Lisabob

bnelon, we cross-posted. My point is not that troops should not offer the skills/activities that are part of T-2-1. My point is that the misguided emphasis on "earn FCFY" and then "star the year after" do a disservice to the point of the ranks and the interest of many typical boys, and also leads well-intended adults to inadvertently water down the program.

Let me try again, this time with #'d concerns for ease of discussion and clarification.

1. Good troops are already active and provide regular opportunities to practice the skills - FCFY philosophy and GTA policy are not the reason why good troops do this.

2. Weak troops are typically not that active and don't provide regular opportunities to practice the skills - FCFY philosophy and GTA policy do not miraculously cause weak troops to become strong troops.

3. The research on FCFY did show that boys who made FC in about a year tended to stick with scouting - but not WHY. You (and others) seem to mistake correlation for causation. It is probably not the act of being awarded FC rank that results in greater longevity - it is more likely to be solid programming in a strong troop and maybe the boy's personal interest, that cause a boy to do both (earn FC fairly quickly AND stick with scouting). Confusing correlation with causation overlooks the very important reason WHY the research shows what it does, and therefore results in well-meaning but incorrect conclusions and emphases.

4. 11-12-13 year olds are concrete, hands-on creatures. Many boys would probably take greater pride in earning FC than in earning Star. You have to DO a lot of things for FC, overtly demonstrating hard-earned tangible skills. In contrast, Star seems "easy" and there's much less tangible "doing" involved. Few 12 year olds get excited about serving in a POR for 4 months. They're much more likely to be excited about being able to use an axe, light a fire, build a pioneering project, cook their own food, etc..

So I would venture to guess we lose a lot of boys who blow through FCFY and hit Star about a year later, because the fun/challenging "doing" part of the program that appeals so to pre-teens and early teens is "over with" (or at least, no longer rewarded) by then in a troop that pushes FCFY and then Star a year later.

I would alter this segment from the GTA (re: purpose of BORs)

"Though one reason for a board of review is to ensure

the Scout did what he was supposed to do to meet

the requirements, it shall become neither a retest or

examination, nor a challenge of his knowledge.

In most cases it should, instead, be a celebration of

accomplishment. Remember, it is more about the journey.

A badge recognizes what a young man is able to do

and how he has grown. It is not so much, a reward for

what he has done."

This is the happy-huggy-feely crap that makes so many of us shudder. Boys see through "fake" and "shallow" and "hoop jumping" so quickly, and they lose respect for both the people and the process after that.

BORs certainly don't need to be an explicit re-test (tosses rope to startled boy - "here, tie my 5 different knots in 2 minutes - go!"). But seriously, they can't in any way "challenge [a boy's] knowledge?" That could be interpreted, in the extreme, to mean that anything a boy asserts, is set in stone, true or not, well-founded, or not. Blech. Gimme a break. Better still, give some credence to the judgment of adult volunteer leaders who serve the BSA, and stop trying to regulate out to the nth degree.

Kill the bit about troops providing a program that pushes for FCFY and Star the year after.

Frankly, good troops are already providing a program that hits the activity/skill requirements involved in FC. Weak troops already *aren't* doing that, and no policy document will change that.

So the policy does nothing to actually improve troop program. Instead, it sets up expectations among novice adult leaders that result in many troops herding practically every boy through the skill requirements, even if those boys aren't actually very capable and don't really "own" those skills. It then boots youngsters (age 12) into the "leadership" requirements of S-L-E far earlier than many are ready to take on those roles. Many 12 & 13 year olds would probably find much more satisfaction in earning - truly mastering - the skills for FC, than in lumping along in quasi-leadership mumbo jumbo of Star, Life, and Eagle. Let them save those for when they're a little more mature, and encourage troops and boys to savor the journey, instead. (This isn't to say that the occasional hair-on-fire-about-advancement boy couldn't blow through requirements faster, but let's not set these expectations in policy documents.)

Now as has been discussed before, the FCFY notion is probably based on a misguided reading of that data, which apparently has shown that boys who attain FC in about a year are more likely to remain in scouting, than those who do not. But the problem is that this is an example of correlation, not causation. Boys who really master the skills for FC in about a year are probably pretty gung ho about scouting in general, and are also probably getting a lot out of a robust program (in terms of skill growth, self confidence, and fun). So it isn't the FC rank - but rather, the high quality program and maybe the boy's personal interest - that were the causal factors behind that data result. And you can't mandate those with a policy document.

A couple thoughts:

1. Maybe many troops attending camp are from out of council and it would be a very long drive for a couple-hours meeting? (This has been the case for my son's troops in past, as we don't/didn't have a council camp of our own and often end up going out of state for summer camp.)

2. Maybe the "big new changes!" theme wasn't communicated effectively to long-time troop leaders. Alternately, maybe the changes were communicated so effectively in the leader guide, that a lot of folks felt little need to sit through a meeting to be told what they'd already read.

3. Maybe it is worth the DD asking leaders of the troops who did not participate, what caused them not to? If done in an info-gathering "how can we make this more useful" spirit (not the Spanish inquisition), the DD might get helpful feedback about what leaders do and don't want or need.

4. Maybe the timing of the meeting is just bad. Around here, the first full weekend in June mark the end of school and graduation for practically everybody, and every little town is having some kind of art/craft/something festival, plus many scout troops in the area are REALLY busy about now. Scout leaders are just booked up. Perhaps doing the pre-camp meeting earlier in the spring would work better.

About Learning for Life - this is where the old explorer program went. And in rural areas, at least, Explorers is still alive and well. There are several fire- and police- related posts in my neck of the woods. I suppose these could become crews, but at present they are not, and they're working just fine as is. So for that reason only, I'd be sorry to see the LFL go away entirely.

I can't say I speak for everyone, but it seems worth it to think outside the lines you've drawn. For example: is the current SM necessarily going to be SM forever? Just because THAT SM felt it was ok for a boy to choke somebody doesn't mean EVERY OTHER SM in that troop would feel the same.

Are there other towns with better options within driving distance?

Technically speaking, you cannot have a functional troop with only one adult - two deep leadership on outings, 3 committee members on boards of review, etc.

Practically speaking, you'd be crazy to try to shoulder all of the work of a troop (or pack) by yourself, anyway, unless you want to live and breath all scouting, only scouting, all the time. And even if you're ok with that prospect: Part of the point of boy scouting is to help boys develop more independence, so having Mom or Dad as the only leader all the time means you can't do much with the "adult association" method, either.

So if you're contemplating a situation where you'd be the only adult actually doing anything for more than the first couple of months, I think it would be a bust. Time to look for more options.

Call local troops or even packs and see if you can "borrow" an adult for some or all of the week. If you can find a Webelos DL, for example, who plans to join the troop in a few months anyway, then now might be a great time for him or her to get to know how your troop operates. And give your wife a break, too.

I seem to remember you're in the military? Are there any folks from the base who could go along as another adult?

pack, to some degree I can see what you're saying, but I would not say that "clearly" the lessons you drew are the ones that jump to mind.

It is hard to imagine India today being the thriving, successful democracy it is (world's largest), without Gandhi's influence during that critical time. Not to say there aren't still many, many problems. But by Beavah's interpretation, this makes Gandhi a dismal failure of a leader, a man who should not be an example or role model to our youth of how an individual can advocate for change and social justice in one's community.

Funny enough, I notice a lot of the unofficial lists of good movies for the Cit in Community requirement include this movie. I guess a lot of MBCs - not to mention historians, sociologists, and political scientists - view Gandhi a bit differently than Beavah does.

Anyway, my son loved the movie. It was a great choice.

Watched the movie "Gandhi" with my son tonight. This is a movie recommended to him by his citizenship in community MBC (and also one of my all-time favorite movies).

Clearly, Gandhi was not an effective political leader or citizen of his community, because his strategy did not produce immediate, perfect, results.

basement, I hope you aren't reading my posts in that frame. The "toxic" kid I'm describing IS white, upper middle class, from a fairly wealthy exurban community that is lacking in diversity of any sort (race, class, religious, political, you name it). His major targets were boys who didn't fit his background or outlook, and boys who were easily ostracized for other reasons. The final straw for me was when the "toxic" scout went down the path of spouting racist garbage all over the place (extolling Hitler and Nazis, talking favorably about the KKK - which has a presence in that town to this day, calling non-white people obviously offensive names, verbally fantasizing about white supremacist movements, their tactics, and their goals, etc.). The racist stuff was directed at the only minority boy in the troop.

It was appalling to me, not only that this boy was doing this (physically sickening in the way qwaze describes - makes me want to vomit, not just makes me angry), but worse, that most of the troop adults found it acceptable to excuse this repeated behavior - among many other repeated behaviors by the same kid, and by his parents too. Because of this, I resigned my position with the troop - I couldn't be party to that garbage and was severely disappointed in the rest of the troop leadership for being unwilling to do anything about it. Either they did not understand the serious impact of what this kid was doing on other boys, or they were afraid to stand up to his (toxic) parents, or both. It wasn't something I could accept. Unfortunately, I lost some friends over it. People who are generally good and kind, but just couldn't get this.

Completely agree with you, acco.

People might support or oppose the stance that this individual takes on this issue. We may agree or disagree on the likely impact of his efforts. That's just politics for you. People hold different opinions and have different priorities. So what.

But the way he is approaching this seems to fit nicely into the Scout Law. Is this not exactly what we teach boys they should do, when they believe a rule or law to be unfair or unjust? Seek to change it in an orderly manner?

I think there's a great deal of territory between "picking the low hanging fruit" and putting up with truly toxic behavior for the long-haul. This is not an either/or choice.

I really dislike the "but he needs scouting" mentality. This is like saying that most boys "don't need scouting," something that you rarely or never hear scout leaders say (for a good reason).

Sorry if this is a sore point for me. Over a period of several years, I watched a "toxic" kid in my son's former troop drive away a lot of other boys who also might have "needed" scouting. It happens that many of those other boys were struggling with issues of their own - issues where scouting could have been a tremendously positive influence in their lives. But because those scouts didn't manifest the kinds of severe behavior that the "toxic scout" did, their issues and "needs" for scouting were overlooked.

And the excuse of other leaders every time was "well 'Johnny' comes from a rough family environment. He needs this." Yeah. I was this kid's (and his older brother's) cub leader, have known him since he was 4 or 5. I know his family and suffice to say we don't share the same outlook on parenting or acceptable social behaviors. And I'm not arguing for throwing out a kid for every minor issue. But how come the needs of all those other kids didn't count for a hill of beans? In attempting to help him, they failed all of those other kids. There does need to be some limit.

And in my opinion, a lot of well-meaning and kind-hearted leaders do not set these limit because they're so afraid of confrontation with a boy's parents, that they allow themselves to be walked all over and they justify allowing it by saying "he needs scouting." And how, exactly, does that help the boy? It doesn't - it simply teaches him (and his parents) how to better take advantage of and manipulate others.

My son had same experience. He then conveniently "lost" his blue card for another two summers so that he could take the badge again at future camps, it was so much fun. I think he has now earned it and re-earned it 3 or 4 times & will be staffing the rifle range at an upcoming regional event. (never bothered to finish shotgun, though - didn't like it enough to tear him away from the rifle range)

A Scout is Obedient.

A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, /*he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them*/.

gsdad, there will be a point in a few years where that's a bigger concern. But right now, you're talking about a giggling, bouncing, thundering, herd of 6 year olds. More parents are probably better. Cub scouting (Tigers especially) is designed to be much more family-oriented than boy scouting. That tapers off even within Cub Scouting as the boys get older.

That said, the DL is the one directing the controlled chaos. In Tigers, the other parents are there to pitch in. So there's some focus too, not just random parents trying to run in 15 different directions at the same time. My advice - do it, you'll have a ball.

Yes, this boy probably does need scouting. So do many other boys in the troop, though perhaps for different reasons. Maybe they need a safe haven where they can escape some of the horrible behaviors they experience at school every day. Maybe other boys need the mentoring, companionship, and role modeling that older boys and the adult association method can provide. Maybe other boys need a place where they can excel at something non-academic, for a change. Maybe they need a place where there's less pressure to be "the best" at everything and where they can simply chart their own course. Those are all legitimate "needs" that scouting can fill, too, and no less important than this one boy's needs.

Don't allow the atmosphere to be so toxic that the needs of all the other boys are outweighed by the needs of this one boy. That does a tremendous disservice to the many other boys.

Anyway, I think the question shouldn't be "does this kid need scouting" nor should it be "can this boy be turned around." The question should be "is this boy, AND HIS FAMILY, interested in what we have to offer him?" If so, there's probably room to work with him on behavior and his family will support that effort to their best ability. If not - if the parents are as much a behavioral problem as the boy, or if they simply don't care - then forget it, you won't have much impact on this boy's behavior and you'll be setting yourselves up for a terrible time until you figure that out.

What people "need" and what they'll allow you to give them, are not always the same things.

"Next infraction I am circumventing our kind-hearted SM and talking to the parents."

This probably will not work, unless the SM and CC are in agreement that it is a good idea. Otherwise, you will end up internally divided among the adult leadership. More so, if the kid's parents are anything like the kid is. They'll tear you up and pit you against each other. You'll end up portrayed as the adult who is "picking on" their son at every turn, with unreasonable standards, just looking for excuses to give their kid trouble. They'll box the SM into a corner with all kinds of complaints about the standard of proof you have, or the extent to which their darling's behavior was truly that bad, or who started it, etc. Since he's "kind hearted" (which also can be read as "spineless" or "conflict avoidant"), he may back down. And if they succeed, you and your SM will be at loggerheads. What, then?

Maybe I'm jaded and things are different in your situation. But that's something I saw play out in my son's former troop and it wasn't pretty. So my sense is that you adults need to figure out, together, how you're going to handle this boy BEFORE you go to his parents. You want a united front here.

I know that kid, I swear. He was the cause of many younger guys leaving my son's former troop (although very few would say so, outright - most of it was rumor or stories told way after the fact - and so, the troop chose to ignore it for several years). I believe he took after his parents, although they were less subtle than he was. What was particularly galling is that the parents frequently tried to say that their little darling was the misunderstood VICTIM and tried to turn the people on the receiving ends of his actions into the alleged perpetrators. This is the only boy about whom I have ever advocated for sending home from events based on behavior, and suspension or expulsion from a troop, and that was under some pretty extreme circumstances.

Supposing that the adult leadership of your troop is of one mind and not intent upon ignoring the boy's behavior, I'd recommend a few things.

1. Tag team. Have 3 or 4 adults whose responsibility it is to help keep an eye on him, and on each others' reactions to him. As you note, boys like this are excellent at manipulating people and it might not take much for some adults to lose their calm and grab him by the arm, scream at him, etc. That's why you need adults to watch/help/spell each other with him, too. Might want to include your SPL, too.

2. Set the standard internally for what constitutes "sending you home now" behavior (or other corrective actions) well in advance, so you don't have to decide what to do under pressure and when you're irritated to the nth degree by his behaviors. Better to be able to calmly say "Kid, you've crossed the line. Call your parents." Than to be shouting "That's it! I've had it! You're going home!" out of anger. If you think it would be helpful, map out a series of set responses to lower-level issues so that other adults (and the SPL and the kid's PL) know what to do when he's being obnoxious but not outrageous. Having that plan of action will reduce the stress on everybody.

3. Be very, very clear in your communication with him and his parents about consequences for actions, and do this with the active participation of your SM and CC (I can't remember - are you the SM?). If you find he's doing these things again, what will happen? And stick to your guns no matter what. Don't allow him or his parents to play the "you're playing favorites" or "the other kids are making it up" or other nitpicking games about what happened. There's no appeal of your judgment as SM. If parents pitch a fit about how you're "picking on" their little darling, tough. You have expectations about behavior and their boy isn't meeting them - you aren't "picking on" him, you're doing him (and them) a favor by helping him learn to interact more civilly with others. If they are really all that upset, they're welcome to find a different troop.

4. Don't get too caught up in the "but he needs scouting!" thing. Yes, he probably does. So do all the other boys in your troop, though perhaps in different ways. They and their needs aren't less important than he is.

Yes I would advance him. I might tell him that there are all kinds of reasons why people do things in life and some of them are for external motives. That doesn't always make them bad. At a minimum, we learn new things/stretch ourselves. And we might even find out that we come to value (or even enjoy) the experience as we do it.

Or not. We might choose to be so miserable to ourselves and all those around us while we engage in this forced task, that all anyone can say is 'good riddance!' at the end. But what's the point in that? Thankfully, it sounds like this hypothetical boy isn't taking that approach.

On a side note, it might be worth taking a look at the hypothetical troop program to see what the older guys are missing, that could keep them happily engaged for longer. Is the program getting stale? Are there new challenges or opportunities that would keep them around?

2CS: Got lemons, make lemonade.

Do you have access to any lightweight backpacking stoves? Going in the other direction, how about dutch ovens? Failing those, how about box ovens or other means of cooking on/in coals?

Your patrol is the "leadership patrol" and the other impacted patrol is the new scout patrol. So, leaders, take the opportunity to help the new scouts earn some of the cooking requirements in 2nd class (consider 3d-3g). Teach them to cook without that bulky, heavy, patrol stove. Eat well. In fact, eat better than patrol #5. Consider that your revenge.

Then deal with the underlying problem via the PLC. Of course you're right that no other patrol should have been using your gear without permission, although it sounds like you should have locked your locker. Your SM/dad is right that the SPL and instructor both let the troop down by not following through on clean-up. And you should probably thank the SM for cleaning up and securing the equipment for you, no matter how it got there.

Moose, I have never heard a district training chair refer to the advancement guidelines as optional ideas for how advancement "might" be conducted. Are you sure about that?

If you have good facilities and a great staff then why do you have a weak program? Does your staff lack creative, thoughtful leadership?

When you say you have "great staff," what does that mean to you? Are the staff highly skilled and enthusiastic about being with the campers? Are they willing to be goofy in a way that includes the scouts, for example, skits and singing in the dining hall? Do they have a passion for sharing what they know with a bunch of younger kids? Are they doing exciting hands-on things with the scouts, or are they simply lecturing in their MB programs? If you have young staffers, are they well trained, not only in content, but also in how to present material and how to do crowd control? These aren't natural skills for most folks, and most young people only have "school" as their model. If you don't want it to be like school, you'll have to show them how to do it differently.

What sort of non-merit badge options are there? One pet peeve I have with how most BSA camps work, is that if a boy isn't doing MBs all day long, then there are few other options open.

Are you trying to be all things to all people? Pick a focus that your camp can specialize in, that complements the resources & facilities & staff talents that you have available. Sometimes, less is more.

On the MB front, I'll echo others' comments - don't feel like you must provide all possible MBs, and don't feel like the ones better done at home (family life, personal management, citizenships, communication, personal fitness - to name a few) need to be offered at camp.

If you want to beef up your "Eagle required" badge offerings, my advice would be to go deeper, not broader. Get creative about HOW you teach, not just WHAT you teach.

Example: E-Prep. Think of all the cool/fun/hands on scenarios you could develop to teach the required material in an active way.

Do scenarios, not lectures.

Take some of the "make a list/chart/write a plan" requirements and have them talk through these AFTER they attempt to respond to at least one mock disaster scenario (what went wrong here...what would you have needed...what worked...what could you have done...).

Bring in the local fire/police/first responders/emergency management director (or an explorer post near your camp attached to one of these) one day of the week to talk with scouts about how they prepare for and respond to emergency scenarios. Have them bring hands-on stuff (gear, etc) if they can. Even 16 year olds still think fire engines are cool. I'd like to see what's in a fireman's emergency first aid kit, as opposed to the pathetic "kit" my scout son came home from camp with when he did this badge (heaven help us if we needed more than 2 band aids and some neosporin).

Have a camp-wide Zombie invasion one afternoon that builds on several elements of the badge and let the E-Prep teams handle it. Make it a surprise for the scouts - don't let them know that "On Thursday we'll be testing your E-Prep skills..." Make it a game with objectives to be met. Break them into small teams so that everybody participates.

That's one example - and maybe you're already doing this sort of thing? It takes a LOT more preparation (and knowledge) than just lecturing, and your younger staff will need more guidance to get it planned and executed, but it also has more value and is more interesting.

Bottom line: have a great program and kids will want to come back even if you have lousy facilities and few resources. Have a lousy program, and the best facilities and most resources in the world won't matter.

I am not sure that I really want to advocate this, but as a point of discussion:

The problem with scouts who "vanish" and come back just in time for Eagle could be resolved by requiring that they hold a position of leadership and/or meet a certain threshold of activity within the last 18 months. That way, a boy who effectively drops out except on paper as a Life Scout at age 13, can't come back at 17 and say "ok I want Eagle now" to a bunch of strangers.

Of course, there would be other problems with this approach. Put a new hurdle in place and people will inevitably figure out how to get around, over, under, or through it in ways you don't intend.

------------------------------------------

While it would have been better (simpler, easier) for the boy to have finished his 4 badges & project way back when, it doesn't sound to me like there's a lot of room for complaint with what he actually did. The real complaint appears to be that you don't know the boy very well.

Having said that, SpencerCheatham, I think you miss the point of Scouting. The point is NOT mainly to provide service to Scouting, itself (else OA would be the highest recognition, not Eagle) nor are a scout's camping skills the primary point (then we'd end with 1st Class). The point is to help young men develop their character and leadership, using the outdoors and scouting skills as backdrop and tools along the way. While I don't want to diminish those tools, you should be leery of confusing the tools with the results.

If you look at several different versions of the "Eagle Charge" you will see that all of them direct the new Eagle to think well beyond scouting, be involved in their communities, to continue developing the habits of good citizenship, etc.

"I thought he would do well to find an adult coach to help guide him through the Eagle hurdles and keep him focused on the various tasks that need to get done. Do any units encourage that kind of support? "

Yes, my son's troop does that. I thought it was a regular part of the new process? It can be really helpful for the boys to have someone other than mom & dad to turn to when they're in the weeds - and that someone may be able to push them in ways that don't always work for parents. It is part of the "adult association" method working at its best.

Glad to hear the BOR went well.

Um, basement, read what I wrote. I don't think having an outsider on a board for the higher ranks is a terrible idea (although, except for Eagle, it isn't standard).

I do think having the UC on the board sets up a situation where the UC may get into a messy conflict of interests. The UC isn't just any "outsider" and the UC must be able to be an impartial "friend to the unit." I think that might be hard, if the UC is also de facto part of the unit, serving on BORs, etc. However, that's a line that SP will have to figure out by himself. And it is apparent to me (from other posts) that, in general, SP's style of being a UC is much more hands on than mine might be.