Eagledad

Yes, me to. I was impressed how dad wanted his son to prove himself with us. He was a great scout. He resuscitated a baby found face down in a pool. Came back a hero from Afghanistan. I am honored to have been his Scoutmaster for the year he was with us. I wish we had him from Webelos. He would have been amazing in our program. Barry

Withholding? Please! Self righteous posturing comes off uncouth-like. Better to ask questions so as to better understand the Poster’s opinion. Equiping scouts to succeed while letting them fail is complicated. But I’m reminded of the father of a scout ready for his ECOH. He appeared at a meeting to discuss his son’s struggle to complete and submit his Eagle packet to the district advancement committee. He was lost and felt we werean’t cooperating. The 17 year old scout moved from another state and joined our troop 6 months earlier. He only had three MBs to finish when he joined. Once he finished the 3 badges, henmet with our Eagle adviser to complete his Eagle packet. Our advisor gave him the information she gives all the scouts ready to submit paperwork. However, he was clueless and was too shy to ask for more help. See, each scout in his other troop is given a schedule of advancement classes to Eagle when they join. The adults also keep all the scouts advancement records and important paperwork. TheY organize it all and submit it to the EBOR. All the scouts have to do In that troop,is wait for a call from their advisor telling them when to go to there EBOR. Our troop, on the other hand, doesn’t set any advancement agenda, we don’t hold or organize any advancement paperwork, prepare the Eagle packet, or contact the district EBOR. In fact, the scouts have to tell the SM the date of the EBOR. I explained to dad the differences between our programs and finished with “we believe the Eagle has the character of an adult, so expect him to handle his advancement as an adult”. The reason I remember saying that is because his dad smiled and nodded with agreement. We were certainly on the same page. I told him we would be certainly help give he and his son all the information they required for his son to make the contacts and submit the packet. We had a wonderful ECOH on a campout 3 months later. Now I admit the two troops are the extreme ends of the information spectrum, but the 100 other scouts in our troop never complained. From day one, they were expected to take responsibility for finding and using information and resources they needed for the goals of their scouting career. It’s not that we didn’t provide information, but like qwazse, we expected them to use the handbooks. That was how they grew in the program. From my experience, treat a scout as an adult with adult expectations, they will behave as adults. Barry

It's not that attention should be paid first to the struggling units, it's that those are bigger fires that need attention. I know that sounds the same, but typically struggling commission corps are the cause of struggling units and they in their unstructured mind only fix big problems. Units would likely see their UC in a well run corp. But, many folks feel they should see their UC every week, That is not the case. You contact the District commissior. Infact, all units should know the District commissioner. They are usually the one that handles the more challenging problems. UC's are usually more observers and advisors. But, in a well run District, the UC is reporting to the DC and they are working together on any guidance if needed. Quality units usually typically come from the vision of the District Commissioner. The DC is the heart of the District Program. The UC is supposed to be working at the guidance and permission of the District Commissioner. The DE is the council representative for the district. If the DE is doing the job correctly, they recruit a capable District commissioner. Recruiting UCs would take a lot of time and work for a DE. The District Chairmen runs the District committee and is not expected to recruit for each subcommittee member. Yes, but let's keep the hierarchy in context; the UC works for the DC. The DC is the member of the Key 3 and liaison for the council and district. The UC is the liaison to the DC. If noting else, the UC/DC are a filter for what a unit really needs directly from the Council level. As I said, I believe the quality of a District comes from the District Commissioner. A district could have a mediocre DE and District Chair, but still have a high quality program with a good DC. On the other hand, a good DE will recruit a good DC. I believe the bad commission reputation has come from a lacking to understand the value of the District Commissioner. As a result, most don't do a good job. So, the UCs are left to their own without general district guidance. Barry

Wow! What a mess. First off, you claim your running one of the best programs, but not getting any feedback. What feedback do you want? My experience with a struggling Commissioner corp program is that the resources are applied to units that need help. Do you need help? You state that the commissioner is the liaison of units to the Council. Commissioners are the liaison the DISTRCT. The DE is your liaison to the council, if you need it. Whether the DE does their job through commissioner corp or personally is up in the air and dependent of their character of how they work. What do you want to know about Council to continue to run your fine program? I do agree the commissioner Crop is there to help you build a quality program, but again, if you have a quality program, what else do you want? If your commissioner corp is lacking and struggling, and I have the "Been there done that T-Shirt", then help them by not taking recourses you don't need. Use them when you need them for situations that are beyond the experience of the unit volunteers. As for the missing DE, OK, so. But you really want to see is the District Commissioner. The DC has the most power to influence units. Sadly, most districts don't understand their power and they seem to fill the position with someone who doesn't have the skills. But, if you really want to invite District/Council to see your program, the DC is the person you want because that is the Key 3 connection to the outside world. Finally, I cheer your desire to become a commissioner, but let me point out that you can only be as good as your District Commissioner manager (DC). And you aren't painting a very pretty picture of your DC.. Every situation is different, but my suggestion is to get on the District Committee somewhere where you can do good work and earn your way to the District Commissioner position. I took that route, and I was offered the DC position. I was Sadly, the offer came 5 years after I retired from scouting and I wasn't ready to jump back in. I was flattered they remembered me and felt I was their person for the job, but I moved on with my life. To bad really, I believe the District Commissioner has the most power for influencing program in the units. I believe a unit should never see the DE if the commissioner corp is doing their job correctly. I'm always excited to read your grounded opinions of scouting. I believe some of your thoughts will be influenced with district level volunteering. I know it changed a lot of my idealism. I look forward to reading your future posts. Barry

This is an interesting idea. The only issue I could see is if the leader and expert have a difference of opinion for completion. Happens with scoutmasters all the time. I'm not sure there is an easy answer. When learned that parents envision Sandy Hook possibilities in their unit, there is no way they are going to let a stranger work independently with the scouts, even under your idea. I see virtual meetings becoming a real path for these things, but I don't believe the scouts will get the same benefits as they would from a personal experience with the MBC Barry

First class requirements. Barry

Like the cooking MB, I don’t believe camping should be a required MB for what a Scout should be an expert at doing anyway by age 14. A Eagle Scout should be as much of an expert in the woods as a first class scout. I feel the rank badges should require the minimum number of Scout skills to qualify the scout to be a confident outdoorsman. The Eagle should be more skilled in public speaking, group management and leadership. i like that first-aid qualification idea. We did that as a troop. Barry

Which minorities? My high school teacher son has been teaching in higher risk schools for over ten years and he says that resistance to higher education (or even K-12 education) is a cultural issue, not an opportunity issue. Barry

That was 20 years ago on an old computer that has crashed since. But I can kind of give an outline. I first discussed how scout growth is the result of scouts learning from their decisions. Lots and lots of decisions. Then I led into the problem that many adults aren't willing to let scouts make the harder lesson-learning-decisions because they are afraid of what a wrong decision will do. Adult Fears. Then we led into how to identify exactly what causes the fear because surprisingly adults don't think through that far when they say no. Let's use the five mile hike for example, adults afraid, the scouts will get lost, so teach them how to read maps, use compass, even use a GPS. Or, even let them do the hike around town in an area they feel safe and work their way to the woods after that. Then there is the fear of a scout getting hurt. OK, teach first aid to the point of feeling they can deal with that situation. Of course to many a fear of letting scouts alone on an activity seems obvious. But, one scoutmaster told me he wouldn't let his SPL run a PLC meeting until he was 14. Why 14, I don't know. His fear was the meeting would be disorganized and take all day to complete. So, we discussed how to guide the scout through a meeting without adult in the room. You know the SM never thought of teaching the SPL how to use and agenda because the SM never used one himself. The SMs fears were a result of his own bad habits. We we spent some time in the handbooks where they talk about agendas and running meetings. He was another example of how that one lesson should him how to get past other fears he dealing with in his program. The real point of the class is to first identify the fear, then figure out what needs to be done to feel to alleviate that fear. Simple really. But adults are so used to parent reaction of saying no, they haven't developed the habit of considering the idea and asking themselves why not? If you was your adults, you will see it a lot in many aspects of the program. That's all you are really trying to teach. The other point I was trying make is that the habit of young scouts making challenging decisions really does create growth and maturity. Believe it or not, most adults don't really trust that reasoning. I find it harder to get adults to consider that ideal than getting them to confront their fears. To many adults, what's the point of confronting a fear if the result doesn't change the outcome. This is why a good SM will spend half their time working with the adults. Adults have to grow more and faster just to keep up with scout growth. Does that help much? Barry

I actually created an adult leadership course on how to get past fears that restrict scouts from doing their activities and making decisions. Motivation to create the course come from a new troop I was asked to help. The adults were all new and they wouldn't even let their scouts (all first year scouts) lead a flag ceremony because they believed the scouts didn't have the maturity to recite the Pledge of Elegance, Law, or oath without messing up. The steps to get past our fears are simple really, identify the fear and then train the adults or scouts how to deal with the situation of the fear. In one class we used an example of a patrol doing a five mile hike without an adult. One participant got pretty aggravated and loud with the idea as we discussed the steps to alleviate the fears restricting the scouts from the hike.. But a couple years later he was a participant at a WB course I was staffing and he found me to say, that while he was skeptical, he tried the suggestions and they worked. Really, working past our fears is a process we all go through a lot. The real problem is that fear which stop us from trying to get past. Depending our our experiences of life, adults have different fears that hold them from letting the scouts mature and grow. We just have to be willing to try. Barry

The discussion arose because posters were doing things so drastically different that their program can no longer achieve it's intended objectives. You even mentioned once your own sons enjoyed cubs more than the Troop. You certainly don't show respect for the program. I can only imagine you haven't observed scouts growing from their decisions because it is truly a wonderful feeling. Someone posted a video here a few months ago of a troop that in my area resembled more of a Webelos program than troop. The adults directed the cooking, kp, and other activities. The scouts appeared totally reliant on the adults. Yep, that is a troop that would need a lot of adults to administer the program. And I didn't see scouts making decisions that would force them to evaluate the results. I'm trying to understand what fears are causing such "dramatic" changes. What does Sandy Hook have to do with the number of adults on a campout? What can a 3rd adult do that the first two couldn't? I'm asking because I don't understand. Barry

Still? That’s what it was 25 years ago. So, a troop could still send 40 scouts on a campout with 2 adults. The issue isn’t liability or higher risks, the issue is more acceptance of helicopter parenting. Scouts will develop only to the maturity that they are respected. i know the solution, but do parents want a solution? Barry

I’m not sure what you’re are saying. What are the minimum number of adults required for an activity? Barry

SPL called me every Sunday night to discuss the next meeting agenda. Now in our case, the PLC met before the troop meeting each week, but I think the SPL can still brief the SM on the troop meeting agenda. But, this is where we could have some good discussions. I don't think the NYLT does a good job either. Before NYLT, our council course created PLCs with the participants instead of Patrols. Each PLC planned two meeting agendas each day and took turns running the course program each day. The course was a basically PLC practices and methods instead of Patrol Method. I don't know of any course now where the participants plan and run the course agenda like a PLC runs the troop. Barry

I agree with you, and for a different reason than studies. My experience of raising boys and girls and working with boys and girls has proven to me that boys learn differently than girls. They have different motivations for when and how they learn. They have different speeds or maturity for learning the same subjects. I could even predict the outcome of gender groups. I remember the leaders who jumped on this forum to brag about their girls were more advanced at learning scout skills than boys. Yep, girls learn skills more by instruction than boys who do better by application. Girls are more organized, which lends better for planning. But boys are more creative and are better at applying the skills. Now, the thought is that the mix would complement and advance the skills of the other gender, but I find that adults instead pit the genders against each other, like the adults who jumped on the forum to brag about their girls. Hard to beat nature of youth and adults. Barry

I also come from the old JTE. At first we thought it annoying because we did most of the requirements anyway. But when I learned to respect when volunteered at the district and council because a lot of units need some guideline to even attempt a quality program. Most folks on this forum, or any scouting forum, likely come from a average to better than average program. But, there are a lot of units that barely operate with BSA guidance because they simply don't have the knowledge and or skills. Yes, they get through training, but they have busy personal lives and truly only give one hour a week. JTE is a good reminder for them of a BSA Scouting program. I don't agree with some of the metrics like advancing every scout once a year or even some of the recruiting goals, but in general, the JTE has some guidance power toward a BSA run program. And this is how or program works as well. The responsibility for a good quality program is on the PLC. They are responsible for the three (silly me, four Aims) by applying the Eight Methods. They don't set numbers goals, but program quality goals by basically doing the Eight Methods. Our PLC is in the habit of doing a service project on every campout (as well as others in the communtiy). That is not a JTE goal, but in personal development and citizenship training exercise. A Patrol method program doesn't set advancement above other methods. The PLC provides a program where any and all scouts can advance to their personal goals. How many 12 to 17 year olds want to focus on advancing every year? We never got 100% on JTE, but our troop averaged one Eagle every 2.5 months. I don't know where JTE will go because it seems National is focused on a Political image of liberal social indoctrination. The thought of what National could demand from units through JTE is kind of scary. Barry Barry

Actually, scouts shouldn't need any adults if the program is running correctly. National only recently change the policy where adults are required on campouts. Our program was built on a theme of putting the adults out of business. Of course adults are required for some functions like driving and BORs. But, if a patrol is willing to hike from town to a camp site, who needs adults? The crux of the problem is the modern fear that youth must be 35 years old to have the maturity for activities without adults like camping. Programs with those adults will never mature to wear their scouts have the maturity to safely camp without so called adults. Those troops are basically advanced Webelos III programs. Anyone that is treated like child will not mature beyond a child. Barry

When I coached scouters developing their Woodbadge ticket, I spent most of my efforts on showing them how to set realistic goals. The goal that I had to contend with the most was getting all new scouts to first class in one year. I had to explain that in a boy run program, they don't have, or shouldn't have, that kind of control over the scouts. So, instead set the goal to develop a program where any scout of any age could earn First Class in one year if the scout chooses to make that their personal goal. It doesn't occur to many people that improving the program has more long term benefits than just trying to push one group of scouts to a goal they may not like. With the irony that the scouts leave the program as a result Of course National could create a few temporary drives to recruit scouts that reach their goals, but does that help in the long term? What if they don't reach these carelessly thought out goals? You think the sexists' GSUSA is going to stand back and watch the so called BSA professionals recruit out or their only resource without responding? They might even make a goal to beat the BSA's recruiting goal of girls. Folks that know me know that I am highly critical of the changes National has made to the program for the last couple of generations because they have only added more burden on the adults and fed a continued membership decline. These goals they are setting or a reflection of their mindless approach to changes in the program. Barry

Sometimes the district goes overboard. That is when the SM is brought in to bring balance into the situation. I wish Districts would follow the letter of the guidelines and just approve a qualified proposal, but many feel they are Eagle Project quality control for their area and set high expectations. And, like qwazse said, each district may have different expectations, so that sometimes causes conflict or confusion. Talk with your SM. Barry

I was thinking about this, we averaged 40 scouts at campouts with about 10 adults. That number of adults was more a requirement for transpiration than attending to the scouts. And I would guess, that excepting for assembly, the scouts' would struggle to think of a time when they saw more than two adults at the same time. Patrols are, or supposed to be, self supporting. Our adults camp at least 100 feet or more from the patrols, which is almost out of sight in the woods. So our scouts are use to feeling independent from the adults. Maybe times are changing, I haven't camped with the troop in few years. But, if the patrols requires any adults for reasons other than YPT, the program might be missing something. Barry

Why? Barry

Ah, thanks. Still, I've never held much respect for it as an Eagle requirement. How many meals will a scout plan, cook and eat in their scouting career of an Eagle? At least a few of the additional skills in the Swimming MB are somewhat advanced. To require a badge that the subject is already the foundation of the Scouting program suggest doubt on the program. This is the same principle reason the GSUSA has lost respect for much of it's program structure in the last 40 years. They have basically said our girls are better leaders because we tell them they are better leaders. They rely on words as the behavioral teachers of their program. First of all, humans don't learn that way. 2nd, that puts a lot of responsibility on the integrity of the individual leaders. BSA use to tell their leaders to just do the program, the scouts experience will do the rest. Barry

I've always struggled with Eagle requirements that involve normal scouting skills. Let's stop the bleeding and stop. Merit badges were originally added to the program to give scouts a taste of other interest outside scouting, possibly a career. Should camping and cooking really be a requirement for what every scout does on every campout? The Eagle should represent scouts who display above average decisions of moral and ethical character. Order of the Arrow once required those traits from their candidates,. Which is why Arrowmen were held in such high respect. Arrowmen weren't honored for their badges, rank or stature, they were honored for their everyday honorable actions.. In general terms, we shouldn't be adding the requirements of the average scout's experience. In the case of this badge, we shouldn't be adding requirements to the BSA basic program principals. It's hypocritical at best. It mis-represents the structure of the program at worst. Barry

Our troop became the DE's favorite troop for disabled boys. Our first Eagle was deaf. The reputation was actually a worry for me because we are true boy run patrol method troop. Some disabilities require more assistance than a typical patrol can handle and parents had to make tough decisions. I will never forget telling the father of one scout that we were unable to keep his severely mentally retarded son safe in our troop. He had wandered off into the woods in the middle of a cold rainy night without any clothes and if not for an alert older scout, he could have been really hurt. On the other hand, I have many stories of patrols accepting different scout own even when some of those scouts went out of their way to resist their acceptance. There were NO lectures of how they as scouts are obligated to accept every difference from every scout. There was no reward for being Trustworthy, loyal, helpful to the disabled or different scouts because they were exceptionally different. Why would there be? Scouts are supposed behave that way with everyone. The patrols figured out how to get around the challenges because they had to work together as a team at every meeting, campout and patrol activity. Either work it out, or fail as member of the team. It's that simple. That is why I struggle with minds determined to color the program as something less when in reality very few other youth programs can live up to the BSA minimum program standard. I don't mind badges where scouts can choose to learn more about the subject. But making any a badge a requirement suggest the basic program is lacking and needs a boost when it does not. Such requirements are forced by those being self-serving bureaucrats looking to showoff their self-righteousness Barry.

I've been sitting here thinking about how times I have heard the members of a EBOR ask the Eagle candidate for an example of how they applied the Scout Law and Oath in their life. Usually the answer has something in common with the premise of this subject. National has really missed the boat here. Barry