JMHawkins

I think ScoutNut has the right idea. Work through the youth leaders in the troop. If there's an SPL or a PL in a different patrol who's a good leader, let them know the new PL might need some coaching (or let the SM know and let him let the other youth leader's know). I would NOT suggest a TG for the NSP since they already have a PL. Adding a TG would kinda pull the rug out from under the new PL who needs a chance to learn along with everyone else. Another PL or an SPL who helps out is a different matter.

Barry also mentioned laughter. I thinks that important too (though make sure the scouts think you're laughing with them more than at them). It helps to let them know failure is not a disaster. Depending on what sort of life they've had up untill know, some of them may not be used to the idea of failing. Letting them know they are disgraced by a screwup is a good idea. We had a couple of scouts get mild hypothermia on their second campout because they weren't good about staying dry amid a torrential downpour ("where is your rain gear?" "I dunno..."). Next meeting I shook my head in mock sadness and told them when I was a scout, I made it to my third campout before getting hypothermia... Since then, they've camped out in about the worst weather Western Washington has to offer, and done great.

Maybe a harry potter reference or Pokemon......I was amazed at day camp that they are still playing pokemon.

I think we'd have to use Creepers.

That said, the proposed fitness test would have to be on some kind of standard equipment that you could do at your city of residence...

Nah, just make it x feet of elevation gain in y distance, done in z minutes. Make the actual test at Philmont a little less than the published requirements (to account for elevation and to give a margin of error). Or have several requirements, passing any ONE of which is good:

Have a BMI under 30*

-OR-

be able to make 500 feet elevation gain in 1 mile in under 30 minutes

-OR-

etc.

Or, Philmont could say "A Scouter is trustworty" and ask people to sign a form stating they have been cleared by a doctor to engage in the type of activities they'll be engaging in.

I mean, there's the entire Part D to the med form that's supposed to inform the Scouter's MD what to expect.

They really ought to just drop the stupid BMI business and have a day 1 conditioning test hike. Make it to the top of such and such hill in so many minutes and you pass. It's laudable that BSA is doing something about conditioning, but why did they pick an unscientific, discredited horsepucky method to use?

A phone tree works perfectly well in this situation, assuming anything needs to happen at all. Unless the Scout is in a life-threatening situation, Mommy needing to talk to her little guy is, while understandable, over-reacting. As other's have said, if you don't trust the Troop leadership to look out for medical issues, then you're in the wrong troop.

The scout AND the parent have been briefed on this policy and asked to please lay the tent out to dry that same day and return at the next troop meeting...

I know it sounds a little foolish, but have you actually "taught" the Scout how to dry a tent? briefing them on a policy isn't really the same as teaching them how to care for equipment. Sure, how hard can it be to "dry a tent" but we shouldn't assume the Scouts or their parents know what we know, right? I can see a couple of scenarios where a kid and his parents don't know what to do and get flustered. Maybe they don't have much room. Covering "what to do if you don't have a garage to hang the tent in" might help reduce the chance of failure.

We had 38 people at camp, so that means the SM would have spent at least 38 minutes on the phone...

Anyone besides Sasha heard of a phone tree?

Maybe IOLS should add a sesson on them.

I'm not saying whether or not the phone tree should have been deployed in this situation, but there certainly are situations where it's needed (even simple ones like "traffic is bad, we'll be an hour late getting to the pick up spot"). It's not going to work if the SM has to call everyone personally.

(This message has been edited by JMHawkins)

You can debate the merits of soda, candy, cell phones all you want. Each unit has their own restrictions and reasons for them. Find a unit you either agree with, try to change the rules, or find a new unit.

But, if you are a member of the unit, then you agree to follow the rules of the unit - period. To do otherwise is unscoutlike in my book.

That's fine advice for the parents, but the OP is wondering about what the unit can do. And regardless of expectations, the more rules there are, at least past a reasonable minimum, the more conflict there will be. Every rule the troop imposes has the chance of creating friction, so think about rules as a form of currency. You only have so big a "rule" budget before you have to start "borrowing" from the parents in the form of friction, conflict and goodwill*. That doesn't mean don't have any rules - you need some - but it does mean choose them wisely. Don't get lulled into the false belief that rules are free since it's so easy to write them down in the by laws.

Save your budget for the important stuff. A Scout is Thrifty too.

* I'll insert my boilerplate commentary on A Scout Is Obedient: If you expect someone as honorable as a genuine Scout living the Scout Law to be obedient to your rules, you owe it to that remarkable young man to only create the most respectable rules.

Good on you, Scoutfish. I always thought the singing for lost stuff thing was unscoutlike too.

There's a line we all have to walk in the helping department. A Scout(er) is helpful, but if we're so helpful that we do everything for the scouts, they never learn. Being adults with more experience and skills, it's easy for us to "help" too much. I think the advice to "never do something for a scout that he can do for himself" is good.

But returning lost stuff? That's not doing something for the scout he can't do for himself, that's just being a friend, a good neighbor. Singing to get back lost stuff, I'm pretty dubious that it helps kids learn to look after their gear. If it does, it does so by embarrassing them, which is maybe not the best tool to pull out of the tool chest.

Want them to learn to keep track of their gear? Go on a week long, 50-miler. They'll learn to look after stuff when the next resupply is 40 miles and five days away.

Our last overnighter was a 3 1/2 hour drive there, 4 1/2 hours back (took a little detour to an observatory). One of the scouts riding in my truck had his cell phone. He was supposed to use it to call his dad to pick him up when we got to the return rendezvous, but he played games all the way down and killed the battery. I didn't have the right adapter in my truck to charge it again on the way back...

I really expected kids to have a better understanding of battery life by now...

Ah, interesting BSA24. I googled around for the forums you mentiond and I think I know where our disconnect is. From the foums I found, I think you're talking about dumbed down martial arts programs that let 10 year olds "earn" a black belt. I was talking about more traditional ones that don't focus on awards but on skill and training, which were the only ones I was familar with. Frankly, I wasn't aware there were so many of the "advancement oriented" MA programs until your replay caused me to research it. So thank you, I stand corrected. Children in MA programs that focus on awards rather than training do have kids drop out after they've been awarded their black belt.

Here's an excerpt from a blog talking about what you observed:

...many schools have become what are known as "belt factories." (Also known as MacKarate, MacDojos and stripmall dojos) These large -- and often franchised -- schools are in the business of selling black belts. There are schools that will guarantee your child a black belt inside two years. That's right "guarantee." Ranking from these schools are like a fake Rolex watch, they look like something that impresses people who don't know any better. They are not however, indicators of ability or understanding.

At this point, we will say emphatically that we do not believe in awarding black belts to children. In our opinion, a person who wears a black belt is required to have a certain level of maturity. And part of the black belt requirements are to teach. It is very hard from what we've observed to leave children in authority over a class of other children of their own age or older.

So, I was wrong. But... in being proven wrong, I think I was also proven even more right than before. Quitting after getting the highest rank in a program is a sign of a weak program that "sells" ranks instead of teaching life skills. Scouting or Karate, same-same (as my long ago Judo instructor used to say when comparing things).

BadenP,

Can you give us a summary of your district's Venturing program? Maybe spin a thread off in the Venturing forum. I'd be interested to know more.

Scoutfish says:

I just want to make sure I do it in a tactfull enough way to not cause a parent to freak out and want to remove their son from the troop because the think prison wardens took over.

and

SeattlePioneers says:

Personally, I never made those rules as Scoutmaster for five years.

Twocubdad says:

You may want to consider one reason you have so many folks ignoring your rules is that the troop seems to have a lot or rules and/or expectations. Not every hill is worth dying for.

I think thats part of the answer to how you put your foot down without freaking out parents. You reduce the number of adult-mandated, adult-enforced rules, but increase the enforcement of the handful of rules that are left. And make an effort that the only rules you keep are ones dealing with safety and Troop logistics (e.g. the scout with three totes doesnt get to monopolize space in the gear wagon/trailer). Soda pop at summer camp is not a safety issue. There will be plenty of opportunity for him to drink water when he gets there. Make him carry his stuff from the parking lot to camp and next year he wont want gallons of sugar water. Sunscreen maybe is a safety issue*. A 90 lb pack for a backpacking trip definitely is. Three totes, two of them full of useless electronics and candy, are a space issue for the rest of the troop. If a scout shows up at the rendezvous with completely inappropriate gear for summer camp and it cant be rectified then and there without delaying the troops departure, tell Mom she can drop him off at camp herself after he gets his gear in order. She wont want to make that mistake again, and her son likely wont want to be embarrassed by it again either.

* - picking up on Cambridgeskips story about the scout allergic to sunscreen, some new studies suggest the most common ingredients in sunscreen may be a bigger skin cancer threat than exposure to the sun. Also, vitamin D deficiencies may be bigger problems than realized, with sunscreen decreasing vitamin D production. Of course next week the latest studies will probably do another 180 and suggest something different.

When you have a boy scout get Eagle and then they leave the program, that is an indictment of your program, that it's weak.

Excellent point. More specifically, the weakness is that your program isn't fun. If it's fun, then he'll stick around to keep having more fun, and the rank was just something he collected along the way. But if a lot of scouts "Eagle out", then it probably means they just see it as another task they have to finish.

Not many teenage baseball players quit after making the All Star team. Not many guys doing martial arts quit when the get a black belt. Usually those things indicate a guy who's really, really into the activity, enough so that he's become really good at it.

Huh? No it isn't. Did yeh ever take training? Da model of team development doesn't have a lick to do with First Class First Year. It's about helpin' youth leaders servin' on the PLC or as leaders of their patrol, or adults who are workin' with those groups

Yeah, but if a troop is running New Scout Patrols, I can imagine how they might conflate FCFY and team formation dynamics. Since you're creating a "new team" every year with the new crop of Webelos instead of augmenting established (already normed) patrols, the adults might think the stormin', normin', underperformin' foofaloo applies to the new guys trying to learn all their FC stuff.

Then you look at the plan itself, and you see that deadlines have already been changed a number of times.

Yeah, that was one of the big problems I had with it from a management and organizational perspective. One item was Status Green (on track) even though it was scheduled to be done in 2011 and the May 2012 status said that the pilot project wouldn't even start for several more months. Another goal (Green, on track) was to have finished three years of marketing by the middle of 2014. Well, if you want to have been doing something for 3 years in the middle of 2014, some pretty basic math says you have to start by the middle of 2011. But the May 2012 status was that it was still being put together and hadn't started yet. Another goal was to have about an 18% membership gain between now and 2015, and they're "on track" for that too, even though the status indicates they haven't stopped the membership declines yet.

I kept finding things like that. Nearly every page had an example of a goal that was claimed to be on track but the actual details showed it to be wildly off-track. The pages that didn't have that problem were generally the pages where it appeard they simply gave up or postponed the whole effort.

Overall it indicates a broken management culture. The Two Waynes have their work cut out for them in fixing that.

I see your points and don't really disagree. Like I said, if it was entirely up to me, a scout's "Eagle project" would be leading a venture patrol on a 50-miler, no-resupply trek of some sort. I'd be thrilled if National showed interest in going that direction, but I'm doubtful at the moment they would. So, trying to work within the bounds Irving might be interested in listening to, I'd still like to "fix" advanceent so that the first real leadership challenge required of a scout isn't this big, elaborate, to-do of an Eagle project. Sure, programs where the adults get it will make sure the scouts have lots of opportunities to practice during their normal outdoor adventures. But part of helping new adults, those who don't have experience with real patrol method stuff and tend to follow Advancement requirements like a checklist, is to sync the requirements with what we want from the program.

I wouldn't add more service project hours (I'm not a big fan of counting hours anyway, seems more important to evaluate the quality and spirit of the service rather than the time), but just require some portion of the hours already required be done either experiencing a project requiring coordination and leadership (Star), or leading a small project (Life).

Like the Eagle project of today, there will be a bunch of adult nit-picking and "oversight."

You may be right about this. In the Webelos III troops where Dad does his son's Eagle project already, certainly you are right about it. Not much we can really do for those units anyway, other than coaching the more receptive leaders towards a different model. OTOH, if the Life Project is a small project, maybe it'll be easier for the well-meaning adults to back off and let the scout struggle with it. And then he'll have a better chance at pulling off his Eagle project without Mom, Dad, and Scoutmaster Joe leaping in to salvage it.

And I definitely would not want any district or council folks thinking they needed to stick their noses into it.

Now, all that being said, there's nothing to prevent a wise SM from hinting to the PLC that a particular Star scout might be a good choice to organize a service project "so the new crossover guys can get their hour of Service Projects in for Tenderfoot" or some such. Maybe even coach the fellow on laying out a schedule, materials list and duty roster in a simple, straight forward manner.

Desertrat

Though I'm sure the suggestions are made with good intentions,

What would make you think that?

And no, I certainly wouldn't want to add more pure bookwork. But then I don't think the Eagle project should have a ton of bookwork either. A schedule, bill of materials, duty roster, and some sort of status tracking for the schedule, not sure that much more than that is really needed. In my view, the paperwork, such as there is, should exist only to support and guide the actual work. It should be pretty minimal, because every hour put into paperwork is an hour not put into making progress on the project.

Curious, you characterize needing to lead a small service project as a Life scout as "red tape" on the way to Eagle. Do you considier the 2nd Class requirement to plan and cook one meal to be "red tape" on the way to First Class, where the scout has to plan and cook meals for an entire trip?

Moosetracker

If you allow the boys more responsibility with planning their own events, including calling places for prices and best seasons to go, organizing who is going, the collecting of the money, transportation etc.. I think the boys will have plenty of small projects under their belts before tackling the Eagle project.

I definitely agree. But that's not reflected in any of the formal advancement requirements. Even the PORs don't have to be ones that should involve leadership and planning (I'd love to have a Troop Bugler, and I think it could be a great learning experience for the scout who held it, but I don't think it would give him much leadership experience).

Honestly, if it was entirely up to me, Life would require the Scout to complete a 50-miler of some sort, and Eagle would require him to plan and lead one (and only PL/APL/SPL/ASPL/TG would count for PORs). But I don't think that would have any chance at all with National. Adding some service project leadership requirements might though, and might make the Eagle project itself a more meaningful accomplishment.

I'm not a huge fan of high-cost McAdventure trips either (and SP is right, we do have it pretty good here in the PNW for roll-your-own outdoor adventures. 50-miler through hikes of Olympic National Park at varying levels of difficulty, sea kayaking the San Juan islands, climb Mt. Saint Helens and look into the crater...).

But, I do think the X-games notion is a good step in the "Scouting is cool" department. Mountain Boarding, zip lines, white-water rafting, SCUBA, I think those help the image. So that's definitely something BSA is doing right. Also something BSA is doing "better" than 1962.

We have a new CSE and a new National President.

Yes, I have hopes for Wayne Perry as well. But National Presidents only serve two year terms (and frankly, Wayne Brock the new CSE isn't going to serve a very long term either, due to mandatory retirement), so they'll have to act fast. Interestingly, the outdoor program objective

OBJECTIVE II:

The BSA is known as the

premier outdoor program

provider and educator

has a status of

We are reevaluating these goals with the recent BSA staff member change.

Due date extensions were approved at the February 2012 meeting.

Staff is a rather broad term and may not mean the CSE and National President, but maybe it does. I'm not terribly impressed by the actual goals for this objective as currently written, so it's encouraging they are being reconsidered. The outdoor program is the key differentiating factor in BSAs "product offerings" and deserves more attention in any strategic plan.

Speaking of Wayne Perry, there is also this encouraging bit in the report:

The strategy document for the Dirt Patrol project has been finalized and is reviewed by mikeroweWORKS. This relationship will be leveraged into a national service recognition program with Wayne Perry.

It's part of the same goal as the "Are You Tougher Than A Boy Scout" show, so obviously part of their media campaign. Also it's officially part of the Scouting is cool with youth objective. So, there are some bright spots.

I read the progress report. And debated whether I should post my detailed response or not. Ultimately I deleted it. It was not cheerful by any stretch of the imagination. I found myself picking the report apart - on a corporate management level - pretty much piece by piece. Almost every single page has serious flaws indicative of a dysfunctional organization. I'm not talking about program issues, that's a separate concern. I mean just the day-to-day functioning of a workplace, the leadership and management of the outfit.

The cheerful part is that we have a new incoming CSE. I'm hopeful that he will dispose of the corporate culture that produced this mess and institute one more geared towards realistic assessments, accountability to achievable goals, and honest, forthright analysis. The good news is - from this report anyway - they have more or less the right objectives. The problem is they have poor goal planning and assesment. I'd conclude from this that the culture in Irvine is one where the guy who makes the biggest promises gets all the attention, not the guy who actually delivers results. That makes a lot of the recent screwups quite understandable, it's a culture prone to them. But it's also a culture that can be changed pretty easily by a dedicated and forceful leader.

Let's see if we've got one.

A question occurred to me while replying to the thread about how many hours are in a typical Eagle project. As I understand it, the goals of the Eagle project are for the Scout to demonstrate leadership, organization, and service. Other's have mentioned that an Eagle project was not always a requirement, and here I have to say I think this is a place where BSA has improved the advancement process by adding one. I think running a project of some scope is an excellent experience for a Scout.

But I'm also reminded of Beavah's discussion about cooking skills in T-2-1. He observed that cooking a meal once didn't lead to mastery, that what we really needed was to give the Scout several opportunities to gradually grow his cooking skills, watching and helping at first, then doing it himself a time or two, learning from it, and finally showing that he really knows how to plan and cook an outdoor meal. Now, despite concerns about how it's interpreted or administered, the T-2-1 requirements are laid out in a progression of cooking skills. Tenderfoot requires helping with a meal. 2nd Class requires planning and cooking a meal. First Class requires planning and cooking an entire campout's worth of meals.

There's no such progression of skills building up to the Eagle Project. Star and Life need to have participated in a fairly low number of service project hours, and serving in PORs (though not necessarily leadership positions) is required, but there's no map of progressive skills the way there is with T-2-1 cooking. Maybe there should be.

I would like to see Star require participating in a service project of some significance and also planning (but not necessarily executing - consider it a dry run) a small service project, Life require planning and leading a small project or two, and finally Eagle requires (as today) planning and leading a large project.

Maybe I'll send that in to the program resource email bnelon44 posted.

...For example researching historical info, contacting personal involved and placing markers at the sites involves few work hours but demonstrates excellence in leadership by the Life Scout...

Hmmmm, not sure I agree. It demonstrates organizational ability, which is good, but leadership involves actually leading people. Writing a plan isn't leadership. Executing the plan as the guy in charge of the group of people doing the work is. The research and contact jdsmerud mentions is properly called "staff work" rather than leadership. Staff work is valuable. Having a plan going in is great, an example of being prepared, but there's the old saying that no battle plan survives contact with the enemy. "The enemy" in this case isn't someone shooting at you, but maybe mother nature burying a huge rock where you planned to excavate, or an ill-timed skiing accident putting one of your key resources on crutches for the project. Or the work simply taking longer than the "staff" sitting down at a desk thought it would.

Leadership requires navigating your team to the goal while dealing with obstacles that come up. Having a plan, even one that needs to be scrapped part-way through, is very helpful in that, but doesn't replace leading the effort. In fact, choosing between conflicting opinions of your "staff officers" is another important component of leadership.

Of course it's a question of where we're setting the bar, and for what age.

I really do wish I had more confidence in National, but that clip sure didn't help. I've seen a lot of presentations in my career, many from stumbletounged engineers who were very inexperienced at speaking in front of a group. But that presentation ranks near the bottom of what I've seen, for content and delivery. In content it was, as jpstodwftexas said, empty. Seems pointless to have even given it. And for delivery, Mr. Hunsaker conveyed zero interested or excitement about the project. An 11 minute presentation, with two video breaks, and he had to read it off a prompter? Those stumbletounged engineers had a hard time speaking, but they knew their subject matter, and cared about it. That clip looked like a guy going through the motions.

Well, I do thank bnelon44 for the email address. I'll try to rally some positive energy and write up some program suggestions. If they're re-doing rank requirements again, I have some ideas.

Let me ask a slightly different question. What is BSA doing better today than it was doing in 1962?