Venividi

Hunt, I am with you on BOR decisions that a boy is not yet ready for advancement should not be common. Much better for SM/ASM to continue to work with a scout until the scout has earned the rank, and then recommend them for BOR. I think right now that things are in a state of flux/confusion as a result of the memo from national stating that time in rank fulfills the POR requirement. While searching the net for a copy of that memo/letter, I found the following on the Clinton Valley Council web site, which indicates that, while scouts are to be given credit for time in POR whether they

Used copies are available.... That boggles my mind. You will never see my copy offered for sale. I have even purchased given the DVD to retiring scoutmasters as gifts.

Packsaddle, Thank you for reminding us that we live in a democracy where we have the right and duty to participate. We can attend public meetings, serve on committees, run for school boards. I feel humbled to have to have been reminded of this, especially this week. You are correct, WE have more power and control than we sometimes think. Venividi

I recall a conversation with one of my daughter's teachers, and that NCLB has driven them to "teach to the test", with one result being that there was some areas of the subject that he didn't have time to get to as a result. The concept may be good; it certainly has a great "feel good, warm fuzzies, its the right thing to do for kids" element to it, which makes it great for political sound bites. But implementation is darn near impossible without a whole bunch of unintended consequences.

Reportedly, some states are meeting the No Child Left Behind objectives by making their benchmarks easier. See http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/ednotes77.cfm Quotes from the aritcle: "The real problem is that No Child Left Behind actually put in place incentives for states to weaken their standards - making it more pressing for them to meet political objectives than to improve student achievement by objective measures." and "This has led states to simply lower the bar, as humorously articulated by Mr. Colbert: "Well, that sounds hard. So here's what I suggest: Instead of p

John in KC, My thoughts: Excellent suggestions. As you point out, the back story (or lack of one) is an important consideration. There are no one-size scouts, and thus there shouldn't be a one-size-fit-all method to work with them. Thanks, Venividi

"If boys are not making good choices, we have failed our Mission." Fscouter, I hope I am not taking this out of context, but I think I disagree with this as written. If boys are not making good choices, we don't prevent them from making bad choices (safety issues excepted). Our role is to help them learn to make good choices. Making bad choices is part of the learning process.

I guess I am a complicated individual because I have no issue with a district or council, or anyone else outside of the troop ruling in favor of a scout's appeal for advancement. Even if from a unit's perspective, it is not in the best interest in the growth of the individual scout. Granting those appeals may very well be in the best interest of BSA as a whole. District, council, and national have different concerns than unit scouters. They have demands on their time, and must make decisions on which battles are currently the most important for them. Please don't take disagreeing

I like the key idea. The demonstration of trust in the scout speaks very loudly. I agree with Eagledad that adult fears limit scout growth. Adults don't want to see scouts fail, and often expect scouters to step in and make sure that they don't. That limits opportunities. It brings to mind the first committee meeting that I attended after my son crossed over into boy scouts. Some background is necessary: on the most recent campout, one patrol had forgotten to purchase food for the weekend. One of the ASM's overheard the patrol members talking about it on the drive to the campsit

OGE, I can only second guess at the reason for the rule. I am not sure that I can accurately do so. Perhaps it is because national saw more appeals than they wanted. Perhaps there are some percentage of SM's that are in the position not because they want to be, but because no one else is willing to do it, and the troop would fold otherwise, but there hearts are no longer in it. Perhaps this is national's way of forcing some action on the part of units on the bottom of the bell curve, and all units are forced into a common mold. I am not a big believer in appeals to authority simp

Fscouter, I think the difference is a matter of both degree and objective. The objective of a school assignment is to learn the topic. You explain the degree well; it serves no purpose if your son (or anyone else) flunks out of school. I have no arguement with SM/ASM need to be on top of the situation and knowing who is having difficulty. In a situation such as the hypothetical historian, I see the SM role as one of making friendly inquiries as to how things are going, and if the scout is having any difficulties. I do not see the SM role being one of sitting down with the scou

OGE, This discussion has been good. The discussion has brought me to see that removing a scout in a PL or SPL role may be the best course of action because other scouts are affected. In a role like historian, other scouts are not affected to the same degree in the event that the scout doesn't fulfill his obligations. I can see that removing a scout from such a role can be effective, I just dont think that it is the only way. Come review time, a scout that served as historian but didn't fulfill the duties would have to say "No" when asked by the SM if he had. And shouldn't be surprised

To return this (somewhat) back to topic, let me toss out the following hypothetical scenario: A boy is appointed historian. He is a Star scout, 14 or 15 years old. Before approving the appointment, SM meets with him and explains the responsibilities of position. SM suggests a specific assignment of taking photgraphs at campouts, and creating a troop scrapbook with those pictures, including a written paragraph of who attended, where they went, what they did, etc. At the next troop meeting after the campout, SM asks the scout how the scrap book is coming, and if he is having any problem

Kudu, Thanks for the reference. It reminds me of the scene in the movie "Boy's Town" where the boys conduct a Court of Honor to review the conduct of Whitey after he stepped out of line. There has been quite a change.

John, I agree that we are not far apart. We both want to develop young men more than we want to hand out shiny medals. And it is that small percent of scouts that we are discussing here - they do take more energy than most, don't they. Fscouter, You are right, I paraphrased what I saw as the net outcome. However, unit leaders must ensure that he is fulfilling the obligations of his assigned leadership position. If he is not, then they should remove the Scout from that position." What is left unsaid is "What happens if the scout does not fullfill his obligations and he is n

gunny says: ...unless they truly do not want to be there... I see wisdon in that clause in the statement. I think that to some degree one cause of the issue is that some are incented to take a position in which they "truely do not want to be there" but do take a position anyway, either to meet the advancement requirement, or for the prestige of the position. The more I consider this topic and read and re-read the posts, the more I see the value in the position put forward by Kudu that mastery of scoutcraft skills is a better way to grow leadership & responsibility skills in boy

John and OGE, I agree with everything that you have said, including "no surprises" at an advancement SM conference; except for not performing POR duties MUST (my emphasis) result in removing the scout from the position. Sure, that is one way, but my personal preference would be to use the carrot of advancement rather than the stick of removal. I think it would be just as effective to replace "removed" with "not approved for advancement" or in the following paragraph: OGE wrote: The scout knows he is in danger of losing his position because he has been counseled numerous times on wh

John, I agree with everything you have written. I see those mentorship discussions happening with 100% of the youth leaders. I don't think they are dependent on whether the last conference for that 2% is to say something to the effect of "Despite all our talks, you haven't done what I expect of a star scout. Lets give you another chance; lets review what you need to do." rather than "Despite all our talks, you haven't done what I expect of a star scout. I have to remove you from your position." Perhaps I just have a blind spot.

John-in-KC, Yes, I understand your message. BSA gets to define the rules. It makes me glad that I am no longer a scoutmaster. I see this as moving from using a carrot (this is part of what you need to do to get that next rank advancement that you want) to using the stick (you have to do this or else I am going to remove you from your position).

Since my scenario keeps getting raised (I am glad that it is useful for discussion here), I will add a couple of things: 1) our unit was not willing to remove a boy from his position, even if he did nothing, even when trained, counseled, cajoled, etc. by scouters. Removing a scout had been discussed among scouters at various times, and the outcome was always to try and continue to work with the boy through his term rather than remove him, which was seen as "giving up on him", and was felt that it put him in a position to be teased by his peers, or drop out of scouting, etc. Perhaps that

I understand that there may be times when jumping in and doing someone elses job is necessary, but I side with Beavah on picking a role within a unit and performing that role well. Just like scouts back away whenever an adult steps in, and allow the adult to perform their role, so will parents. If you want to run the committee, work with the boys, plan their program, make campout reservations, line up drivers, chase down families for monies in arrears, inventory and repair equipment, etc., parents will let you. In the short term, that may work, and scouts get to go on a campout that wou

Putting aside the slam at one of our political parties, which I dont see being much help in the context of Gunnys question, and certainly detracts from it, I think this is an excellent topic and thank Gunny for posing it. I am looking forward to seeing responses that describe various experiences. I will start with one of mine. I watched a patrol elect as their PL a boy that came late to meetings, left early, and rarely went on campouts. Sat quietly at meetings without ever saying anything; would stay inside and play chess rather than lead his patrol in the patrol competition portion o

Some of the best scouts that I ever worked with never got Life, let alone Eagle. They were there because they enjoyed the experiences, they were internally motivated to pursue what interested them. thinking of one in particular it started out as loving camping; later, backpacking. Then cross country running in high school. At times, he could be counted on to share his enthusiasm for outdoor skills,and eager to teach others. At other times, he was obstinant, and butted heads with the scoutmaster. After graduating high school, he chose to attend NOLS, spending a semester learning in the

scottteng wrote: Do all troops have their deadwood? Yes by all means but those are not usually the boys looking to advance either and hopefully are not languishing in POR's which they will be given credit for regardless of attendance Gotta disagree with this comment, as it was not my experience. The hardest deadwood to deal with were those scouts from families that wanted their son to put Eagle scout on "their" resume, or were holding driving privileges until their son earned Eagle. Seemed to drive kids to try and advance with as minimal of an effort as possible. I do recognize

Perhaps explain your needs to the church leader(s). Tell them you need people assigned to work the logistics that parents are currently expecting you to do, and ask them if those roles can be assigned by the church. As scouts is LDS' youth program for boys, I am surprised that the church leaders would not be having very high expectations that the church's youth would be actively participating, and communicating that expectation directly to the youth and their parents. Are they aware of the low participation rate, and if so, are they OK with it?