Jump to content

Lisabob

Members
  • Posts

    5017
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lisabob

  1. Interesting report, though I too would like to know more about where the data comes from. Regardless though, it does seem to fit with what I've seen around here. Looking at my son's troop and retention issues over the last year: About 20 new scouts joined the troop a year ago. Of those, 7 are with the troop now, and I think 2 of these are on the fence based on comments they and their parents have made. There have been a few who dropped out due to circumstances that had nothing to do with the troop but from conversations with parents, it seems that at least 6-8 left for reasons that are more directly linked to things within our control. I think the major problems have been: 1. programs that are not geared toward the needs of younger boys (until last year, the majority of the troop was 14 or older so the addition of a LOT of younger guys was a challenge) 2. A prevailing attitude among some leaders that new scouts should "figure things out" on their own, which left some of them (and their parents) floundering and not knowing where to turn for help (this is changing, thankfully - I'm not advocating hand holding either, mind you.) 3. Lack of respect, or perceptions of lack of respect. Things like: older scouts badgering younger scouts about their lack of basic skills, but not actually helping the scouts learn those skills; adults putting off scouts who request sign offs or help ("not right now..." can only be used a certain number of times before the boy stops asking) 4. poor troop meeting planning, leading to "boring" meetings that the boys weren't excited about attending 5. extremely slow advancement due in large part to the above concerns - this is both a symptom and a problem in its own right I think. I certainly saw that the scouts who dropped out were below 2nd Class as the letter indicated was typical. Of the 7 boys who stayed in for a full year and are still active, one is now 1st Cl., 1 is 2nd Cl., 3 are Tenderfoot, and 1 is Scout rank. Of the others who dropped out two were tenderfoot and the rest were scouts, after several months of active participation (for most of them) with the troop. I think the troop leadership has made significant improvement over the last year on most of these fronts and I'm hopeful that we'll see better results with the current new scouts. Lisa'bob
  2. Actually Beavah, both you and Fscouter managed to express different aspects of what I was trying to say, probably better than I did myself. Thanks. To try to summarize and clarify what I meant: 1. Younger scouts with less capacity for introspection and abstract thought need to be asked questions that deal more with concrete skill, so as to avoid the situation you describe, AND 2. But the point isn't to find out what they know about safe hiking, not really. It is to use those concrete skills as an avenue for considering growth and development. My thoughts after last night's Eagle BOR were that sometimes we get too hung up on the skill (which is, none the less, important) and lose focus on the second part - esp. with these younger guys because so much of their rank advancement is explicitly skill based. Lisa'bob
  3. "Has anyone seen a really great by led troop? Does it really depend on the skills of the SM - I think so. " Ronvo ----------- Well I've seen flashes of it! Admittedly I have limited experience on the troop side of things so far but it seems like the trick is to slowly extend the length of those flashes until they are nearly continuous. Yes I think it depends a GREAT deal on the SM, as well as on the personality and maturity of the SPL. But more the SM, because s/he is in the position to teach the SPL, no matter where the SPL is starting from. Seems like some people want to be SM because they like being in charge or being the "go to guy/gal." Seems like that's the wrong perspective for the job, if the troop is expected to make progress toward being more truly boy-led. I'd rather see the SM be someone who leads and teaches quietly and delegates well (to the boys) instead of someone who likes to be in the light him/her self. Being SM is obviously a tough job. I admire everyone who has agreed to take on that responsibility. I wonder though, if this isn't one of those cases where the people who would be best at it are the ones who seek it the least. Lisa'bob
  4. emb, a scheduled uniform inspection or a curious question about an unusual patch on your uniform is what we call a "teachable moment." That's one thing and by all means, use it. I'm glad you don't "accost" unsuspecting scouts and scouters with unsolicited negative commentary on their uniform. Some people do and they aren't usually received in the manner they might like to be, even when they're right. That's another thing and something to be avoided. Sometimes the messenger gets in the way of the message. Lisa'bob
  5. Hey OGE, Dug, seems like maybe your ongoing debate deserves a separate thread? I had the privilege of sitting on an Eagle BoR last night. First time I've done that. All the others I've been part of so far were for T21 ranks. One big difference I noticed: very, very few questions about specific scout skills at the Eagle BoR, while in the T21 ranks, a great deal of the discussion focuses on skills (how learned, when used, comfort level with said skill, etc.). Made me wonder: is the purpose of the BOR really to spot-check on skill development, or rather, on the personal development of the young man in question. I understand that the first three ranks are primarily focused on acquiring basic skill sets so it is natural that the boys might be asked about those skills more specifically at those ranks. But I'm thinking that this is also a reflection of developmental abilities of (most) boys as they mature. At the age of 10-12 or so when most boys are working on the first three ranks,(most) boys don't have much ability to be introspective so we ask them about tangible things they've seen/done/tried as a way to help them learn to think about the meaning of those experiences. By the time they're likely to be earning the Eagle rank they may have developed a better capacity to reflect on their own maturation and growth so we ask them different types of questions - less hands on, more cerebral. (Seems like most Eagle candidates are at least 14; the young man in question last night was almost 18 and the typical age in this troop for Eagles is probably closer to 16.) Looking at it this way (which does seem to be consistent with the aims of scouting after all - not just camping/outdoor skills but personal development and growth, using the outdoors as a learning laboratory) puts the whole question of how to "review" scouts and how to engage in "quality control" in a somewhat different light. Lisa'bob
  6. 1. Boy led? A matter of opinion. The troop advertizes itself as boy led and in many respects it is. But in comparison to what some people have posted here over the last year or so that I've been reading the board, I can see other areas (planning/organizing) where it is not so much boy-led as it could be. But a matter of opinion, I say, because the prevailing view among the troop adult leadership seems to be that in those areas, the boys shouldn't be in charge. (example: CoHs tend to be adult-planned and adult-run) PLC is active though and plans/executes troop meetings and monthly camp outs. We have a venture patrol for the older guys that does seem to follow the idea of boy-led much better than the troop as a whole, in my opinion. This is new this year; I'm hoping for a spill-over effect. 2. utilization of patrol method? I think we do pretty well here. Permanent patrols exist and function together 99% of the time. I'd like to see us get away from appointing PLs for the NSPs (SM does this - an older scout is assigned for the year) and rely on Troop Guides more extensively instead. This year we at least have a couple of boys who are going to serve as troop guides (again selected by the SM - it would be good to get the SPL involved here I think) so I hope we're slowly moving in that direction. Change is harder for some of the adults than for the boys I think. I'd also like to see the patrols taking more initiative to meet and do things together on their own - at least occasionally. But with the schedules some of these kids have, I guess I can see why that seldom happens. 3. troop size? Currently 46 boys including 16 new scouts 4. program? Most troop meetings are used (as the PLC has planned) to prep for upcoming campouts. This includes some planning and some skill-related activity. Occasionally this will include inviting special guests (adults) to do presentations but usually the boys themselves are teaching these skills. Like the other posters, there are times when the PLC's plan doesn't quite seem to happen, which I see as part of the process of learning leadership. Lisa'bob
  7. Beavah, in reading your response and then re-reading my post, I think I might have unintentionally misconstrued things. I did not mean to suggest that I have seen committee members harrassing scouts during a BOR, as a way to compete with the SM for power or control over the troop's "vision." I did mean, it seems like the BOR might highlight differences of opinion about that vision (and how to achieve it) that come up in adult discussions (like committee meetings) down the road. I certainly agree that it would be inexcusable for any adults to go after scouts in the BOR itself, as a way to resolve adult differences of opinion! Lisa'bob
  8. And whats with the term UP patrols? What is a UP patrol? I may be reading that wrong, but it sounds like a derisive comment toward fellow Scouters. Serving what purpose? I intended: UP Patrol = uniform police patrol, as in, patrolling the vicinity, looking for uniforming errors. Sorry if anyone took offense, it wasn't really my intention. Lisa'bob
  9. John, thanks - I will pm you for that contact info. Ed, having seen how this one went I am at least halfway inclined to agree. But you know what, I don't have the authority to do that. Sadly, I have yet to convince my various district and council folks that not only am I really on the ball in terms of organizational capacity, I'm also omnipotent and never wrong. (Gotta keep working on that!) And so what's going to happen is, the MB U. will continue to take place. Lots of troops will participate (there were 800 or so boys at this one and that's mainly just from one district). So I'm taking a pragmatic approach. Not: get rid of it (which isn't realistically going to happen) but instead: make it better. Also - the back story here is that this fraternity had previously run their MB U. under the radar, without even going through any district and council channels. At least at this point they're trying to work with council to provide a program that's closer to being up to standard. Lisa'bob
  10. I think if I were the SM here I would accept the signed cards from the MBC, even though I really, really, did not like it. (and in the future I would want to work with any new MBC who planned to do a group session for my troop like what was described here, to make sure they understand and apply the requirements before they teach the session). ANd then... over the course of the next several campouts, I would encourage the PLC to include opportunties for boys to do the remaining requirements that were shorted. Those boys who "earned" the mb might even be asked to help teach the other boys who hadn't yet earned it (with help, as needed). Nothing like leading/teaching to make sure someone actually knows something! And also I'd encourage the MBC in question here to keep working with ALL the boys on their cooking skills, though not neccessarily as an MB session - just as a regular part of troop camping. She is obviously good at it and enjoys it so use her skill and her willingness to work with the boys! Something like this solution would avoid punishing the boys for adult mistakes while still ensuring that the basic requirements are met (even if after the fact - not the best, but at least a viable solution). And hopefully in the future similar problems can be avoided. Lisa'bob
  11. My experience with "uniform police" is that they are frequently well-meaning, but mis-informed. This by no means applies to all cases, but perhaps a significant portion? And it seems as though, the longer a person has been out of a certain part of scouting, the more likely that is to occur. For example, when I was affiliated with a pack, I had people approach us several times to tell us that our webelos were incorrectly uniformed, based on standards that MIGHT have been accurate in the 1980s, but are no longer in place. Similarly this year, a friend who is a Tiger leader mentioned that someone approached her den at a parade to express his indignation that her Tigers were wearing the blue shirts instead of the old orange tiger shirts! According to her, he simply wouldn't believe that she knew more about the current requirements than he did, because he was involved with Tigers "from the beginning!" And then there's the case of the UP's who themselves are incorrectly uniformed, while criticizing others. So I guess a lot of the indignant responses (and non-responses) that the UP patrols receive have to do with the sheer number of times many of us have been told we're "doing it wrong" by somebody who doesn't know what they're talking about. Tends to make it easy to discount even those who are correct, especially if they're complete strangers. Lisa'bob
  12. Some boys from our troop attended a MBU yesterday and, as I mentioned in another thread, I ended up as a last minute MBC for the communications mb. Overall, feelings were mixed about the program and whether we'd do it again next year. Here were some of our pro's and con's. Pro's: 1. There were lots of choices of mbs to work on (24 mbs offered, over 3 sessions, each of which was 2 hours long), including several that are tough to find mb counselors for, like oceanography and chemistry. 2. Most of the mb sessions were led by people who were clearly well qualified, established MBCs, so the content was pretty good, although most of the MBCs had a week or less to prepare because they were asked last-minute like I was. (Some were asked on Friday afternoon!) 3. Contrary to previous years, lots of partials were given (instead of lots of completed mb's for badges that hadn't really been covered adequately). 4. Most of the boys had a good time, learned a few new things, and either started or finished up badges that they were interested in or needed (eagle-required). Con's: 1. This is a fundraising event for a service fraternity at the University where it was held, but that fact was NOT made clear to anybody when we signed up. Additionally, the entire event was (supposed to be) run by the fraternity. Would've been nice to know, as most adult leaders assumed this was something council had a hand in, and that registration fees were going to council also. 2. The organization was quite poor: one person doing check-in for 800 boys; nobody to collect payments for troops that were already registered and just needed to pay; classrooms that were too small so that boys were sitting on the floor and in the aisles; flat-out-wrong head counts given to MBCs so that many were short on materials and hand outs; lost registrations, the list goes on and on. Organizational problems prompted many adult leaders to say that they weren't sure they want to participate in the future. 3. Some mb sessions had upward of 150 boys in them, leading to crowd control issues and behavioral problems (primarily, rowdy behavior and bad language/verbal abuse among scouts in a couple of situations). 4. Some mb sessions - particularly the larger ones - had too few adults in the room to ensure that the previous problem wouldn't occur or else, would be dealt with appropriately) 5. By the last session of the day many boys were pretty squirrely because they had been sitting in lecture halls all day long and they were tired. 6. They ran out of the "free pizza" that had been promised for lunch, probably because they budgeted one slice per boy (and none for leaders or staff!) and of course that isn't what actually happened. 7. overall, not enough coordination between the fraternity in charge and the council, despite apparent efforts by council to work with the fraternity. Council did step in at the last minute to help the fraternity locate MBCs, when it became apparent that they hadn't done so and that they had unqualified people in line to run many sessions. But of course the council folks weren't (and shouldn't have been) happy about needing to do this last minute to rescue the event. In my mind, the positives outweighed the negatives, but looking forward to next year I'm thinking about how we (on the council side) might help this fraternity put on a better program, without actually taking it over from them. Part of the problem on their side is that they are undergrads - many without significant organizing experience - and there's a lot of turnover since undergrads tend to, well, graduate. Additionally, few of them were boy scouts themselves. So they have a steep learning curve. Here are a few things I can think of that we could do to help; any thoughts or input you might have, I'd really appreciate and will pass on to the higher-up muckety mucks. (I'm just a lower-order muckety muck these days and happy to stay there) * Several months prior to the event, the fraternity should send letters or emails to all MBCs in the council, explaining what and when the event will be, and asking them to teach a MB session. * Once they have committed MBCs, they can develop their list of MBs to be offered from there, rather than the other way around (and then scrambling for MBCs to fit their list) * They should have a computerized way of tracking and confirming registrations and payments, which they should be expected to share with leaders from council. (to avoid the problem of wildly inaccurate registration numbers due to poor record keeping, and to ensure that troops know their registration and payment have been received and processed) * Council should insist that class sizes be limited to no more than 50 boys; less for certain hands-on sessions like chemistry. (To avoid having 200 boys in a huge lecture hall setting) * They should encourage more hands-on mb work and less classroom learning type presentations. Especially at the end of the day, they shouldn't schedule the "sit & listen" types of sessions because the kids are just too squirrelly by then. * They shouldn't even try to provide free lunch; let troops bring their own. * They should have many more people from the fraternity "working" at check in so that one person isn't trying to process 800 boys! What else can I suggest to them? Thanks - Lisa'bob
  13. Questions for all of you with more experience than I have: Do you utilize troop guides in your program? If so, how? Who chooses them, based on what criteria, and how long do they serve? Do you assign TGs to specific patrols (say, to a specific NSP), or are they "floaters" who help out where and as needed? Last question (ha! well, for now anyway): how does a TG differ from a JASM? Thanks. Lisa'bob
  14. I've been to some RTs as a unit leader that made me want to scream because they were simply social hours for the (pardon me, but it is true in this case) "Old Boy Network." If we insisted that our MBCs attend too? Are you kidding? Half of them would probably quit being MBCs, either before hand (not having time to attend) or after (what a dismal waste of time it was)! Of course RTs should be worthwhile and well-run and I'm happy to say our district has improved in this regard. But I still wouldn't want to use RT attendance as a yardstick for much of anything except perhaps the amount of free time a person has. Lisa'bob
  15. Along the lines of this thread, let me ask a couple of hypothetical questions about MBs and MBCs. 1. If a scout comes to you wanting to work on a MB for which there is only one (or a small handful) of MBCs, whom you know to be of poor quality, would you direct that scout toward them anyway, in the absence of better options? 2. If a district-endorsed event comes along (like a MB Fair) and it is a situation where you don't have any idea who the MBC will be, thus eliminating your ability as SM to do "quality control," would you still encourage scouts to sign up? 3. Can you/Would you (two separate questions I suppose) direct a scout away from Eagle-required badges that are offered by a MB Fair in the above situation? What about the scout who tells you he wants to "knock out" all three of the Citizenship badges in one day at said Fair? (understanding that some requirements would have to be done as pre-reqs) 4. Can you/have you ever directed a scout toward a MBC from another council in lieu of your own? I'm thinking about MBs for which there aren't many counselors available in your council and you aren't happy with the quality of their work, but maybe another nearby council has more options. 5. If the DAC is ultimately responsible for procuring high-quality MBCs, what steps do you take to help or provide "quality control" feedback to the DAC? Or is it pretty much up to them? I appreciate this discussion - it is something that has come up in context of troop and district discussions around here so input is good. Lisa'bob
  16. From OGE's post: The review is not an examination. (Not sure how to more clearly say the review isnt an exam or a retest) The Scout has learned his skill and has been examined. This is a review. The Scout should be asked where he learned his skill, who taught him, and the value he gained from passing this requirement. I think most of the questions and problems tend to stem from this part of the policy on BORs. In an ideal world, when the BOR "reviews" with a scout, they will find that he learned the skill just fine, etc.. However, even in my limited experience with BORs I know there have been times where a boy clearly HAD NOT really learned the skill in question. Couldn't remember where/when/who taught it; was vague about what the skill actually was; agreed that he'd been "taught" but also stated he didn't really know how to do it anyway, either at the time it was taught, or now, or both. From discussion: 1. Some folks seem to believe that deferral in such situations would be wrong because once something is signed off (which it must be, to get to the BOR) it is sacrosanct and the BOR can't "re-test." 2. Some would say that deferral is obvious because the boy clearly hadn't learned the skill and maybe the boy even agrees that he doesn't know the skill. 3. Some would say that if he knew the skill at the time of sign-off but doesn't by the time the BOR happens, that's ok, and still others would say, no it isn't. 4. Some others will say that the boy (should or shouldn't) be advanced and that the SM, not the BOR, has failed to do the job of Scoutmaster's conference properly. 5. And finally others will say it was neither the SM, nor the BOR, but the person who signed the boy's book to start with, who messed up (and that the boy should/shouldn't be advanced as a consequence). I can see a reasonable interpretation of OGE's quote at the beginning of the post, for all of these responses, but they lead to quite different outcomes, both in terms of the BOR outcome and in terms of where to go with constructive feedback regarding responsibility for quality of advancement. That's the problem I see. Lisa'bob
  17. Our troop uses NSPs. They tend to morph into permanent patrols. This has drawbacks, I know, but that's how it is. From observations last year (when my son joined) and this year I can see a few things that would be bothersome to some - but not necessarily all - new scouts. 1. personal relationships - really disliking a particular boy (for good reason) and being put in a patrol with him anyway might be enough for some boys to look elsewhere, or quit. I think being separated from friends is less of a problem - after all, the patrols do interact, right? And he'll make new friends in his patrol pretty soon. But serious and long-standing personality conflicts are harder to overcome. Since the SM in our troop generally knows very little about the new scouts prior to setting up the NSPs, he just goes ahead and creates the NSPs according to his own logic (which may, or may not, be aligned with these personality issues). Maybe not the best way to do it but I'm willing to bet it isn't uncommon. 2. organization - some boys have a very hard time with highly disorganized settings, which NSPs are more prone to than established patrols of older boys. For some boys, this would be so exhausting or so upsetting that they might prefer not to be there at all. 3. maturity - some boys are just more mature than their age cohort, either physically, or emotionally, or both. If the disconnect is tremendous, it makes it hard for them to ever fit in, especially since they may consider themselves as outsiders and not particularly want to fit in. I have to agree with FScouter that telling a boy to deal with it for 6-10-12 months until patrols are re-aligned isn't the best option if the boy has a serious concern. IMO a boy in that situation is at high risk of quitting because he'll be stressed out and unhappy every time he has to go to scouts. It wouldn't make for a smooth webelos-scout transition in my book! Lisa'bob
  18. I admit to struggling a bit with the retesting/just checking aspect of BORs. While I understand the clear prohibition on retesting, I also agree with Venividi's comment that: "I do not see how a BOR can ensure a scout has completed all of the requirements if it is not allowed to ask such as described by Mike F. I suppose they could take the view that if the requirement was signed off, that must mean it was completed. But who gets shortchanged in such instances is the scout. " Someone else mentioned that if the BOR finds deficiencies in the program, as reflected by hollow sign offs or skills that were learned once and then quickly forgotten due to lack of use, then this is something the committee should be discussing with the SM. In my admittedly limited experience so far with troops, it seems like there is frequently a break-down here. What I've seen is that different people have different visions for how to deliver the program, and the SM is generally considered to have the final (operative) say in this. Yes, I understand the SM works with the committee, etc., but as the SM is the hands-on person actually implementing the program, his or her particular "vision" shapes the troop. So what happens is, the BOR becomes a place for contending visions to pop up. Some committee members undoubtedly use this as a way to highlight their discontent with the SM's vision and to advocate their own vision instead; some SM's seem impervious to feedback from the BORs because they view it as criticism of their own vision and become defensive. Rare is the troop that seems to have a broad agreement on the vision, and how to achieve it. Lisa'bob
  19. Part of the difficulty with "proof" is that the reporting requirements are set up in such a way that you may never know if you have been investigated, unless the investigation turns something up. (Which might then trigger a criminal investigation and possibly detention. And there are several well-documented cases where, once in detention, gov't has attempted to refuse information even to the detainees' lawyers about potential charges and evidence. Hamdi is one; Padilla is another that has been in the news a lot over the last couple of years. This does little to build trust in gov't's self-restraint on the use of broad powers.) I have a colleague who found himself on the receiving end of some unwanted FBI attention as a result of expanded monitoring powers granted to the gov't after 9/11. He teaches a course on international conflict at a large public university in an area where there is a large Arab-American population. As part of his course he runs a simulation of peace negotiations in the Middle East, assigning students roles of various groups in the region. He has done this simulation for years, no problem. The first time after 9/11 that he did it, the FBI suddenly appeared, wanting to know why people in his class (with Arab sounding names) were sending emails back and forth about terrorist groups (like Hamas and Hizbullah). They sat in on his class for the rest of the semester too. Talk about a chilling effect on classroom discussion. But Rooster, you know, in general it is really hard to get information on how the Patriot Act has been used. Major news organizations have repeatedly had to go to court to get basic Freedom of Information Act requests fulfilled to find out the frequency with which library records have been checked, etc., under the provisions of the Patriot Act. Without that basic information being available to the public it is not surprising to me that people are worried, perhaps more than they would be if they just knew the actual facts - which none the less, this admin has been reluctant to share. National security is crucial but too much secrecy can be self-defeating sometimes too. I submit: if the GOVERNMENT has nothing to hide with regard to how they are using the powers granted by the Patriot Act, then let the GOVERNMENT open its records to the public more fully and stop hiding behind this wall of secrecy, so we can see what they're doing in our name. Let facts replace speculation. Lisa'bob
  20. Thanks to all of you for the suggestions, they have been most helpful. After talking with some folks about this whole situation it seems that a set-up where 100+ kids are shuffled through a MB session in a couple of hours and then "signed off" is not so unusual as I might have expected. How unfortunate. And no wonder people have generally negative attitudes toward these MB U's! As for me, I've decided to take Trevorum's advice to heart. I'm not even striving for "completion" of an Eagle-required mb for close to 100 students (numbers increase every time I talk to the organizers) in just a couple of hours. I'm just hoping to give them a solid introduction to the topic and provide them with opportunities to follow-up and complete the mb with me (or another mb counselor) outside the confines of the MB U. By the way, my son is attending this day too. I'm really glad he decided to focus on "for fun" mbs instead of Eagle required mbs (he picked Oceanography, Chemistry, and Fingerprinting). Not only are the groups a lot smaller for those (there's between 150-200 boys signed up for some of the citizen mb sessions, which will be "taught" in a large lecture hall - ugh!), but I'll be less upset about him getting a superficial introduction to those, if that's what happens. Anyway, wish me luck. I think it will work out ok even if it won't produce scads of completed mbs. I just hope the boys won't be too disappointed with that fact. Lisa'bob
  21. Newbie DL, I too have sat through some rather useless training sessions so that I could be considered "trained." So I sympathize. I will say this though. In every session, I've learned at least one new thing, or else had reason to consider my (and the pack/troop's) approach to situations from new perspectives. If nothing else, going to even rather useless trainings got me thinking about how to deliver the program better in my home unit. Now I'm not excited about wasting my time (and money!) either. Our district charges a fair amount for even basic leader training so my view is that they'd better deliver something worthwhile in exchange, or I won't be back anytime soon. I'll go to future trainings in other districts or councils instead, where I know (word of mouth) that training is of better quality. And as our pack's training chair and unofficially, beginning to do something similar for the troop, I'll make sure I direct other leaders to other training sources too, if that's what's necessary. And I've occasionally let our district staff know this, as have other scouters. The market can be a wonderful thing! (Of course, I have that luxury, given that I live on the border of three separate councils, with a fourth not too far away.) In reality: I've only felt the need to do this for one particular type of training that I think our district has consistently done a poor job with. And from what I hear, the training staff has been trying to improve the quality of that session after receiving copious feedback to that effect. So I'll give them some credit I guess. As for others' comments about getting involved on the training team, I agree that this is one way to improve things. Of course that supposes that a) the district is open to new people on the team and b) you are able to devote some time to it, without detracting from the job you do within your unit. That "hour a week" only stretches so far sometimes. I've helped conduct a fair amount of training, both in BSA context and elsewhere. One ubiquitous problem with "basic" training like NLE and Leader-Specific is that the audience is so varied. Some are brand new to scouting and the BSA. Some were scouts as youths so at least have a clue (or think they do, anyway). Others have been involved for decades and probably do know more than anybody on the presentation team. (These people ought to be approached to be part of the team, once they are trained, and depending on their people skills) So from the trainer's perspective, these intro-level trainings are often more difficult to pull off effectively, than the more specialized trainings. Not that this excuses poor training though; it just makes it harder to do well. Finally I don't see a written test as a good solution. That will probably deter people from doing the training, who otherwise would actually benefit. Also I'm not confident that the BSA bigwigs would develop a test that is suitable. My concern is that it would either end up being of the "well duh!" variety (kind of like the test at the end of the online YPT module) or it might be so focused on minutia as to be irrelevant to actually delivering a good scouting program. Anyway, my own experience with BSA training has been that the further you go, the more useful the training is. I got a lot more from BALOO and OLS and Woodbadge than I ever got out of NLE and Leader-Specific training. So don't give up hope yet! Lisa'bob
  22. Brent, let me clarify. I (and my colleague - we talked quite a bit about this) wouldn't have had too much of a problem with the FBI checking into those emails (though, as I mentioned, this guy had been doing this particular simulation for years and never run into any problem in the past). But they gave him a VERY hard time, well beyond what might have been reasonable. And then even after explanations were given and supported by abundant evidence, they posted two FBI agents IN HIS CLASSROOM for the remainder of the semester. This was a class on international conflict; debate, discussion, and frank exchange of ideas and views are typically part of this course, and having a couple of FBI agents (no kidding, in bad dark suits with opaque sunglasses) sitting in the room did a real number on students' willingness to engage in discussion. What if they said the "wrong" thing? This type of situation was precisely why our founders included a prohibition against forcibly quartering soldiers in private homes during times of peace. The presence of government "minders" has a chilling effect on political speech. Once the FBI assertained that this was not a terrorist plot in the making, they should've left this guy and his students alone. In the immediate post-9/11 atmosphere where some people were killed (though not by the FBI, mind you) in certain parts of this country just because they "looked Arab," (and in some cases they were Sikhs from India!) there was - and to an extent, remains - a palpable fear within the Arab communities around here. It is a shame too because we're talking mainly about people who are keenly aware of and grateful for the freedoms and liberties that make America a great country. That's why many of them fled to this country to start with. Consequently perhaps they are also more alert to curbs on those freedoms and liberties, than many Americans who have not had personal experience with tyranny and oppression. Lisa'bob
  23. ladyleader, You don't need your CM's approval to contact your council staff, although I can imagine inter-personal dynamics where you might decide that it would cause you more grief than it is worth to do so without at least letting him know first. Also depending on the situation I don't necessarily see a need for legal counsel to figure out who gets den meeting info and who doesn't (within reason). But since you've already had one blow-out where you ended up between parents I understand why you may want clarification and in that case, John's advice makes sense in terms of whom to contact. And so why not just explain to your CM the situation you had with those two parents, express your desire to avoid similar problems in the future, and let him know that you'll be contacting council to seek relevant advice? Diplomacy aside, I'd imagine any CM could understand why a DL would take this move even if they, themselves, might approach it differently. Lisa'bob
  24. Contacting Scoutreach is a good idea. I wish I could take credit for suggesting it but I can't - somebody else did. I've lived in some very remote areas too - though not now. Not only are all the paper route types of jobs held by adults because of the need for a car to cover the route (distance) but additionally because in some extremely rural areas, adult unemployment and under-employment reach truly staggering rates and they actually need those jobs to make ends meet. And while people everywhere would probably be happy to help a kid out, to the extent it is possible, in some places and times, they just don't have the money to do it. This isn't an issue of misplaced priorities (spending on game systems and sneakers or whatever else); it is a reflection of real, and deep, poverty that does exist in some parts of our country. I'm a bit dismayed by the number of responses here that indicate a complete lack of understanding of the situation as sunset&shadows described (and as elaborated upon by some other rural scouters). Scouting in urban and suburban areas faces challenges too, of course, and some challenges are the same regardless of location, but some are not, and I think it is useful for people to be(come) aware of that. (getting off the soap box now) Lisa
  25. ladyleader, I'm not sure but I suspect that this has less to do with you being female than it does with the individual parents involved. I've seen situations similar to the one you have described develop in dens with male leaders as well as with female leaders. Thankfully they are rare though (most adults are capable of acting like, well, adults (!) and do not attempt to drag outside parties like den leaders into their personal mess), and that might be why the other leaders in your pack haven't had to deal with such problems. What Mark described in terms of information policy might work for him. I know that if I had done something like that it would've caused more problems than it would've solved. I suppose it depends a bit on the context, but I wouldn't advocate such a restrictive policy as standard practice since it puts you (as controller of information about their child) squarely in the middle of the parents' dispute. Hang in there for now. Hopefully, by the time fall rolls around, things will have calmed down and you won't have to deal with these problems again! Lisa'bob
×
×
  • Create New...