Beavah

Hiya @@Zaphod (Beeblebrox!)!  Welcome to da forum.

I reckon da most important things for a MBC are a love of the thing they're counselin', and joy in workin' with young people.  In da long run, the best thing I've seen MB counselin' do is ignite a new interest in a lad - something that might go on to become a career or a lifelong hobby.   The only way that happens is if the boy sees your own deep interest in the area, and if you're willin' to share that interest well beyond checkin' off requirements.

In terms of some of da water sports MBs, be aware that da BSA does have some requirements of counselors in terms of skills and background, eh?  It varies by badge.  It takes a little bit to get used to BSA watersports way of doin' things.  For example, from what yeh say yeh probably wouldn't be qualified to counsel canoeing at this point.

IMO good counselors should be good examples for da boys by always learnin' new things themselves, eh?  So why not go take an ACA canoe and canoe instructor course?  It'll be fun, you'll learn some stuff, and you'll pick up on all sorts of things that will help yeh teach boys.  Then go watch a BSA waterfront at camp and talk to da waterfront director about how things work, just to get familiar.  After you've done a few rounds as an MBC, go back and do a higher level ACA course.  Keep learnin' and you'll inspire the lads to be adventurous and to keep learnin' themselves.

Now one final thing that yeh need to be aware of.  In da broad world of Boy Scoutin' there are sort of two versions of MB counseling.  In one version, yeh proceed sort of like school, eh?  There's a scheduled "class" or bigger group of boys.  The lads have worksheets, they might expect powerpoints, yeh teach to the requirements, yeh often test/check off things as a group.   Yeh can finish in a Saturday morning or in 4 hours at camp.    Some boys, and some adults/parents will be used to this system and expect it, eh?  If yeh try to do anything else they'll consider yeh a bad counselor who is "adding to the requirements" or somesuch. 

In da second version, counselin' is a relationship where the boy gets the full benefit of the attention and expertise of the counselor.  He and a buddy make their own appointments with yeh, you share all sorts of things about the discipline and have a lot of fun with it.  Along da way they just happen to meet da requirements individually while they really get excited by the field and learn some good stuff.  Some kids and units expect this sort of approach, and if yeh are offerin' the class thing they won't come/won't allow their kids to come to you.

Da second one is da traditional way MBs are done, and actually reflects da official policy of the BSA.  The first way has become the more common way things are done in da real world.   It requires less commitment by both da counselor and da boys.   Yeh might be able to tell I'm an old traditionalist.     

My point, though, is yeh have to know yourself and know the unit(s) you're servin' and try to work out things that are a good fit, eh?  Yeh want to be able to spend your time well, and yeh want to work with boys who are lookin' for what you are offerin'.    It's good to be aware of da two approaches because yeh might decide that counselin' badges for some kids/units/badge fairs is not what yeh personally want to do.   It's OK to turn down boys as a counselor, eh?  In fact it's a kindness to do that up front, rather than spend their time and yours lookin' for different things.

In the end, though, da answer to your question is love of your field, and joy in workin' with da lads in the quirky, amusin' world of young people.   Good luck!

Beavah

Yah, @@UncleP, welcome, eh?

Lots of folks serve as Scoutmasters on a lad's trail of life, eh?   Each of 'em a reflection of the Great Scoutmaster for all of us.   Thank yeh for bein' that for your nephew.   Uncles and grandparents are special people.

I think your short revised list is great, eh?  I'd add only one thing to it, perhaps... magazines.

The lad seems to be a reader, eh?  Readers are wonderful people, because they can learn from da stories and experiences of others.   Scoutin' should hopefully give him a set of folks to practice that learning and show it off in the real world, eh?  Friends to share stories with.

But yeh can help with an occasional book or magazine to help fuel the fire, eh?   Boys' Life is sorta rinky-dink.  Consider Outside, or Backpacker.  Along the way, maybe a different specialty one like Canoe & Kayak or Rock & Ice.   Keeps his interest up and gives him somethin' to share with other boys to help break down da social barriers.  

Welcome to the fun of Scoutin'.   I think your nephew should do fine.  I know a bunch of troops that would welcome him and where he'd be a good fit.  As @@Hedgehog says, Scouting is often full of bright, quirky kids and adults.    

For the first year, my only other advice is to keep him comin'.  Boys learn and make friends by doin' things together eh?   So da only way it works is if they actually come out a lot and do things together.   There'll be initial caution on his part, occasional reluctance, perhaps a hard incident or two that takes the wind out of his sails briefly.   That's kids, and that's life, eh?   Be there, and just keep him comin'.   If it gets to da point where that ain't workin', let the troop leaders know, eh?  Sometimes it's easier if they or the other scoutin' boys pull rather than have you push.

At some point, he'll make it his own and then yeh won't be able to keep him away.

Beavah

 

That's a conclusion jumped to that was never stated by me.  But in certain situations of food allergies, this is the common practice in the troop.  I have had boys bring their own chunky peanut butter because they didn't like the creamy kind.  Sometimes they bring their own choice of jelly too.  We don't make a big deal about it and the GrubMaster stows it away with all the rest of the patrol food, too.

...

 

Or the GrubMaster, using the principles of good servant leadership, by taking care of his boys puts together meals that everyone can and would want to eat. 

 

Yah, hmmmm....

So which is it, mate?   Is da GrubMaster puttin' together meals that everyone can and would want to eat, or are kids with allergies and food preferences forced to bring their own food?   Yeh do see that da two are contradictory, right?    It just makes it very hard for us old furry critters out here in da pond to understand what you're sayin'.

 

Is making one boy miserable by "broadening his palate" how your PL's and GM's take care of the boys?  Not in my troop.  Servant leadership requires those who follow to feel welcomed and cared for.  Your analogy does not presuppose that.

Yah, not sure where yeh got that the lad was miserable or that whoever was plannin' meals wasn't accommodatin' the fact that Billy hated broccoli.   There are lots of foods, though, that a boy has never tried or ain't sure about.   As long as he doesn't bring his own food that mom packed every trip, a lad in Boy Scoutin' is goin' to be exposed to some new flavors, eh?  Includin' charcoal-flavored.

I remember a young lad with British parents, who entered Boy Scoutin' with only a taste for British cookin' (the poor lad ).   Even da most bland spaghetti sauce was too spicy for him.   By a year or two in, he'd learned to even eat pizza.

Bein' a good group member doesn't just apply to da leaders, eh?  It applies to everyone.  That includes learnin' rules of courtesy like not criticizin' the cook or tryin' things yeh wouldn't try at home.   Sometimes da group flexes to meet your needs, and sometimes you have to flex to meet da group's needs.  All for one and one for all, eh?

 

These boys are TAUGHT.  Now it's time for them to apply what they have learned and be trusted in doing it wisely.  How long of a lesson does it take to get the words out.  "Take care of your boys."  "Help other people at all times."  "What can I do to help?"  That's 2 minutes during NSP orientation.  After that I trust my boys to follow through with their leadership.  ALL the boys lead, not just those with patches.

Yah, except in Scoutin' we use EDGE -Y, eh?  At least more or less.   We don't go from Explain to You Got This!.  Whether it's an older boy instructin' or an adult teachin', we should do a lot more demonstratin' than we do explainin', and a lot more Guiding than we do demonstratin', and a lot more Enablin' (with support through reflection and mentorin') than we do Guiding.   Only then have they learned, eh?  Then at that point yeh can trust 'em and say "You got this!"

We don't just say "take care of your boys" for 2 minutes and walk away, eh?  Because that wouldn't be takin' care of our boys.

 

If one is the TROOP QM he takes care of the troop.  If he's a PATROL leader he takes care of his patrol.  This is why TROOP QM's are not part of a patrol.  Their loyalty and responsibility is to the whole troop.

 

...

 

Yep, my mantra of "Take care of your boys!" and "Help other people at all times." and then trusting them to do so, is my own version of hovering adult behavior.  Guilty as charged. 

 

Yah, yeh do realize that sayin' a fellow only has a duty to his own patrol contradicts "help other people at all times", right?  

I think you're teachin' about power more than you're teachin' about service, mate.  Da patrol QM in the end is forced to support da patrol because they can remove him, and yeh encourage that sort of thing.   But if there's no power relationship like that in your unit, then there's no duty, eh?   The patrol QM can tell da troop QM who is lookin' for help to go blow, right?   Just like da PL for the older boys can tell all da younger boys to go blow, right?   "We won't come, we won't help, we won't fundraise..."

That's not helpin' other people at all times in my book, eh?  That's helpin' other people only if yeh get somethin' for it, or get what yeh want.   I can't see why we'd celebrate that in Scoutin', eh?   The lads, left to themselves, would call peers like that "a@@hats".   

So what yeh seem to be describin' to me from afar is a troop culture that embraces selfishness, eh?  Yeh help out only when yeh get somethin', whether it's POR credit or your own trip or your own food.  Yeh help out "your" boys, but your boys are only the lads you like or want to hang out with.  Da other ones can go do their own thing, don't care about them.   If yeh don't like a boy he can even be voted off da island, like the young lad who quit your program this year.  He was never goin' to be a good scout, and he had leadership conflicts with his patrol, right?   Don't need him.  Not my problem.  I trust the boys, at least da two who are left.

Are yeh sure yeh aren't runnin' a paper Eagle unit of your own, mate?   Because from what yeh seem to be describin' there's a lot of highfallutin' talk about service, but when yeh describe some actual events they don't seem to walk the talk.

Just somethin' to think about, eh?   I'm probably 90% out to lunch, or at least I hope I am.  Feedback's a gift, though, so take it for what it's worth.

Beavah

The rule at some camps that only adults or camp staff carry prescription meds has a couple of problems.  1) When meds are needed in seconds, adult or staff may be minutes away.  2) It's against federal law for anyone other than the patient to possess prescription meds prescribed to that patient.  Parents get a pass under an unwritten exception because it has to work that way for young children.  We are not parents or in loco parentis, unlike the schools.  

 

BSA forms giving camp staff or adults the supposed right to possess prescription meds are void  - dead on arrival.  Parents cannot change federal law.

Yah, hmmmmmm...

I'm curious by what legal theory yeh think that a summer camp or a scout leader on a trip does not stand in loco parentis?  Your interpretation seems novel.

I know many a federal prosecutor, eh?  I don't reckon any of 'em are goin' to be eager to prosecute a scout leader or camp for holdin' onto a boy's medications.   Besides, da law on medical practice and on youth programs is primarily state law, eh?   I don't reckon scout leaders are engaged in interstate medical commerce.

Relax, mate.

Yah, hmmmm.... I seem to have struck a nerve, eh?   Let me put on my myopic Beavah glasses and see what I can see...

My first thought is that in most of da troops I know, the PLs would be havin' gentle but firm words with a lad who insisted on bringin' his own food and refused to help out da rest of the group.  In BSA Scoutin' we teach boys to cook and eat as patrols, eh?  Right there in da First Class requirements, includin' sayin' grace together and cleanin' up together.   If a lad has participated in Scoutin', by the time he's gettin' to be older he's internalized those expectations, eh?  He's come to enjoy cookin' and eatin' together.  He's also learned not to cook broccoli because Billy hates it, or maybe to offer two side dishes instead of one. 

Regardless, he'd never cut Billy out of da group by tellin' him to bring his own food.  The boys have learned that bein' a good friend to Billy is more important than eatin' what they want and when they want it.  Along da way Billy has likely also broadened his palate a bit by tryin' to be a good group member.

What's important is that there ain't any mythical hoverin' adults here, eh?  There's just kids who have adopted da values we want to teach.

Similarly, I can't think of an older lad in any troops I know who wouldn't be annoyed by a group of scouts who refused to help da group unless they got to do what they want when they wanted it.   I reckon we've all seen QMs get gear together for trips they weren't goin' on, eh?  I literally can't imagine a scout QM sayin' "I didn't want to do this trip and I'm not goin', so I'm not goin' to help gettin' the gear ready!  Change your vote or else!".  In fact, we've got one local crew where da two top fundraisers for this summer's high adventure trip aren't goin' on the trip, eh?  They just want to support their friends and teammates. 

That's what scouts do on their own when they've internalized da values we want to teach, eh?   No adult required, and still lots of room for innovation and new ways of doin' things within what they view as da Scout Law.

I may be out to lunch, but what I'm seein' in @@Stosh's writin' is his boys respondin' to his version of hoverin' adult behavior.   From @@Stosh's perspective, older lads hangin' around with younger ones or helpin' 'em out is holding the older boys back, they shouldn't have to do that.  "Taking care of your boys" is a good thing, but only the boys they have chosen.  In fact, they can choose other boys at any time, eh?   Even if boys chose to be part of a group, they can opt out of da group whenever, eh?

In my experience, that way of thinkin' doesn't come naturally to boys, eh?  It takes an adult hoverin' and settin' that kind of attitude and way of thinkin' as the norm. 

Beavah

Yah, hmmm...  what's a foil soldier?

Doin' meals and meal cleanup as a patrol is one of da great learnin' experiences of Scouting.  If every lad brings his own food stash and refuses to participate in da meal prep or cleanup with the group, I'm wonderin' what we're teachin', exactly.

If the older and more experienced lads just want to do their own thing and not help support others less experienced than they are, and we as adults encourage 'em to think that way, I'm wonderin' what we're doin', exactly. 

Maybe I'm just an old fashioned furry critter who grew up before da "Me me me!!!" generation.

Beavah

Do we know for sure that the merged church doesn't already have a scout unit?

Not sure why it should matter, @DavidCO (?)   A partner can charter as many units as it wants, eh?

@@CNYScouter, likely no worries about da bank account, eh?  Almost all churches are good actors about this sort of thing, and da summer camp deposits are custodial, eh?  They're liabilities on da books.  As long as there's no bankruptcy issue, really yeh shouldn't have any problems. 

Again, this is normal, eh?  It happens with some regularity, yeh just go about it like friendly and responsible adults. 

Beavah

 

We're not talking free-for-all tactics of a bunch of rebels here.  We're talking trusted older scouts that have earned the opportunity to chose wisely the course of activity for their patrol.

Not a question of choosin' the course of activity for their own patrol, eh?

The question was "if we don't get what we want, we will not support the rest of the group (in fact, we'll undermine it)".

Reminds me of the fellows camped out in da wildlife refuge in Oregon, eh?   Not my notion of good citizenship to refuse to pay your taxes or grazing fees. 

Question for yeh @@Stosh.... if this had been adults rather than older scouts, how would yeh have felt about it?   The adults sayin' "we don't care what da PLC decided, we won't support it or contribute to it since we don't get to do what we want."  

Do yeh think it's OK to celebrate your older scout "trusted" youth leaders doin' somethin' that you'd castigate adult leaders for doin'?   How does that work, exactly?

Nuthin' stoppin' older lads from goin' to Seabase.  Da issue is older more responsible youth not supportin' the younger lads in goin' to camp.   That's just not a lesson of character or citizenship I'm personally comfortable with.

Beavah

Who signs applications for a COR not there?

 

Similar case in 2013 our DE gave the unit 90 days to find a home or no charter.

 

Surely someone has the BSA bible on this issue.

LOL.

Not sure why yeh feel there's such a thing as a BSA Bible.    That's a hoot.

Practically speakin' this works exactly the way I've described, eh?   It happens often enough these days with COs droppin' units.  Remember, all da individual registrations remain in place, eh?  So do da insurance contracts, since they're paid for.  Yeh might say yeh have a whole mess of lone scouts and lone scout leaders who are lookin' to find or form a troop. 

Don't sweat da small stuff, eh?  This is small stuff.  Nobody cares about precision, just about helpin' things work out well.  Just keep things goin', figure out what yeh want to do and move forward on it.  If it gets around to recharter time and things still haven't gelled, da DE will either find a friendly CO to temporarily charter yeh as an additional unit or will help yeh do a "Friends of" charter. 

Beavah

It is not a worse outcome if the Scout gets his Eagle.

 

Yah, sure it is.

 

Case 1:  Scout gets his Eagle, can't/won't do an ECOH, sours on scouting, brother has to leave the troop and friends behind, relationships are damaged, etc.

Case 2:  Scout goes camping, gets his Eagle, has a super ECOH, brother stays in troop with friends, etc.

 

It is not a worse outcome if the troop leaders get in trouble for making up rules and have to change their way of doing things so that it complies with the BSA rules.

 

How exactly do yeh think the troop leaders are goin' to "get in trouble?".   Do yeh think da BSA is goin' to disband an active troop over an advancement kerfuffle?  Do yeh reckon the DE Scoutin' Police are goin' to be breakin' down their door and haulin' 'em off to Scouting prison?   BSA Agents!  Hands on your head!

 

That's not the way Scoutin' works, eh?   We're just a service organization.  If a unit doesn't want our service, it can tell us to go away.   As long as they're reregisterin' each year, nobody is goin' to "get in trouble."   Other than rollin' our eyes a bit if we see 'em at Round Table.

 

As I mention, all they need to do to comply with "the BSA rules" is just drop inactive lads like this from da roster each year.  No need to "deny" him Eagle then, eh?  He isn't even eligible.  I'm not sure how yeh think that's better.

 

Again, it all depends what we care about, eh?

Do we care about bein' RIGHT in our book thumpin'?   I can quote more than you can?   Or do we care about da outcomes for the lad and his family and the unit?

I'd be doin' back flips of happiness along with @TampaTurtle if the lad had just decided to go campin'.  Even better with da support of his patrol.  That's the best lesson and outcomes for everybody. 

Keep your eyes on da prize, eh?  It's about the boy(s), not about bein' precisely right about da guidebooks, and not even about gettin' Eagle, eh?  Eagle Scout is just a tool, it ain't an outcome. 

Beavah

Although I was off having coffee and jaw jacking, I did hear after a PLC meeting that 3 of the four patrols wanted one summer camp  and the older boys wanted to go somewhere else.  They voted, the older boys said they wouldn't be going to camp that summer, nor would they work to help pay for summer camp camperships. 

Yah, hmmmmm....

I'm wonderin' how anybody can consider that an act of character and good citizenship?

Structures, like how we apportion districts for voting, provide da support and mechanism for practicing character and leadership.   Just because a structure is provided by B-P, or by da Constitution, doesn't mean we've taken away all opportunities for leadership, eh?  Like as not we've enhanced opportunities for citizenship and leadership by providin' that structure.

Structures do matter, I reckon.   Da U.S. Constitution gets yeh somewhat different outcomes than da Russian constitution or da British parliamentary system.   Age-based patrols get yeh somewhat different outcomes than mixed-age patrols.    So a lot depends on what yeh care about in terms of outcomes.  When I say that personally I prefer mixed-age patrols it's because I think they do better at da personal growth and citizenship outcomes that I care about, eh?    From da quote above, @@Stosh values different outcomes, where older boys doin' stuff that leaves da other lads behind has a higher value than it does for me.  So it's worth sharin' those perspectives, even though we might not all care about da same things.

On da other hand, lack of structure often just gets yeh caught in storming, eh?  If yeh look at da developin' world and countries tryin' to build new constitutions and such it's largely a tale of failure.  No reason da same thing shouldn't be true for kids, eh?   To do the wide-open kids-decide-da structure thing, yeh need a lot more adult control.  Sort of like an occupyin' army.     With a strong existin' structure, though, kids can make changes and amendments and try new experiments just fine.

Patrol Method, Advancement, Values/Oath/Law, Uniform, etc...  all of our Methods are adult-provided structure, eh?  The lads don't come up with their own Oath, they don't set up their own awards.   I might wish they'd have a bit more say in da Uniform, but da notion is an adult one.  Scoutin' is hardly hands-off youth run, eh?  It's an example of a structure set up by adults to achieve particular outcomes.

So focus on da outcomes yeh want, and then use Scoutin' structures in ways that help yeh get the lads there.  Scoutin' Methods serve da Aims of da BSA and da goals of da Chartered Partner, not vice versa.

Beavah

Yah, weird zombie thread resurrection, eh?   Nice to see yeh, @@acco40!   I thought all da old gang had disappeared.

I've never quite understood da precision scouting thing, eh?   Or why adults who probably gripe about lawyers all the livelong day turn around and become pink book lawyers when it comes to a children's program. 

Scoutin' ain't about precisely followin' da guidebooks.   As lots of us point out, ever since Green Bar Bill da guidebooks are put together by big committees without much continuity editing, eh?  That's why yeh have silly stuff like a group of committee members who don't know the lad that well and probably can't tie a bowline themselves certifyin' that a lad has actually met da requirements for skills and character... without bein' allowed to either test or examine character.

In workin' with kids, we just work with kids, eh?  No need to be precision programmed robots.  A lad who gets suspended from school for beatin' up a younger boy can have his SM say "yeh clearly haven't shown scout spirit in your everyday life, so your BOR is cancelled until yeh do X, Y, and Z and show me you can do better".   Or yeh can hold the board, and the board can say "we can't approve yeh for this rank yet because what yeh did doesn't represent good character for a scout, and in fact is an embarrassment.  Yeh let us down.   Come back for another BOR in 6 months after yeh have repaired your reputation and ours in da community."  

Either way, the result and lesson is da same, eh?  No need to argue about precision.  Personally, I like da SM approach better in most cases, because da SM knows the lad better and has a longer-term mentoring relationship.  Random MCs, not so much.

Beavah

If you DE has no clue on how to help you, you might want to reach out to the council SE to see what they can do. It sounds like you may not have a valid charter which would be a real issue if you get in to an accident (God forbid). I suspect that you may have a grace period to find a new one in BSA's eyes, but this would be my first order of business (clearing up my charter status) if I were you.

Nah, relax on dat score, @@CNYScouter.   BSA unit registrations are for da year, eh?  You'll need a new CO to re-register, but there aren't any worries about accidents or insurance or all the rest.   That stuff runs on the BSA side for the duration of the current charter because yeh already paid for it, eh?  As long as da BSA still exists, we have to live up to our end of the bargain.

Beavah

Your DE should be doing their job and helping you. Ideally they would have known about this issue and take care of this in advance.

Yah, this just makes me giggle. 

@@KenD500, that form only applies when da CO continues to exist, eh?  It's da form that release the unit that they "own" so it can be taken over by another entity.    Since da CO ceased to exist, yeh don't need it in this case.  There's nobody left who can legally sign it anyways.

Beavah

Goals and vision?  Why do they want a scout program and what do they want it to do?

Expectations for "presence" of da scout program at various church functions, volunteer work for the church, etc.?

Ability to provide a few committee members for stability and wisdom?  It's always great to have some ballast on unit committees that keep things upright when parents are misbehavin'.

Identification of a COR who will be a genuine representative of da church and "present" for scouting?

Church youth protection and other volunteer requirements?  (background checks, training, rules for volunteers, etc.)?   Some churches and most schools will have requirements for their own background checks and trainin', and won't accept da BSA's.

What's their position on leaders or youth who are not part of their denomination?  Not Christian?  Unchurched?

Insurance coverage for their youth programs and volunteers?   Most will have this, and it's good for you to know.  Probably more clear than BSA coverage, and often more broad.

Insurance coverage for the troop gear in case of theft?

Fund raisin' opportunities at da CO?  Can yeh sell Christmas wreaths?  Popcorn?  Run a pancake breakfast?  Something else?

Behavioral expectations for kids?   Any zero-tolerance policies or other policies that would affect yeh? (more common for schools as COs than churches).  Any things about da building where yeh might get into trouble or cause conflict (like if da Old Ladies Guild meets next door and doesn't like da noise of kids runnin' around, or if it's taboo to ever allow kids into da sanctuary or whatnot).

This last one I'm a big fan of, but others may disagree.  I like COs to have some financial skin in the game.  If yeh are just theirs on paper, then yeh aren't really real to 'em.  If yeh show up on their budget and they write a check, then you are real and they treat yeh that way.  Yeh aren't the poor cousin whose meetin' time can get bumped or who folks get grumpy about.

I'd have 'em agree to pay annual unit registration and da registration fees of adults, and maybe agree to pay summer camp camperships for boys in need.  Unit registration and adult registrations for da minimum leader set (COR and two other MCs, SM) are sort of my base for this.   That's $136 per year.  If they aren't willin' to do that, then they really aren't serious about wantin' to sponsor a scoutin' unit.

Yah, one more given the other thread on bankin'... ability to use da church's EIN for da unit bank account(s), and perhaps help/oversight in da form of an annual audit?

Beavah

Since your old CO has ceased to exist, I'm pretty sure your DE would be overjoyed just to charter you to a new entity with your old unit number intact.

As to da gear, possession is nine tenths of the law, eh?      I don't reckon anybody's goin' to bother you about it. 

Yeh will probably have to set up a new bank account and transfer funds if yeh had da old CO on the account.   Again, I wouldn't sweat da process, I'd just do it.  No need to make things more complicated than they need be.   If the old church went bankrupt and has creditors however, I'd try to do that quickly just to keep yeh from gettin' caught up in the mess.

Beavah

As I have said all along, I DON'T get involved in the patrol selection, but what I have ended up with is NSP/Reg/Venture levels of patrols.  They've always worked for me so I don't mess with them..  If anyone complains about the patrol set up, they have no one but themselves to blame.  I like it that way.

Yah, hmmm...

Except yeh haven't been seein' great results, eh?   This year yeh lost most of your first year boys, includin' one boy who quit because his position as PL blew up with his peers and the adult blamed it on the boys.  Another who stopped campin'. 

In your prior troop, yeh blamed it on the boys when they wouldn't step up, and eventually da parents got frustrated and pushed yeh out for not doin' enough to support the lads.

Out of 36 Webelos, you're down to 9... and if da trend continues, by this time next year you'll be down to 3 of those.  I'm not sure why yeh like it that way.

I think your heart and your ideas are in da right place, eh?  But you're fallin' in love with your ideas a bit too much and not lookin' as clearly as yeh might at the data. 

Mrs. Beavah has been in education for quite a while, and what she tells me is that yeh can't tell da quality of a teacher by how their best students do, eh?  Good students aren't good students because of their teachers, they're good students because of their own talents and their families.   Yeh tell da quality of a teacher by how the average or strugglin' students are doin'.  They're the ones where teachers actually matter.

Seems like you're just holdin' on to your best lads, mate.  That's not a result of da program, it's an indictment of it.

Beavah

Yah, @@TAHAWK, that's true, eh?

I think da natural thing is to structure patrols as mixed-age, but also to have space where the older boys come together to be older boys.    We've called it different things over da years, but it's always pretty much the same thing.

In a mixed-age environment, it's da PLC/Senior Patrol/Leadership Corps, etc.  - the place where the older boys come together to share ideas for their patrols and plan adventures and learn new stuff that they can take back to their patrol.   Yeh can do this with PLC/Patrol Leader Training outings and adventures, or a Venture Patrol, or an affiliated crew or post.

In a same-age environment it became da old Venture Crew (now called a Venture Patrol).  Works fine for bein' the older-boy thing.   What I think it misses is that it both breaks Patrol Method and it eliminates the whole bit about bringing what yeh learn back to serve the rest of the troop.

By breakin' the patrol method I mean that da high adventure stuff always ends up bein' sort of a pull-out program.  The guys who have the time or resources or interest to do a particular HA trip.  For da next HA trip it's a different group.  Venture Patrols only function as patrols for one superactivity.  If yeh have 2 of 'em they're almost always mixin' and matching.

By not givin' back I mean exactly that.  In Bill's scheme, the lads who were doin' patrol leader training or leadership corps or senior patrol or patrol leaders' council were always takin' what they learned back to their patrols as leaders leadin' other boys.  The lads who went on da Boundary Waters trip were leadin' their patrols on the patrol canoe trip, etc.  The ones who were goin' on special PL training trips were comin' back and teachin' their patrols.   Age-based patrols mean that most of the older lads stick to themselves, unless yeh go Troop Method so da real leaders aren't the first year PL, it's the TG.  And it's not da second year PL, it's da Instructor.

Beavah

No, my umbrella policy protects me against stupid people.  I have liability insurance for when I screw up. 

Yah, hmmmm...

May I make a suggestion to yeh?   Sit down with your insurance agent and have him explain how an umbrella policy actually works.

Beavah

Yah, tough circumstance, @@CNYScouter.

Da only idea I have to offer is the same as @@blw2, eh?   While it's ideal for da CO to provide a meeting place, there are quite a few out in da real world where the CO is a church, but the unit meets at the local school (or business, or community organization) that has the room for 'em.    So yeh don't have to meet at da CO.   Yeh can meet at a school for part of the year, and the park pavillion for da rest of the year.  In a lot of ways, havin' meetings outside (even in the rain or snow) is great scouting.

Seems like your area should also have some private schools, eh?  They're free to charter in ways that public schools can't, and they'd certainly have the space for kids.  Your county's got about 40 private schools so I reckon there have to be a few in your area.  Maybe yeh can add a STEM unit to da mix for 'em even. 

Beavah

Yah, hmmm...

@@Stosh, a $1M liability umbrella ain't that much anymore, mate.   Especially not if yeh have a car full of kids (and perhaps yeh hit another car full).   It's certainly not being "over-insured".

Talk to your insurer and consider goin' up to at least $2M.   Yeh can usually do that without special underwriting, and it doesn't usually cost that much more.  One of da things it does is help make sure da insurance company pays for better lawyers for your case.

Yeh also realize that an umbrella liability policy doesn't protect yeh against stupid people, right?  It protects yeh when you happen to be da one who was stupid!

Beavah

My first thirteen years in Scouting were in a troop with all (6) mixed-age patrols (with less choice for the two Explorer "crews" then allowed to exist within a troop).  The PLC [actually the TLC] interviewed incoming Scouts, consulted with the SM, and told the newbies they were joining the X Patrol, subject to it being "a good fit." The main considerations were: 1) had he been recruited for a patrol; 2) did he have one or more friends in a given patrol.  Moving was not common but was known to happen, and, since expected, didn't cause a fuss,  The "good fit" in a team was the goal.

 

Later, I spent over twenty-five years with a troop in the NSP Age, and the troop used the NSP.  We were very careful about the Troop Guide (usually a former PL or someone thought to be future SPL material.  Once, it was a former SPL.).  The culture was that the Troop had gone on since 1908 and the new kids were the new blood that kept Troop 22 going.  Senior leadership (boys) regularly reminded the relatively older Scouts that the new kids were important and praised them when they displayed that attitude (most of the time).

 

Yah, this was my experience with da 1990 transition as well, @TAWHAWK.  

Prior to then troops were mostly mixed-age patrols and functioned the way yeh describe.  That was Scouting for most of da BSA's existence.

The 1990 revision was when we finally dumped Green Bar Bill's stuff and introduced the New Scout and Venture (age-based) patrols.  First Class - First Year also got started around then.   Da rationale was to make the transition easier from cub scouting, eh?  The boys would be movin' from a Den Leader/Den Chief to a Troop Guide/ASM-New Scouts and keepin' the den intact.  Advancement would proceed on a schedule as a group, just like cubs.   Da transition wouldn't be such a big jump that way.  

This is where da term "Webelos III" comes from.

Some troops switched, some didn't.   Some did like @@Eagledad's and switched and then went back.  New troops all started up with da new program of course.

My lived experience over that time is that da troops that didn't switch or switched back are still around, eh?   For da rest, we've been seeing more churn, which is also what @@Stosh describes over da years.  The change never lived up to da promise of improvin' anything.  In fact, followin' the change we've seen nuthin' but declines.  Not just in membership, but in Patrol Method and skills.   Some of that's unrelated of course, but some ain't.

There's nuthin' wrong with da same-age school approach.  Schools do fine things.  Baden-Powell never wanted Scouting to trench on da work of schools though.  We were supposed to be different, more like military scouting.

sure in scouting there is a time for helping, a time for tasks, a time for work

   but there is also a time for just hanging and bonding with your friends.... well in a fun program the boys aren't be dragged to there probably is anyway....

Yah, this is a description of da adult-run school model if ever there was one.   A time for study, a time for recess, etc.

For older boys, real fun is stretchin' your wings and taking on adult-like challenges and bein' responsible and recognized for that, eh?   For younger boys real fun comes from bein' out doin' excitin' stuff that they wouldn't be able to do just as young guys.  For both young and old boys, real bonding comes from doing things together.

Just hangin' isn't bonding, it's a sign of boredom!  It's what yeh do when you're waitin' around for da next bit of less pleasant adult-run work.  Yah, yah, it's better than sittin' in a MB class or a 2nd Class Skills Class, but it's not "fun".   You'll never hear a lad tell a story with glowin' eyes about da time he was just hangin' out.

Beavah

Ya see though, it's the "puttin" that I have a fundamental problem with.

 

Your analogy falls apart way to quickly, in my thinking anyway.... You wouldn't put a full crew of greenhorns together on a working commercial boat (or anything else commercial for that matter) form a safety standpoint primarily, but also form a productivity/financial standpoint too.... We're not sending a patrol out into the ocean on their own for one thing.... and we aren't trying to maximize the profit for the other thing.

 

Yah, but we are sendin' da patrol out into the woods on their own, or at least 300 feet  .   And we are tryin' to maximize da personal growth and teamwork, eh?   Developin' skills to be on their own, learnin' to grow and be part of a team... those are the same things that make commercial enterprises profitable and make men advance successfully in life.   We are teachin' 'em to Be Prepared for Life.

 

Remember the whole basis for where this patrol idea came form (for Boy Scouting anyway)..... it was the group of friends that were playing together anyway..... they were not PUT together.

 

Nope.   Patrols and Patrol Method came from Baden-Powell's personal experience with da British Public Schools' house system, eh?  Think Hogwarts houses, which are modeled on the same system.  B-P was a house leader as a youth and it had a profound effect on him.   Houses are PUT together, just like neighborhoods or sports teams or work teams.  That's life, eh?  It's what's natural.   Then yeh grow and build friendships on the team or at work.

 

Tell me.... when was the last time you saw a 17 year old absolutely best friends, through everything, with a 10 year old?

 

I was just at a crew meetin' two weeks ago where it was pretty clear that an 18 year old and a 14 year old had become really great friends in da course of the crew's spring break trip. I've seen lots and lots of boys at EBORs say that they really looked up to and still kept in touch with that boy who had been a 17-year-old when he was 10.   And I've seen young men give back to Scoutin' because they enjoyed spendin' time leading and helpin' younger brothers grow.

 

If we didn't have any other outside influences

lets set an example of a small town out someplace, with no structure or outside influences

the kids running around playing, learning, and exploring would naturally form up loosely into patrols and a troop

you'd have the primary friend groups of a similar interest, and ability would more or less segregate by age.... such as a patrol

 

Nope.   If yeh look at what really happens in primitive cultures (and even in da U.S. through the end of the 1800s) youth of Boy Scout age leave their moms and join da mixed-age adult world.  They become apprentices and greenhorns, supported by older lads and adults.   Midshipmen in da U.S. Navy joined at age 10.   Many were commandin' prize vessels by age 13.  

 

Boys' brains are biologically wired to want to go off and challenge themselves and explore and grow when they pass into adolescence.  When we hold 'em back in da same-age kiddie pool we get boredom and angst and lack of attention and rebellion and dependency.

 

 

New cross overs survive very well without the help of the older boys hovering over them in a  patrol.  A functional TG is all that is needed to get them up and running.

 

Nah, yeh said that for your canoe trip, the NSP needed a TG and a senior scout Instructor and two highly skilled adults hoverin' over 'em.   That, and easier less adventurous water to paddle in. 

 

Most of the patrols I have dealt with have pretty much established themselves and their membership.  They don't necessarily want some new boys coming in that they have to train.  It also messes things up with the older boys wanting to do more challenging things and they have to leave a part of their patrol behind.  Not what they want.

 

Nah, you've made it clear that this is the way you think about things as an adult, eh?   In mixed-age environments, kids are actively recruitin' new incoming guys to join their patrol, because their's is the best.   Go Beavers!   So what I'm seein' is that yeh push your way of thinkin' on the boys.  

 

That's OK, eh?  In some ways all troops conform to da vision and limitations of the lead adult.  Da question is whether yeh feel you're gettin' the outcomes yeh want for the boys.   From afar, what you describe shows levels of attrition that I personally wouldn't be comfortable with, but we all have our own goals and every CO is a bit different.

 

I'm thinking that a lot of the reason why some troops have gone to "mixed aged" situations is because they don't have functional TG's, Instructors, etc. that will work with the new boys without disrupting every patrol in the troop with having to take on some new boys.  With functional POR's one can have the layered system of patrols suggested by the BSA.

 

in a good mixed-age situation every PL and APL is a functional guide and instructor who works with the new boys.  Plus there are lots of other lads who aren't (yet) PLs or APLs who take on instructional and mentoring roles.   In da mixed-age troops I know, yeh could ask any APL to take over some other troop's NSP as a TG and the boy would do fine (other than he might struggle a bit to put together group curriculum/lessons at da start).   The point is there's no reason to switch to da Troop Method with troop PORs to support the new guys.  Yeh can just keep up regular Patrol Method.

 

Besides, rather than only one or two older boys learnin' and growin' as instructors and takin' on responsibility, LOTS of boys get the benefit of helpin' teach.  This prepares 'em for being Patrol Leaders, and SPLs, and eventually young ASMs. It gives 'em ALL the chance to really earn da teaching requirements for various ranks.    And it prepares 'em for life.

 

Again, there's nuthin' wrong with doin' the troop method school thing, eh?   Yeh can have a successful program.   There are times when it may be the best choice.   Very large troops often have this structure for some reason.

They're just not my own favorite, eh?  In terms of da results I see and care about for boys' growth, mixed-age troops just do a better job for more kids.   Just MHO.

Beavah

This is one of the problems with mixing up the boys.  If one has 5 boys that are causing problems, what's the sense of having one in each patrol?  They were probably feeding off of each other and now they are split up to feed off the different patrols.  I'm sure they wouldn't be too impressed with being split up either.

 

After all, I see this as a common sense issue.  Why take a bad situation and spread it throughout the troop.  Why not just focus it into the new patrol and work with the problem at a single source.  ... I'm just thinking that if one were to just toss them into an older patrol, they wouldn't get the attention needed to break away from mom and dad and connect up with the other scouts.

Yah, hmmm....

There are different philosophies and different approaches to these sorts of things. 

One of da approaches is the adult-run school approach, eh?   Yeh track the kids.  Put all da problem kids together.   That way the problem kids don't slow down the bright kids, and yeh can keep da problem kids in jail with fewer jailers.  Hopefully they drop out, and yeh view that as a good thing.

The alternative approach is that you divide and conquer, eh?   Yeh don't concentrate the problem, yeh diffuse it.   You use da strong youth leaders yeh have built in each patrol to take care of one part of da problem.   Those youth leaders come together and brainstorm with each other on how they're handlin' their challengin' scouts.  

There's a huge difference in what the challengin' scout experiences through each approach, eh?   In the first, he's with other boys who misbehave and reinforce his own misbehavior; he's with other boys who don't care and reinforce his own not caring.   If he's just immature or homesick, he's with boys who make him more homesick.   In the second, the kid who needs more support is with a patrol where most of da rest of the boys are doin' well.  All da other youth in the patrol can provide support.  Homesickness isn't reinforced.   Da culture doesn't enable misbehavior, it works against it.  Culture teaches boys a lot more than an individual teacher can, eh?  That's the point of Scoutin'. 

Plus, in da second case the older boys get real challenges of leadership, eh?  They get to work on takin' care of their homesick lad or dealin' with their problem member.  That's not taken away from 'em by an adult.  And as we see in several of da examples, adults as often as not enable da bad behavior, eh?  They undermine da youth leaders and substitute lectures for consequences.

There are some reasons for tracking, eh?  If yeh don't have strong patrols or good youth leaders yet, then givin' 'em da added challenge of a member that needs more support might be too much.   Or if yeh have too many challenging boys, so that they overwhelm da patrol's culture.  This should be a temporary thing, though, eh?  The adults should be buildin' strong patrols, and the adults should be mindful of not takin' on too many problems until they do.

Beavah

Yah, @@John-in-KC, yeh raise a good point, eh?

As da BSA has been experiencin' financial pressures (da pressures that have resulted in the dues increases), we're also seein' more activity prohibitions, eh?    These activity prohibitions like Bubble-ball aren't based on da BSA's own experience (no injuries) or on broader data (there isn't any), at least as far as we know.

One thing is true, though.  Anti-toy-gun PC stuff aside, da prohibitions are comin' on activities where there's limited actuarial data.   New sports, like bubble ball.   @@RichardB would have to let us look behind da curtain to be sure, but I expect that there's a correlation between da BSA's financial position and da willingness to authorize new sports or other activities (punkin' chunkin') with limited safety data.   In other words, intense risk-aversion.

Just a guess.

Beavah