. Each scoutmaster has their own style to achieving the goal and it requires practice and patience until you find that style. But in general, asking the kinds of questions that gets the scout thinking and reflecting why the choice of the behavior is right or wrong. A lot of Scoutmasters don't like to use the Scout Law and Oath to balance a Scout's behavior because they believe it's not reflective of the real world. I am just the opposite, I believe the Oath and Law can be applied for measured in some way with all decisions in the real world because they are selfless outward actions. So I like to use the Oath and Law for scouts to measure their choices. In general, most undesirable behavior is self-serving. My goal is to get the scout to reflect to me the risk of his decision for harming those around him, AND how a different choice takes away that risk because he is considering them first. It's hard for someone to break bad habits, but if we start to consider the harm to those around first, then we have a reason to consider making a better choice. Once you have a scout thinking in that level of maturity, he makes choices by how it affects others, not by what he can get away with for himself when the adults aren't around. So I guess in the big picture, it's not so much the confession of doing wrong that is the primary goal (although it helps), but planting the seed of considering the risk of the decision to those around him. You know, Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave clean and reverent. You can also approach some subjects from your youth side. The insect repellant fire starter is really cool in how it works. Most all of us have done something simular. And its' even taught as a useful tool in some dire situations. So I wouldn't approach it as a bad thing, but something that requires maturity to use and demonstrate correctly and safely. Fire and lightning are my to big fears for scouts. So we spent a lot of time on each to satisfy the scoutmaster (me). But we also had instances of hairspray being played with at patrol camp fires. The PLC handled it, but when the SPL asked for suggestions, I suggested they visit the fire ward at a hospital. That didn't happen, but they did bring in a nurse from the hospital. I just wanted the scouts to learn the risk of their behavior and habits of fire safety. I don't know how much that worked, but when scouts asked me about it, I asked them how those people in the hospital got burned? Was there a scout around to help them make the right choice? We did allow our scouts to play with fire some, but they had to learn how to demonstrate it safely which forced them to learn everything about the propellant as well as how to demo it without risking those around them. They learned a lot, but had a lot of fun in that learning process. So use your youth side to get them to understand the fear and harm of their behavior and then ask them to show them how to do it safely. They will have fun doing it. Those are just a couple things off the top of my head. Barry

All true. For me, fun is short for mental and physical "satisfaction". Frankly leadership can be stressful and not fun, but very satisfying. Our SPLs are so warn out by the end of their term, they typically don't run again because they want a break from the fatigue. But after working with the new SPL for three weeks helping get them up to speed, more often than not they admit that they wished they had run again because they learned the hard part all ready. And typically they run again at the next election. I found that satisfaction comes when we push the scouts to the next level of challenge, whether its leadership, managing, planning, and even advancement like finishing Eagle requirements. But it also includes more physical activities like backpacking, canoeing, and so forth. One way that helps a troop mature at the older age group is to turn the whole troop into an adventure troop. Start planning a couple of backpacking troop campouts. Canoeing, rappelling, and bicycling. They don't have to be far away or elaborate campouts. Just something adventurous. We once planned a campout where the patrol had to bike, hike, and canoe past 16 skills test check points. They hiked five miles, bikes a bunch more and canoed I don't know how far. They were so tired by Sunday that they skipped the monthly Capture the Flag game. They never skip capture the flag. But if you were to ask the older scouts the best part of the weekend, they would say it was coming up with the idea and planning it. Satisfaction at the troop level for us means challenging every scout at their maturity so they feel fulfilled when the reach the new goal. And at the same time, the young scouts are watching and learning how to be the mature men they see from their older scout mentors. Once you get the momentum of the program going, it pretty much runs itself. And those troops will likely have 50/50 ration of younger and older scouts. Barry

I don't know stosh, you are a lot more hands on with the Scouts than we are. The Scouts run a simple process where each scout can apply for a chance to be a leader. It's not rocket science and I don't think the Scouts need a masters degree to pick leaders. They have their handbooks if theywant new ideas. It's such a small part of the program that We don't see the big deal. The one time I proposed something different, the PLC politely voted me down. They like how they pick leaders. Who am I to say otherwise. Elections are a big deal for you. Maybe because your 5 Scouts are so young. Our troop is more mature, so are adults don't get involved. Barry

Nice theory, wished it that way. Barry

Not really, doesn't matter the term or the process for determining who's in what positions, what the Scouts learn from their choices and performance is determined by adults. Seems many of us get stuck in the weeds with the small stuff when it's the big stuff that makes the difference. Some of us focus on details, some of us focus on the big picture. Either way, understanding Aims and Methods makes the scout growth process easier. Barry

Adults who are excited with the program typically have the energy and enthusiasm for developing a creative fun program that keeps the scouts excited even through five years. I was told by experts in the field of human behavior that the average volunteer of any volunteer organization gives about 20 months before burnout starts to set in. That is not even two years. The real problem if you get into the meat of it is that burnout sets in just before Webelos. And the Webelos membership increased drop out rate shows it. Barry

This a sound approach, and in general, I agree. I guess my experience has me bias because the volunteers tend to hesitate, or not act at all. The hesitation gave one adult the time to loose his temper a few months later and at aggressively to another scout. Professionals are required to act immediately. Getting council involved doesn't guarantee action, as I said our council encourage the unit to take care of the situation. Taking care of the situation can mean just discussing it. Council might not feel obligated to check back later. This is my experience, not my presumption. Barry

I personally don't support this route based from the experience that the charter rep reports to the charter leader. Not only does that take time, the people involved may be less likely to act. And that is if the charter wants to do anything. Go back to my statement that by standers (or people not involved) don't like confrontation. Hopefully their first action will be to contact the SE, which is why going to the SE makes more sense to me. The DE is ok, but they will be involved anyway if the first call goes strait to the SE. However, I don't like to go around district, so I called the District Commissioner (DC) just before or after contacting the SE. Abuse is one of the few reasons to call the SE first. By the way, typically what the Council will counsel the unit to deal with the situation with them (Council) standing in support. So it always gets back to the CC and COR one way or another. But depending on the order of reporting is how much time for action to happen. I have seen CCs quit because they didn't volunteer for these kinds of issues. Finally, there is a fear among everyone that this can go too far and create more problems for the adult responsible than intended. But that shouldn't be our problem. The adult has some control. Some will say the SMs physical action wasn't an act of abuse. But the problem it sounds like from the OPs post is that the SM acted in anger. The anger and how he controlled (or lost control) is the issue in my opinion. Barry

I've written a books worth of stuff on this forum for this very subject. I will try and be brief to keep it short (yah right!). At the Cub Level we must understand that while the program is for the boys, success depends on keeping the adults interested. If the adults (parents and leaders) are having fun and enjoying the program, there is a 99% likelihood of the boys reaching Webelos and crossing over to the Troops. In my research, the primary reason for the membership drop at the cub level is adult burnout. Burnout is the loss of motivation and energy to provide a fun program. Five years is way way way too much to expect from volunteers. At the troop level there are two areas of large membership losses. The first is the first year scout. More scouts are lost in this age group than any other age group of scouts in all of the BSA. The reason I found is because the huge jump of a 10 year going from a adult guided lifestyle to a patrol method independent decision making lifestyle is terrifying. Imagine a boy who may have never camped in his life being told to pack up for a campout with a troop of strangers. These boys need some time to spool up the confidence that they are safe in the troop even while setting up a tent in the deep dark woods. The other larger problem I found in my research are the loss of older scouts. I believe the success of the whole troop program is based from the success of the 14 and older part of the program. The over all problem with the 'majority' of troops is they tend to drive their program toward what I call is a First Class Advancement program. The vast majority of the troops activities are designed for scouts to advance up to a First Class level. Actually many troops drive it toward Eagle, but it is the same problem. A troop that develops activities for advancement works out OK for 10 to 13 year old scouts because they are basically followers and the activities that to them are new and fun. But scouts after puberty have a different natural instinct that drives them more toward taking care of their gang and controlling their future. They simply have the same instincts as adults. The problem with most troops is they don't know how to use that instinct because they still think of older scouts as adolescent boys. So the adults typically assign the older scout to only teach, what, FIRST CLASS SKILLS. Yep, the older scouts are repeating their first three years all over again. Older scouts want responsibility in developing boys into men, not babysitting scouts in classroom type settings. The problem is we are told over and over to let the older scouts teach so they are doing adult responsibilities. But teaching in a class room type of environment isn't really an adult responsibility. It is just plain boring. So the older scouts drop out and the older scouts of the troop don't typically last longer than age 14. Troop adults need to develop the program so that First Class skills are not developed in class room type setting, but instead through passive actions during adventure activities. The program needs to get away from advancement themes so that the scout develop more of their survival skills like backpacking, canoeing, camping, hiking, bicycle riding and on and on. You know, the fun stuff. The older scouts leading those activities don't feel trapped in the same ol same ol program of previous years and they aren't babysitters. The program needs to be developed so that younger scouts learn "everything" from the role models of older scouts. That may sound simple, but it goes against the nature of a protective parent. It takes as much practice for the adults to stand back as it does for scouts to step forward. But in short, it comes down to a fun program. And it's the older scouts who define fun, not the younger ones. Like the Cub program, if the older scouts are excited about the program, the younger ones will follow. That is a very brief in my limited time description of my experience and research of how units succeed and fail. I can fill in the gaps if you would like more detail. Barry

One other thing, in most cases (not all), the adults knew they should step down and did it voluntarily. Likely this isn't the first time they lost control. You are doing them a favor. Barry

Adult bystanders don't like confrontation, so they tend to stand back quietly and let these things go by without accountability. As long as the SM (any adult) gets away with aggressive behavior toward adults or scouts, but especially aggressive physical behavior, the behavior will continue. I've seen it several times. I have been personally involved with removing adults away from scouts. After my few experiences with aggressive adults (both male and female), I believe you must contact council via the Scout Executive and District Executive and District Commissioner as well. I would start by calling and telling Committee Chair you are contacting the SE and they can either assist in you are stand back. After my experiences, I believe aggressive adults have to be removed from a position that puts them in harms way with scouts. If they can't control themselves, certainly nobody else can. The problem with scouting is most of us can control ourselves when we are fresh and in low stress environments. But working with youth outdoors naturally creates a stressful environment, especially difficult boys who are also tired from lack of sleep and activities. Add lack of sleep and fatigue of outdoor activities pushes some adults over the edge. They typically only loose control for a second, but someone can get hurt in that brief outburst. I think you are in a tough spot, but protecting the youth is most important. Barry

I'm not promoting the idea of Rovers, but the most troublesome scouters I have worked with were adults who didn't have a youth scouting experience and were using our unit to get that experience. In our council, probably half the Woodbadge staffers are these adults. If only there were a program that would give them an outlet for getting some of that experience. Barry

Probably true, I don't really understand how advancement would drive the practice of the law, but I'm always surprised how leaders think about the program. However, we did try to demonstrate the differences of our decisions once in a while. I would give the SPL a box of tootsie-roll pops to set in the middle of camp with the instructions that anybody can have as many as they want provided they only take one at a time and leave the rapper and stick in the trash. If a scout is found with more than one tootsie pop, or a discarded rapper or stick was not found in the trash, the SPL will take the box and give it back to the SM. It took a couple of campouts for the first box to empty. I never saw a box again after that. We did other simple demonstrations as well so scouts could see their decisions in action. I don't like calling them tests because they were really more of opportunities to learn how oneself would choose without any outside intimidation. And hopefully change from some of the choices they made. Barry

We had several hundred scouts pass through our troop over the years I was a scouter. I've worked with all kinds of boys of different personalities, but we never had a single theft in the troop. I think that one statistic alone gave me a lot of faith in the values of the program. We had dozens of instances where scouts approached the senior scouts or the adults claiming someone had stolen some of their property. It just seems to be human natures first natural reaction. But as we gained experienced, we learned to point out to the scout that theft in the troop was very rare. We suggested the scout ask his patrol help him search for the property because it more than likely just misplaced. And it was EVERY time. The stuff scouts lost and found at summer camp was actually comical. Now I know that we were likely just lucky, but I can't help feel that the patrol method and the practice of the scout law in large part deserve much of the credit for the trust in the patrols. This is a disappointing discussion for me because I know the scouting program works. And yet we are shown in this discussion several examples of scout behaving badly. I don't have a good response for how to change the trend, if it is a trend. But I do believe that a lot of scouters are running their programs wrong. Now I wonder if we need a course in developing street smarts in our scouts, because my scouts would certainly have been naive today. Barry

I'm not sure this means much because there are a lot more unit leaders around in these camps to prevent the aggression Scourge experienced. Our troop worked by a motto that we developed our scouts maturity so that if the adults didn't show up, their behavior wouldn't change. Scourge's experience is exactly what we are talking about. I'm not going to say our scouts would never embarrass themselves with bad behavior because the whole idea of the patrol method program is that we hope they learn proper boundaries from their poor decisions. But I will say we gave them a lot of rope (independence) to fail within our program. I have said here many times that the troop experience is the real world experience scaled down to a boys size experience. We want the boys to fail in the troop program so the lessons they learn help them mature for the real world. From a cultural perspective, I wonder if that is the problem with today's society. Barry

Col., my apologies for my first post. I didn't mean to post it, but I hit the wrong key in my effort to get out of the editor. When I edited it after it posted to remove the content, the editor would not accept my changes, I don't know why. I sent a note to the moderators. Since you brought it up, I'm not sure where exactly the crux of the problem lies, I have a few stories where the female (both adult and scout) members of the BSA behaved badly (in a sexual aggression context) as well. I am truly disturbed by Scourge's post and embarrassed. Not as a male, but as a Scout. If I were the SM of those boys, there would a realignment process in order. But I feel this is bigger than just a BSA event. And that is what really bothers me. I am the grandfather of an 18 month girl. What do her parents, as well as my future grand son's, have to look forward to? I want to add that I am impressed by Scourge's controlled reactions to these boys. Someone held up the reputation of the programs values. Thanks Scourge. Barry

Do you believe the boys will behave better? Barry

I just commented last week on another discussion that youth imitate their role models. So many adults even on this forum want to blame it on "boys will be boys". Someone else said it here and I agree, I don't think scouters today take the oath and law seriously as part of the program. "Adults will be adults" and the youth are watching. Barry

Please read what you just wrote: "Boundaries and separation promote bad behavior as those on the other side of the boundary are bad or less." Bad or less? As I said, adults set the culture of behavior. A patrol of boys is an environment where boys are safe to make choices of behavior so as to learn from results of the choice. Choice isn't a boundary, it's freedom. Expectation is the guide that decisions are measure from. If youth don't have expectations of their behavior choices, then they have nothing to measure right or wrong. Barry

Shessh, youth mimic their role models. We can't say that "scouting is great because scouts learn from their decisions" in one sentence, and then follow that with "boys will be boys" in the next sentence. Bad behavior has no association at all with "boys only". The adults are fully responsible for the culture in the scouting unit. That goes for girls and boys. Barry

This isn't a response to stosh, but to those in the discussion who like to throw out single word opinions of some in the discussion. Chauvinism is used today more to disparage those of which the accuser disagrees than to define ones actions. If that weren't so, then why not explain how they came to that conclusion? Lazy? Disparaging and name calling seems to be the cultural norm these days for giving an opinion. We only have to watch the news to see how acceptable hostile accusations have become. I guess folks feel safe using derogatory expression today because most discussions are not face to face. But for me, it's ten times worse on a forum where "friendly", 'courteous" and "kind" represent the epitome of right behavior toward all people at all times. I take offense to chauvinist being thrown out in this discussion because most here have spent considerable time explaining in detail their opinions in a courteous fashion. Throwing out one single word in response to what was otherwise a civil discussion is anything other than friendly, courteous or kind. Folks who know me on this forum know that I use the word integrity a lot. I don't know why, but I detest hypocrisy. I say this because sometimes I sit in awe wondering if some of the posters here talk to their scouts the same way they respond to forum list. Not just in politics, but just in general scouting discussions. A quick google of chauvinist: excessive patriotism, blind patriotism, excessive nationalism, sectarianism, isolationism, flag-waving. Those here who truly believe some of us are self-serving in our opinions, then respect the forum with and friendly explanation instead of using a single word to express your feelings. If you desire to get respect, then show respect. I am intrigued with your post stosh's. Your thoughts makes no sense to me. You don't mind scouts going coed, but the only reason your here is because the organization isn't coed. What? Barry

I wasn't looking for any specific answer really, I was just curious how you felt about it. I value your thoughts on this subject because you have an extensive youth and adult experience. Not only do I think you look at your personal experience fondly, but I gather you value the father son bonding memories as well. You have a lot invested. Barry

Good post Mike. I'm giving you a green up arrow for a well thought out post. However, I look at the Canadian Scouts as an example of what happens to a traditional program that switched to a more politically correct agenda. They have never come close to the numbers they had 25 years ago. Maybe National just wants a moral victory. Barry

BSA going coed is just a theory, so I'm curious NJ how you feel about the BSA going coed if your theory was found not to be true. I have a few reasons why adding girls to stop the declining membership is perplexing. Granted, my engineering mind thinks more in the big picture and I'm not sure National works in any kind of picture, but: Adding membership to reverse declining membership is like the Titanic taking on more passengers to bail water faster. Does fixing the program to at least stop the decline not seem logical? I find the idea of parents wanting to move their daughters from the broken program of the GUSA to a program that is loosing it's own membership ironic. I don't agree that going coed will serve more youth because as qwazse pointed out, the girls are being served in other youth outdoor programs. The BSA is simply trying to take more from the other programs. Has anyone considered that some donors might not support a coed program? Barry

I laugh because I experienced this very scenario on my Webelos son's first campout, except mom ordered the Webelos leader (me) to make the boys get out of the tree. I was saved by her husband who explained the situation. But the scenario was repeated ten minutes later when the boys walked into the ankle deep stream to chase baby frogs. Welcome to boyhood mom. I have not discussed this subject with my sons at all until this Sunday while my 30 year old younger son and I were waiting for the movie Dunkirk to start. I said, "the BSA is proposing to go coed". His response was, "No place is safe for boys to hang out with boys anymore". Nothing more was said by either of us. Barry