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 have done or learned anything or not, national expects that the scout may not pass his BOR if his service was unsatisfactory. I find this rather confusing, as it seems to move decisions from SM/ASM (where mentorship occurs), to BOR, which is composed of folks who are further removed from the scout.

Here is the text, and also a link to the source:

The decision also said, The issue of whether their service is satisfactory is resolved at the local board of review for that rank. Therefore, a boy who was in the position of Scribe for six months from Life to Eagle had fulfilled that requirement. That does not necessarily mean that he will pass his board of review, because if his service was not satisfactory, he could be turned down at the board of review.

http://www.cvc-bsa.org/advancement/bsAdvancementFAQ.html#posResp

The text is from the response to the FAQ titled "What can a Scoutmaster do if there is a Scout in his/her unit that is performing poorly in a position of responsibility or doesn't show up at all?"

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 passing the test, just have kids pass a test. Eventually, we'll reach a point when math proficiency' means, you move when poked with a stick,' and reading proficiency' means, your breath will fog a mirror.'"

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 with a statement from national, and discussing it here as an indictment or criticism of someone that follows it as a deciding factor when reviewing an appeal. This isn't the same degree as Mai Lai, where following orders was clearly not acceptable. Beavah has said in another post in this thread that he thinks the folks at national are by and large honorable people. Most of us here invest a lot of time in scouting we beleive it plays an important role in boys lives. That we disagree on specific methods of implementation, and in fact do implement differently from unit to unit I beleive to be more of a benefit than a liability.

Beavah has said in a post in this thread that he thinks that the folks at national are decent folks; I agree with him on that. I would hope that a discussion here on the merits of a particular rule i

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 campsite Friday night. The adults chose not to intervene, but rather to wait for the patrol to approach them with their problem. The patrol did so at breakfasttime the next morning. They discussed how to resolve the situation, and then one of the scouters drove the patrol to the closest grocery store, where the patrol corrected their error.

At the committee meeting, I watched as parents of those patrol members raked the SM over the coals. They demanded to know what the SM was going to do to prevent scouts from making such a mistake. One mother went so far as to say that if the SM couldn't guarantee that the patrol wouldn't forget to buy food, then she would send food with her son on overy campout. The SM explained that there was nothing that he should do; that it played out exactly as it should have. The majority of the committee accepted the SM's explanation, but there were parents that did not, and were livid that their sons ate breakfast late because the SM did not ensure that the patrol grubmaster had fulfilled his responsibility. They wanted more adult run elements, not less.

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 simply because they are an authority. By way of examples, I don't agree with school districts that impose zero tollerance policies and suspend students that are found with aspirin or other banned item. I see where such rules make it easier for the administration, because they no longer have to be involved in sorting out intent, or circumstances, or anything else. Same with adult troop leaders requiring comlete uniforms simply because they say so. Without an explanation as to the "why" behind the statement from national, while I see how it makes things easier for national, I don't see how it is always the best approach for scouts.

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 scout and hovering over him as he puts a scrapbook together, or of taking him by the hand and walking him around to take pictures. That would be appropriate for a 12 - 13 YO 1st class scout. I think it is inappropriate for most 14 - 17 YO star and life scouts.

Scouts has often been promoted as a place where a scout has the freedom to try new things, and if he fails, to get back up and try again. So to respond to your last comment, no, I don't have a problem with watching the calendar pages fly by - while making those friendly inquiries, but not forcing him to complete his assignment. If a scout takes 12 months to reach the next rank rather than 6 months because he failed in his first try at a POR, I think that is a life lesson that is worthwhile. One worth more than not failing. Often we learn more from our failures than from our successes.

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 if the SM suggested that the scout take another position and have another chance. I have found scouts agreeing with this. (I have seen a parent of one such scout disagreeing, however, and coaching his son to go back on said agreement). Yes, being removed from a POR is a consequence, and I do not object to a unit that does so. Not receiving a desired rank advancement is also a consequence, and I do not see a reason why that would not be an acceptable alternative to removing a scout from a position. I think that a SM should have leeway to determine which is the appropriate course of action.

I have a vivid memory from my youth that I will share that may help explain where I am coming from: Seventh grade language arts teacher started the year by telling the class that weekly spelling words were required to be handed in every Friday. There would be no reminders. If the paper was not handed in, the student would get a "0". "I forgot" was not an excuse. I recall that he never had anyone turn a paper in late. And he stuck to his word and never gave a reminder that spelling words were due; everyone knew that he collected the spelling words at the beginning of class every Wednesday. I did notice however, that in other classes it was not uncommon for students to miss turning in assignments. It was a matter of expectations.

Thanks for a great discussion. Please note that I am not one that promotes or supports retesting at BOR or attendance requirements.

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 problems. Scout says he hasn't started yet, but knows what he has to do. Next month, scout doesn't attend the campout. This continues for the balance of the six month term.

Scout asks for a SM conference for Life rank.

What is the downside of expecting a scout of star rank to take personal responsibility for fulfilling the duties of his position, rather than it being the SM's responsibility for the scout to fulfill the scout's duties? I am one that thinks personal responsibility is a key component of character. I believe society has moved way too far away from personal responsibility. Spill hot coffee on your lap? Its not your fault, the restaurant served it too hot. Didn't create a scrapbook that you agreed to make? Its not your fault, the SM didnt make sure that you did it. Please note that I specified an age and rank by which I think scouts should be capable of taking personal responsibility without an adult following them around to make sure that they do what they agreed to do. And I am not sure that there is anywhere else where a scout would get the opportunity to experience the rewards or consequences of their personal efforts.

Am I the only one here that thinks this way?

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 not removed." I inferred from that statement that he gets credit for the position. Perhaps inferred wrongly.

And I agree with you that sitting by and doing nothing is not an option. I thought I have been clear on that. I do, however believe in personal responsibility, and that the responsibility for performing the duties of a POR belong to the boy, not to the adult, and that while removing a boy from a POR is one option, it isnt the only option, and not always the best option.

As I said before, I am glad I am no longer an SM, as my personal style isnt one that prefers threatening removal from a position. So you can be glad that this is a theoretical discussion and that no boy will be harmed by my views :-)

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 boys than is focusing on the PORs directly.

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 what needs to happen. Perhaps various people have discussed what he needs to do to improve, but in the end, if he is removed, its because he didnt perform, and its not a surprise to him or his parents.

Revised: The scout knows he is in danger of not being approved for advancement because he has been counseled numerous times on what needs to happen. Perhaps various people have discussed what he needs to do to advance, but in the end, if he is not approved for advancement, its because he didnt perform, and its not a surprise to him or his parents.

Let me try and approach from a different angle.

I do not understand how we have helped a boy (lets say he is first class), by advancing him to Star because he was not activily removed from a POR for which he did not fulfill the expectations. Each POR should build on what was learned in previous experiences. But the referenced communication from National basically says that a scout that hasn't developed an appropriate level of skills or experience in his POR, gets credit for it unless adults have proactively removed him from the position. Then, when he advances to the next rank, he does not have a base to build on for his next POR. To my way of thinking, that is unfair to the boy. I see it similar to social promotion in school.

Imagine, if you will, if a similar announcement were issued concerning MB's at summer camp: It is the MB cousellor's responsibility to ensure that a scout is fulfilling the requiremnts of the MB. If he is not, he should be removed from the class. If a scout that is not fullfilling the requirements of his MB is not removed from the MB class before the end of the week, he is given credit for the badge, whether or not he has completed the requirements. We can look at that and see that it is absurd. But the parallel to the POR requirements is that it moves responsibility for learning 100% to the teacher, when learning really is primarily the responsibility of the student.

And to reiterate, it recognize that this may be a blind spot on my part, because I do agree with the mentoring approach that you both describe; I just don't get the tie in between the aim character development and the giving credit for a POR, when the lessons to be learned in that POR were not learned. (And I am talking about levels of expectation that are appropriate for the rank at hand, not some idealized "adult level" expectations).

Please note that I am not advocating that the statement on the BSA website be ignored; BSA gets to define how they want things done. After all, a Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them. That is approptiate for scouters as well. I just happen to think that this directive is unfair to the scouts, and am sharing my concerns with what I perceive as an unfair rule.

It has been a great discussion, and I thank you for the friendliness of the discussion, even though we disagree.

Venividi

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 was wrong at the time. When I inquired in a previous thread about others experiences with removing a scout from a postion, there was only one response, so I suspect that removing non-performing scouts from their PORs is rarely done anywhere.

2) The ASM working with the boy was the boy's father. I have seen this combination work, where the parent has expectations of his son and communicates and works with him. (I have had the experience of working with my own son.) In this case, the father's goal turned out to be getting his son signed off for advancement as quickly as possible. He was not interested in seeing his son build skills in either scoutcraft or leadership; only in collecting awards. And that attitude was picked up by his son and the other boys in that patrol. In retrospect, the ASM should have been removed. At the time, the troop was short handed for adult help, and it was felt that poor help was better than no help, so the dad was put up with.

In any event, I think that Gunny's situation is slightly different. Nowhere does he state that there is not an adult scouter working with the boy. I do not think it unlikely that an SPL would be elected that found it easier to ignore the coaching from the SM than to put in the effort between meetings that is required to be prepared. I think it unfair to assume that because a boy chooses not to put in the effort, that is the scouters fault. The scouter is responsible for training and supporting the boy. That support should not normally include doing the boy's job for him, nor keep him from failing. It is the boy's responsibility to actually perform his duties. Gunny's question is what should be done when he doesn't.

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 wouldn't have happened because some adults didnt pitch in. In the longer term, I believe that this is extremely detrimental. Parents aren't invested in the program. Kids get shortchanged, because if you are an ASM, time that could otherwise be spent mentoring a scout is now spent working on things that should be done by the committee. And when you burn out, there will not likely be anyone willing and able to step in and replace the "SuperScouter". (Please note that I used "when" and not "if". I have no doubt of your enthusiasm and ability. Do not underestimate the burnout factor when you are in a position where you are doing almost everything.)

And if your desire is to work with multiple units (i.e. OA, along with a troop role), the more different hats you are wearing in the troop lessens the time available that you have for OA.

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 of the meeting. The boy was the son of the ASM assigned responsibility for that patrol. Six months later, the patrol re-elected the same boy as PL. Their stated view of being a PL was that it was extra work, and they figured that they would rather elect someone that didnt object to being PL, even if he did nothing.

Outcome: the scouts in the patrol mostly dropped out of the troop. Which isn't surprising, given that there patrol never experienced any real patrol leadership, nor never built any patrol unity. None ever went on a high adventure; I tried to engage them in a trip to Phlmont, but a couple of the scouts told me they thought it sounded too hard. I think the lack of leadership was a factor in the patrol members' not learning the scout skills to give them the confidence to look forward to a high adventure trip.

With respect to the question as to whether the scouts learned from their mistake, I would have to say that they did not. They re-elected a bad PL. Then drifted out of scouting. I am not sure that they saw the connection. Perhaps they will realize it 10 or 20 years from now, but I think they would have learned more had something different been done.

What I think should have been done different: the ASM or SM lead a "thorns and roses" type session and talk with the patrol members about leadership, and help them make the connection between who they elected PL and what their patrol did. (Note: we always covered this with as a troop the week before elections. As stated above, info I received from a couple of scouts in that patrol was that no one in else in the patrol wanted to be PL).

Lessons Learned: The adult working with the patrol makes a huge difference. In this particular situation, the ASM could have been doing more to mentor leadership in the patrol, or advise the patrol to consider replacing the PL.

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 backcountry. Spent a year working for the National Park Service. Now, back in college pursuing a degree.

I would not trade away any scout that follows his passion(s).

The awards are nice to see, but are intended as incentives to foster the same aims that those that are internally motivated are able to achieve without the award.

John-in-KC, your passion for scouting is obvious, and your willingness to share with us here on the forum is much appreciated. I believe you do this for the intrinsic reward; no physical award that we could send you would make you a better person; you are internally motivated. I cant help but think that your son is like you.

Venividi

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 that your experiences may be different.

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?