MattR

Talking about what a leader is or does still seems a bit murky.

I've seen scouts with lots of charisma (other scouts just want to be with them) but their only vision is to get scouts to follow them in a social setting. I've kept in touch with a few and they still haven't grown up. I tried hard to get them to use their talents for doing something besides screwing around but it didn't work. What I have also seen are people with a passion for something. Some scouts want to organize fun campouts or campfires. That leads to confidence, and people tend to follow. I have a scout in my troop that has some minor speech impediment. He's shy about it but he tries hard enough that everyone respects him and follows him. It has nothing to do with charisma but everything to do with desire and humility.

I still disagree with the idea that a leader should only do as told from below. One example is the SM that's trying to change his troop to be more boy led. Some parents and scouts won't like change no matter what. Does that mean the SM should never change anything? Waiting for everyone to come to complete agreement is called design by committee. Maybe that's why the BSA can't get behind boy lead, there are too many bubbles in Texas that can't agree on it. I agree that going it alone is risky and getting enough people to agree is important, but it's rarely the case that everyone agrees on everything. With a vision and a passion for getting something done, real leaders make things happen and disagreements are part of it.

Boy scouts is all about scouts learning to make decisions so never solve a problem a scout can and never make a decision a scout can. Also, set clear boundaries as to who makes what decisions and make sure everyone knows them and everyone defends those boundaries (scouts adults and parents).

Separation.

Trust goes both ways between scouts and adults. It takes time and is fragile.

Stosh, I like a lot of what you've written but your idea that leadership is bottom up and management is top down doesn't match what I see. I agree that bad management is top down. But leadership goes both ways. Sometimes a leader needs to tell a scout something he doesn't want to hear, such as "no, you can't go play, it's time to wash the dishes." There's give and take. The leader's responsibility is the group as a whole. Not only that but sometimes a vision has to grow from one person, usually the leader, to the whole group. Take the whole subject of boy led from the SM's view as leader and a bunch of new parents. The new parents want a schedule of events so their sons can get FCFY but the SM wants scouts to make their own decisions. The SM says no, this is the way we're going to do it. It's not bottom up. It's more like tough love.

Who is the keeper of the flame? Who cares about the scouts in the patrol? That's the leader. We ask the PL to care but there's no way we can force him to do it. It's the exact same thing with character. We can tell them what it is, we can show them how we do it, we can tell them to do it, but we can't make them do it. I've tried to make opportunities for scouts to try leadership at a lower level than PL, just so they can try it out, but it hasn't worked well.

40 scouts. Suburban. Money is becoming more of an issue, but that's mostly because HA trips are going up in price. Lots of adults sign up but there's a natural culture to back off, as they're all busy. I have few adults that work with scouts. After what I've read here I should count my blessings. Two years ago I made a big push for boy led and am now seeing the results.

As I said in another thread, our NSP is roughly March to June and we have two troop guides per patrol. They are at least 15. The process of selecting them is usually one of Jedi mind tricks. I usually walk up to a couple of scouts and ask if they've ever thought of being a TG. But anyone can ask. The idea of having TGs guide a PL within the NSP is honestly new to me, and I think it's a great idea. Since our NSP is so short in duration the focus is on developing teamwork. I'm usually happy if the scouts are tenderfoot by the time summer camp is over. This FCFY thing is driving me nuts. I believe in ALOFFYPAMAATSW (a lot of fun first year plus as much advancement as the scout wants). Some love advancement. The scouts that need scouting the most typically do not.

Our scouts decide the length of their PORs. Since I'm always preaching developing their replacement I haven't seen anyone go much longer than the 6 month period anyway. One benefit is we don't see a new group of PLs all at once.

I'm always willing to change things. After what I've read here I'd like to better set goals for what the TGs are trying to accomplish. Teamwork and finding a patrol they want. There has always been the assumption that at the end of the NSP scouts are broken out into the other patrols. I would like to revisit that idea. There are more options and getting the new scouts' input is something we should do more of. It's an opportunity for the scouts to solve a problem.

Too many labels. The term NSP seems to mean many different things. It would cool this whole discussion down if people would define what they mean by NSP. How long, who the leaders are, that kind of thing.

My complaint with the one particular NSP was primarily with the idea that a scout couldn't leave until he was first class. That's dumb.

We have something we call a NSP patrol that has two older scouts as PLs, only runs for about 4 months, and gives the new scouts a chance to figure out who their friends are and learn a bit about the huge change between cub scouts and boy scouts. The adults don't need to be involved because the scout leaders in that patrol are old enough to deal with cats. It works well for us. The scouts are ready to leave when it's done.

Something I rarely see mentioned is that scouts must have friends in the troop or they will leave (I did). In particular, after they're 13 it starts getting very hard for them to make friends in a troop setting compared to what they get in school. So the first two years are critical. Just as important, 1 to 3 really good friends is all they tend to have or need. More than that and I start seeing too much high school drama if the friends are all in one patrol. What that means for us is our patrols are tending towards different aged clumps of friends. It's certainly not a single age and it's not evenly split. Right now my patrols are better than they've ever been so I'm happy with it.

Anyhoo, 2 of the parents that filled the committee were there. I appointed one of them as fundraising chair person. Just said I cant handle it. I will get info on fundraising but I want you to check into it. I then handed her 4 different fundraisers info sheets. (some from me, some from the council). She said awesome I was hoping you would give it to me and she didnt say it sarcastically.   She has already setup the pancake breakfast at Applebees. Just need to make the deposits to hold the spots.

Word of advice from someone that's been there: understand the difference between what the committee does and the SM/ASMs. Sounds like you're getting sucked into doing the committee's job. Fundraising is not your domain, nor is rechartering, advancement records, collecting money for summer camp, .... I used to do all that and finally said no more.

Yep. 3 scouts - stay as a patrol. 2 scouts - their choice, but they are visiting the other patrol and the patrol must have room. 1 scout - find a patrol, they must have room, you're visiting.

In troops I have seen that use the NSP, once you get First Class you go out to "older" patrols. To be honest, the troops in my area that use the NSP concept are all Eagle mills.

Really? I've never heard of this before blw2 mentioned it. It's insanely wrong. Maybe this is how grumpy old SMs are created. I'm becoming one of them. The dark side, the ring. I can feel the pull.

The issue I see is all the PLs will likely be inexperienced. That's expected at that age. There are a few things I can think of that will help those PLs. First is train each entire patrol in what a patrol is, what it does, and what the leader does. It will be easier on the leader to have scouts that know what teamwork is. Also, if a PL is struggling someone may just help him, or maybe a scout with natural leadership just steps up. With everyone the same age and young, things might be very fluid, which can be good.

Second, smaller patrols are easier for a new leader to manage than bigger patrols. We don't make ad hoc patrols if numbers are down at a campout and the overwhelming response from the scouts is they like it. If there are only 4 scouts in a patrol and they have the faintest idea what teamwork is about then they work together fantastically. Everyone knows they have to help out and there are plenty of jobs to do. Eight scouts is a lot to cook for and a lot of personalities for a young PL to deal with. Four is easy, but not all four will show up every time. Six?

Finally, the new PLs will need more time outside of working with their patrols to talk to someone with experience. I'd say work any planning those scouts need to do into the calendar. They tend to struggle with focus, at least the boys do, and the more you talk to them the better.

@@blw2, this is similar to Billie's problem. Ask the scouts. Talk about how important it is for new scouts to have a friend and how patrols must stay reasonably sized, then trust them.

My guess is there are options once all the details come in. If the 10 scouts in the third patrol are active then that's a lot for a PL to handle. Ever cook for 10 on those cheap stoves? One option is split that patrol. Maybe they aren't all active. Or maybe some will be aging out soon. Or maybe some are busy with sports. Or maybe there will be more scouts, a lot more scouts, and a NSP is really only good for a few months, so there will be a big change needed some how.

Wow, I picked too busy of a time to put this topic up as I can't respond to everything, but I'm happy with it anyway.

It's interesting that the idea seems so simple once you get it but it's so hard to describe. Anyway, that's why I like a simple, concise description. I've noticed that BSA training is always positive in that it always mentions what we should do but not what we shouldn't. Telling the adults to not make decisions for the scouts is more direct than let the scouts make their own decisions.

@@JoeBob raised a very good point that is not getting much attention. I don't know for sure if what JoeBob has is what I went through but it sounds familiar. When you have a troop that doesn't get it and you have older scouts that don't want it, it's hard and it's frustrating. Everyone has said it takes at least a year. So what's a good plan for that year? If there's one thing I've learned it's pick your battles. Too much change all at once can be bad. I went through this and it's scouts and parents I know and had a lot of fun with. When one of the parents that does more help than anyone else has a self centered son, it's really hard to implement something that could very well push that boy and his dad away. How many troops won't make the needed changes because of this type of problem? Some guidance could help here.

As for Billie, the scout that nobody wants, that's not so hard. The PLC gets together, the SPL reiterates that the Oath and Law drive all decisions. He then asks what to do with Billie. I've seen similar situations where first the scouts talk about what Billie does that annoys everyone, what tends to trigger it, and what's the best environment for him. They tend to know these boys better than the adults so their decisions are better than the adults. This type of problem is the one that adults are afraid to let go of and likely teach the scouts the most.

@@gumbymaster, this is one of those situations where I tell a scout that is not at all what I was thinking, but please go with it. An online multi player patrol method game. That would be so much better than power point slides. If you build it, they will come, Unfortunately I don't have the time to build it.

But, the crux of it is a bunch of problem scenarios and that could be done in person. So, spend a half hour talking about the main ideas and the rest of the day going through problems to illustrate them. Each problem is a set of cards that are randomly distributed, one to each patrol member. Each patrol member reads the cards to themselves and tells nobody what it contains other than a very brief description of their character. They are the PL, or a new scout, or an adult, for example. Their personalities will emerge based on how they act out what the card describes. Someone's the dictatorial PL, someone could be a new scout that's either whiney, homesick, lazy, eager, etc. Someone could be the SM and just trounces all over any decisions made. Yes, these are evil characters but Shakespeare used them to good effect. Granted there also need to be problems with lots of good people. There could also be props. Start a fire. Make a dutch oven meal. Teach a compass skill.

Thank you everyone for your responses so far.
 
The reason I picked a thousand is not that I want all of them at once, I just want a way to replicate it. Ideally it would be to work with a patrol size at a time.
 
Several of you said this is a hard problem, and I agree. Maybe that's why national can't figure it out either. Stosh, I suspect if this method were explained well it would also explain all the others (except for possibly uniform) as they all work together. And maybe that's a good point to make.
 
Several of you have said it's also difficult because too many scouts just want a patch. While I agree, my approach has always been that Eagle is bait and usually scouts will learn something along the way.
 
JoeBob, I like your idea of problem scenarios with embedded secret bad apples. One of the biggest issues scouts have is conflict. Many are so afraid of it they will get run over by anyone that just walks off. I was thinking of using the same training for the adults as the scouts. Don't they both need to understand the same issues?
 
Eagledad, I have no desire to counter anything the BSA has said, and in this case it's easy because they really haven't said much that's coherent.
 
Here's a first cut of the major ideas any training should focus on. A lot of this is from the PL handbook but it's boiled down and I also added some don't to help clarify some ideas. Using them to solve a set of typical problems the scouts run into would make this more hands on.

The Scout Oath and Law are central to everything and should be the lens to check every decision. Trust is hugely important. Scouts in a patrol must trust each other. The adults must trust the scouts to do the right thing and the scouts must trust the adults to back them. Trust is easily destroyed and takes a long time to make. Loyal, helpful, ...

A patrol is 6-8 scouts that deliver the promise of scouting to its members: What the scouts want, what the scouts need (growth and continued challenges) and what scouting wants (scouts learning to make good decisions).

A patrol owns its destiny. A patrol defines success, makes its own decisions, does its own work, and is responsible for its mistakes. Adults and other scouts may encourage them but it is the patrol's responsibility to deliver. There are well defined boundaries that the patrol should clearly understand.

A patrol requires:

-Teamwork: Look out for each other, nobody else will.

-Spirit: It makes Teamwork easier and more fun

-Direction, a calendar of events, problem solving. What do the scouts want? high adventure? Low adventure? advancement? new skills? service?

-Preparation: Do what you want rather than just think about it.

-Persistence: Problems happen, a good attitude will turn them into opportunities.

A patrol Leader: Ultimate responsibility is in your hands. A lot of this is what everyone in your patrol should be doing but you have to do a better job of it. Your scouts will look to you as an example.

-The patrol goes first. Care. Participate.

-Make things happen: delegate, keep everyone busy. Be Prepared. Have a backup. When your patrol flounders it's up to you to get them going again. Make a decision when needed.

-Ensure your patrol members are getting the promise of scouting. Find out what they want, work with them, develop them, help them advancement, give them leadership opportunities.

-Listen and watch: Pay attention to how things are going. Regularly ask how they are.

-Teach any skills that are needed

-Praise good deeds.

Interaction between patrols is limited to games, competition, and free time. The patrols must enforce this separation.

Interaction between a patrol and adults is more limited. Separation is critical. Don't solve their problems. Don't lead their scouts. Don't make their decisions. Set boundaries that are clear, simple, and static. Support them within these constraints. When they make mistakes, make sure they learn.

How would you teach the patrol method in less than a day to a thousand people?

We know how poorly the patrol method is implemented. We know that the BSA does a lousy job explaining it. The same goes for districts and councils. Consequently, that leaves it to the volunteers.

The target audience is a parent with a new scout. He knows there's something wrong with his troop. He is time poor (so no wading through arguments on this website). He likes the outdoors and appreciates what scouts can do for his son. His only experience with boy scouts is cub scouts. He wants succinct, useful information.

All the simple ideas have failed. As wise as GBB was, his writings ramble. The book Working the Patrol Method also rambles. On the other end of the spectrum it has to be more than a handful of phrases. While a good memory tool, phrases alone are too open to interpretation and too much is lost.

It has to be tight and it has to easily reach hundreds of people. It could be a syllabus for a day long course in the woods, podcasts, a short book, or maybe even a website.

It needs to describe how to transform a troop to patrol method. It should include a way to gauge how well the patrol method is working in a troop. It should clearly explain red flags that indicate the patrol method is in trouble or ways adults and scouts can catch themselves from doing something wrong. It should include common problems that prevent the patrol method from taking hold, and several ways to get around them.

Who knows, a good idea could help a lot of boys.

 Example:  "nless the patrol method is in operation, you don’t really have a Boy Scout troop."

But here "The Patrol Method" is just another label. For those that haven't seen it, that phrase could just as well mean there are scouts that wear patrol leader patches. It's the same as boy led, everyone says their troop is boy led. It's just a label that has no meaning.

Maybe the real problem is nowhere is there a description of what patrol method or boy led is not. Given the subjective nature, describing what something isn't is just as important as describing what it is. Since nobody can distinguish between what it is and what it isn't, obviously everyone is doing it the right way and nobody can be doing it wrong.

Another problem is that every description also implies it's binary, either it is boy led or it isn't. Well, we don't know what it isn't so either it is boy led or ... it is.

I'm not talking about the comments here, but I must say I'm surprised that some adults assume attitudes of serving will change with maturity. I hear it a lot, "older scouts don't like to babysit young scouts". The troops I observed with older scouts that have attitudes of superiority got the attitude from their adults. 

 

As for scouts of the same age not taking charge, it's human natural to shy away from conflict, especially with your friends. The way we got through this was guiding the scouts to work as a team for being responsible to each others behavior. They understood the concept better when they found the whole team being held equally responsible for one members misbehavior that the team could have prevented. When the whole group is held accountable to one persons bad behavior, the risk of conflict is diminished a lot because the group is appreciative and supportive of actions to change the behavior.

Regarding babysitting, I've seen different sources. One is the parents taking care of the younger scouts, so the older scouts never had to. When they finally did they didn't know how. We used to have that problem. Second is, after 3 years of not taking care of anyone but yourself, the older scouts that are selfish at home figure that's the way to do it. I take to heart everyone's comments that taking care of other people has to start right away. I don't push that hard enough.

Regarding not taking charge, interesting idea, that might just play out in a case I have. I have a patrol that last summer could only be described as dysfunctional. It's much better now because I think they realize I don't want to get involved and nobody else wants their issues. Come to think of it, there were two patrols that could easily describe, both of which are in much better shape. Anyway, the PL which they picked is the best choice but, as you said, doesn't want to rock the boat. Two of the other scouts love to rock the boat. It's interesting because I know they still have some issues but they didn't want to admit it. I figure there's some pride involved, so I challenged them to host a den of webelos next week. I told them how important this is for the troop and no adults would be there. That pumped up their egos a bit, as well as their fear. This seems good. They decided to meet this weekend to get ready.

Maybe what would help the adults the most would be to spend less time putting labels on it and more time explaining it.

Leadership is primarily learned by doing it.

A scout can't possibly lead while an adult is talking to him, much less telling him what to do. Even just being there will have an impact.

Adults do have good experience to share with scouts that can help them learn, it's just best shared before or after the scout needs to use it.

That all said, the biggest challenge I see is getting a scout to confront a problem with other scouts that are about the same age. Maybe this is where the young scouts are most useful, the older scouts are easily annoyed with the younger scouts and have to take control for their own sanity. But dealing with scouts their own age seems to be a big challenge. Once they're over that hump they take off.

Maybe I have a different view of this, but when I read adult association I understand it as some form of teaching. In this case the skill is leadership and the style is of a master and apprentice. I don't know of any effective education process that consists of the master telling the apprentice "just watch me and you'll learn." Certainly that's part of it but there's more. The master creates problems the apprentice has to solve. Failure is part of the process. For PhD's and trade schools this is how it's done.

I think Stosh's complaint is that the master won't back off enough to let the scouts learn through failure. This is where the so called 300' rule comes into play. It's interesting how some scouts have very different personalities when adults are around. Anyway, as usual, the BSA doesn't explain a method very well.

I figured we were close. Yes, my examples are over the top. But I have a couple of clowns in my troop that have suggested such things just to see my SPL's response as well as mine. My SPL went berserk because he didn't recognize it was a joke and I just smiled. They know there's a boundary and as long as it's very clear what the boundary is the scouts are happy with it.

Maybe the difference between leadership and management is whether the guy above respects the boundaries he has set for those below. If the boundaries are constantly changing then nobody below will take ownership, and then they're just cogs. Stosh, you've codified that boundary into your set of rules and everyone knows it, and that's something I should do with my rules. I find that one of the hardest challenges for adults is respecting that boundary and making it clear would help that a lot.

Stosh, I knew you weren't going to like this. I suspect we're really not too far apart.

The idea of pushing decisions as low as possible is not mine, but can be seen in the military, agile computing, and in manufacturing, to name just a few. Groups make decisions within boundaries. If the boundaries don't make sense then they can try and change them, but those above do have final say. Wisdom from above is important in setting boundaries.

If the scouts decide to have a lock in at a strip joint, does the SM have the right to say no? How about tubing on class 5 rapids? If your answer is no, this is not the SM's domain then there's nothing else for us to talk about. If you say yes then clearly there is a place for adults to set boundaries. The question is where.

That gets down to what are the consequences of a bad decision. We've already covered safety and getting your troop's picture in Google News. How about if a parent calls you and says my son is going to quit because his entire patrol teased him about his weight at the campout. Further, the scout talked to his PL and SPL who both told him to get over it. Assuming this in fact did happen, is the SM allowed to step in? You said "If the [scout] is to decide, he can decide to walk at any time the moment the program isn't what was advertised.  And seriously, I don't blame them one bit."  This implies you'd encourage the scout to quit and maybe find another troop. Is that so? You'd tell the parent to take his son elsewhere because it's a boy led troop? I'd step in because 1) the consequences of a bad decision by the scouts is a kid leaving and 2) I am responsible for the program being as advertised. If you let this sort of thing happen then that's your choice, I wouldn't.

Now, if the consequence is something like a program being too hard, or too boring, or too whatever, we agree, that's not the decision of the SM.

That being said, I just did something similar. I made the scouts rework part of the calendar because the scouts took the easy way out of a problem and cancelled an event rather than find a replacement when the original idea got changed for reasons beyond anyone's control. I said no, come up with a replacement. They complained for about a minute and then started asking questions. I sat in on a PLC meeting tonight and the result is a better campout then I've seen in a long time. I set a boundary for them and they responded with a great idea. You may disagree with what I've done and I respect that. I can see the side that says let them go and try and work more adventure in a different way. I find a lot of  scouts are hesitant to try new things and they need that extra push. In this case it worked.

So does a football fan pull for a team (aka patrol) or do they pull for the NFL League (aka troop)?

 

There just seems to be to much focus on troop, and not enough on patrol..... seems like lip service

I think you're preaching to the choir here. That's why we talk about what the relationship is between the different leaders.

The original question is who's top dog, or ultimately in charge? For the boy's program that is the SM. End of that discussion. The better discussion is the relationship between the SM, all the PORs, and the scouts. In a nutshell, decisions should be pushed as low as possible, but along with that are boundaries on the decisions and the right to step in if those boundaries are crossed. If a PL says his patrol wants to do something different from the rest of the troop, and it fits within the boundaries that have come down from above, then we will support them. If the decision is to replace a camporee with a lock in at a strip joint then I reserve my right to say no, assuming the SPL doesn't beat me to it. It should be the same thing for the SPL among the PLs and the PL among his patrol. The PL should not decide for the scout responsible for cleaning who should be doing what. Those decisions are pushed down to the scout. However, if the scout decides it would be fun for one scout to clean everything while everyone else takes off to buy ice cream, then it would be reasonable for the PL to step in. That's an opportunity for the PL to teach the scout something about leadership.

Note to self, ask ages and numbers before getting into all of this.

It sounds like you have a young troop.

Regarding NSP: "Once they get First Class, they move up."  Ouch, may I suggest that's wrong. A scout could be in the NSP for years, unless every meeting is advancement. Scouting is not about advancement, blah blah blah. We keep new scouts together for about four months. The goal is to get them ready to be in a patrol. They learn to listen to older scouts and learn to help on campouts. No more whiny I have to go to dad, or mom to solve my problem. The NSP is the transition from cub scouts to boy scouts.

Regarding SPL and ASPL MIA: I agree with Stosh that you missed an opportunity. Apparently the SPL and ASPL don't believe they're responsible for the troop. Since you have such a young troop I'd let the chaos go for about 10 minutes of the meeting and see how it goes. If someone starts leading that's great, but I doubt that will happen. If it just looks like a playground then sit everyone down and do a quick review. Ask the scouts what they want out of scouts and how the meeting is helping with that. If you can get a meaningful discussion then the next question is what do you want to do about it and how can I help.

Regarding trust: It goes two ways. If the scouts know you trust them they'll step it up. They'll also be more willing to try something new. Part of backing them up is taking their ideas and talking them through the details. That's one skill scouts need to learn. Ask lots of questions. That helps them be prepared, which leads to success, which creates trust, confidence, experience, their taking on more, you further out of the picture ... the promised land of scouting.

Regarding adults and the coming horde of new scouts, I agree with Eagledad that this is a huge issue. The current set of adults better develop a game plan they all agree on that will foster a boy led troop. How are problems going to be solved? For each POR, what happens if they don't show? How will the scouts decide the calendar and patrols? How are you going to train leadership?

Regarding ILST and leadership training. ILST alone is worthless. Leadership training is ongoing. Every problem the scouts run up against that they should be able to solve is an opportunity for them to learn leadership. That's where the adults come in. Whatever level they're at will define how you interact with them. If they've solved a similar problem before you step back and watch. Failure is fine as long as there's a way for them to make it better next time. If they're clearly in over their heads then you can ask questions. The scout oath and law has to be central to those questions. You never want to tell them what to do unless they've crossed well defined boundaries, and that should be very rare.

I'm wondering if you're solving the wrong problems.

The best way to get the scouts to buy in to any change of patrols is for them to decide. If their decisions are based on greed then there will be problems. If the scouts are truly looking out for everyone in the troop then they will come up with something better than you. I would trust them, with some reasonable discussions. You need to set boundaries and then let them go.

You also mention getting older scouts to step up and help out. Again, this gets back to scouts looking out for everyone in the troop. That might be the underlying problem. If adults are even close to "assigning them to the other patrols and making it so that they would get elected PLs" then there's no trust either way between adults and the older scouts. I find that a big part of getting the older scouts to step up. Twice you mention that the scouts don't want to offer any solutions. My guess is this is because they don't think the adults trust them. It takes a lot to coax ideas out of scouts. 

You mention 4 hours to cook, eat and clean. If the oldest scout in this patrol is 12, that's a bit long but not too much of a surprise. If there are scouts 14 and older, then this isn't an issue that adding older scouts will fix. This is just a complete lack of teamwork and/or skill.

I always have at least two troop guides for each new scout patrol, and the ones that do well are at least 16.

I think a better question is what is the relationship between the various leaders in a troop.

There are different reasons why scouts are unhappy and leave. If it's ever a power struggle with dad I've never been able to come up with anything that will bring the scout back, and yes, those scouts can really bring things down. At the same time, plenty of other scouts that have been stagnating and not really getting anywhere are the easiest to turn around. For them, it's not that they don't like scouts, it's more that they haven't figured it out yet. Another issue is how much time do you have to spend with a scout. I'll try with any scout but after 3 years of getting nowhere it's time to cut my losses.

Maybe I'm just slow and stupid but none of the training I've seen clicked with me. This forum, and all the arguments and discussions, has been worth much more. The training seems to assume you have a working unit so you have an example to reference. Just for fun, switch the term boy led with duck, and assume you've never seen a duck before.

"Well, an important method to a troop is having a duck."

"What's a duck?"

"Everyone knows what a duck is. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck."

"Sure, I've heard the term duck, but what would it look like if it were in my troop?"

"The scout oath and law are very important to a duck."

"Well, my scouts don't want to make a decision, how do I change that?"

"Get a duck! You can't have the patrol method without a duck."

"How do I get a duck?"

"Simple, teach ILST and send your scouts to NYLT, then you'll have a duck."

"I did that but apparently I don't have a duck because my scouts still won't make a decision."

"You should take Woodbadge. That's the ultimate in duck training."

That's my experience. I'd much rather see something like:

"A duck is important to a troop. There are different kinds of ducks that we'll talk about later but there are some common things. They have feathers and your recognizing their feathers is important. They need water. Water is very important for a duck, and you, and all the rest of the adults need to stay out of it or you'll scare off the duck. There are baby ducks and mama ducks and papa ducks. They all need different things. The whole point is for the older ducks to raise the baby ducks. A big problem is when the older ducks were never raised by other ducks, they won't know what to do. It's called the duck and egg problem. Baby ducks need a lot of attention and are happier with a smaller pond. No ducks should be allowed in the ocean, but make sure you have a big enough pond for your best ducks. Ducks make a lot of noise and that's okay, you should always listen to what they have to say. There is nothing better than a troop full of happy ducks."