Venividi

One of the things that I had to help a few of my scouts understand(including my son), was that if they allowed others to take advantage of them, they would continue to get treated that way (i.e. as a doormat). What you've described meets that description. You've done stuff to "knock their socks off", and they want more from you, and have let you know up front that no matter how much more you do, they are going elsewhere.

Beavah gives appropriate advice. I agree with you to visit with the parents - let them know that you are glad to see the scouts continuing in scouting, whereever they end up. And that if sometime in the future their son finds that the other troop isn't a good fit for him, your troop does accept transfers. I would caution you not to discount the possibility that Troop A might be a good fit for some of the scouts. Since your troop has already had the opportunity to "knock their socks off", you need not do more - they have had a taste of Troop B, they know where you are and how to join if they choose. Continuing to pursue the scouts beyond that may just foster continued bad blood between the two troops.

And if you agree to provide transportation with your troop bus, expect continued requests to use it once they are in Troop A.

I still believe a particular scouts motivation and speed of advancement is not mine to judge or slow down...I am in scouting to help, not to hinder and certainly not to judge...

I would supplement this with "help" meaning to help the scout achieve, and not helping to define requirements to be low enough to pass without effort. My experience with scouts parents that were pushy was that they were more likely to be demanding that the SM consider their son's efforts and scout spirit to be "good enough", than they were to demand that their son meet troop expectations. I suspect this is because parents pushing their son to achieve was not visible to me; those that wanted expectations lowered were. Similar to anarchist, others may have differing experiences.

Firecrafter,

Just like scouts come to a troop without skills such as knowing how to run a meeting, so do adults. The SM teaches and advises the SPL on how to run a troop meeting, complete with an agenda, and a time limit for each agenda item. If your troop committee meetings are running 3 hours with committee members discussing details on topics that they shouldn't be involved in, one approach is to meet with the Committee Chair between meetings to discuss the problem, and discuss an agenda complete with time limits for each agenda item, and remind the CC that he does have the authority to cap a discussion that is getting off track or running on too long. Also, any committee member can move that a topic be tabled, that a time limit for discussion be set, that the subject be brought to a vote, or raise a point of order that the subject of current discussion is off-topic. All are within the bounds of running a meeting using Roberts Rules of Order (I still remember Roberts Rules training in 4H when I was a youth).

Consider that watching the committee spinning its wheels without working together to keep the meeting moving and on task (even after training), can really help you understand why the scouts have difficulties learning how to function as a patrol. After all, what is a committee but patrol by another name with slightly different objective?

Venividi

1. High adventures: Seeing the faces of scouts on a whitewater canoeing trip after shooting some rapids. The year before had been what I call a "beach vacation" type high adventure. While the scouts loved it, I did not see the same enthusiasm as was generated by canoing through mild rapids in Northern Wisconsin.

2. Watching my son make mistakes as crew chief at Philmont, and learn from them. At closing ceremony, hearing him get louder cheers from his crew than any other crew chief.

3. Self reflection that I am a better at my day job as a result of my time spent as a ScoutMaster.

Longhaul,

You make many excellent points.

Personally, I suspect that the concept of no retest in any form was brought in to being as a result of some units interpreting the "make sure all requirements have been met" purpose as meaning an examination was required. The 1981 edition of the SM Handbook indicated that spot checking was appropriate (quote below). It appears that the definition of what a "re-test" is has changed over time, it is logical to assume that it was done to address rogue units going overboard. There should not be a need to swing completely the other way, and interpret any question about a requirement as a re-test. That doesn't appear to be of any more benefit to a scout than does turning the BOR into a re-examination.

Quote from 1981 SM handbook:

The purpose of the (BOR) review is to make sure that all requirements have been met. This means a check of both the technical skills and the Scout's attitude and practice of the ideals of scouting. Care must be taken that the review does not become a reexamination. Spot checking is all that need be done.

Makeitfun,

I also want to add "Thanks for joining." I always helpful to see things through the eyes of a new member of the forum. Evaluating a new perspective always helps me understand my own perspective.

Venividi

Makeitfun,

I have to say that I missed your point then also.

The bowline knot is probably not a good example here - it is the rescue knot, and ought to be known before many high adventure type activities. Like first aid, the likelyhood of needing to use it is very small, but if it is needed, that is not the time to be pulling out the book to figure out how to tie it, nor the time to use some other knot that does not have the properties of a bowline.

I think the whole conversation about knots gets away from the salient point of understanding and aquiring knowledge. Knots may not be important to many troops programs - thats cool - its not my nor anyone elses program - thats a call for the owners of the program. Rather than continue with this about knots, perhaps it is more useful to center discussion around things that we can all agree are important; which I think will foster a better discussion. First Aid skills are an excellent example. as is the concept in general of the scouts grasping knowledge.

Now to go back to Beavah's original post in this string, he said "But to do that, the BOR has to ask some requirement-based questions. Not "retest everything", but also not avoid reviewing a boy's understanding. "

So from what I am reading, I get this feeling that both of you are in violent agreement here, but are talking past each other.

Where I do think there is difference is differing opinions on what constitutes "retesting" vs "reviewing understanding". From what I read, both of you are in agreement that "reviewing understanding" is important.

SM approves the request, he/she signs the blue card and gives the scout the name of a qualified MB counselor. There's nothing I'm aware of that states the scout has to use that counselor.

I think and hope we shouldn't/wouldn't be looking for rules for every possible situation. We are wanting to instill character in boys, and want them to use the scout oath and law to guide to make decisions rather than simply following rules. We should do the same. If the SM gives a MBC name to a scout, and the scout comes back with the signature of a different counselor, I don't think there is a need to go looking for a rule as to whether this is or is not allowed. Was the scouts action trustworthy? - it would be prudent to have a conversation with the scout about what happened to cause him to use a different MBC. Perhaps there was a good reason, or perhaps not. In either case, it provides an opportunity for a meaningful discussion with the scout. And an opportunity for the SM to make a call that is in the best interest of the scout - if the scout is generally trustworthy, perhaps the discussion is enough - or if the scout is one that is generally not trustworthy and trying to game the system, then this is another item used to discuss with the scout when told he is not yet ready to advance.

And me - though I wasn't a boy scout, and I didn't pick up an enjoymnet of cooking until I was an ASM. My son's troop had a great SM (whose shoes I later stepped in to). His enthusiasm for cooking in a dutch oven was contagous. The troop had scouts that prepared dinners such as roasted cornish game hen with baked potatos and corn on the cob.

Have since bought a dutch oven of my own, and bunch of us still get together regularly to play with them.

Dan,

Feedback of info from the BOR IS one of the responsibilities of the advancement committee. That is one way to help programs get better, and/or to maintain high quality.

Sure, things would be nice and rosy in an ideal world where a CO was able to find and hire a SM and ASM's, and the committee was able to sit back and assume that the program was well taken care of.

Perhaps the CO should have hired a "good" SM. But, just perhaps, they hired an inexperienced SM, that was not yet comfortable sitting across the table from a scout, looking him in the eye, and telling him that he was not yet ready for the next rank because he had not attempted to fulfill his duties in his POR, and that did not demonstrate sufficient scout spirit. Perhaps the scout had a parent that was always riding the SM about advancing his kid. Perhaps no one else on the committee was paying attention, so didn't give the SM the support he should have. That was my case, when I was a new SM. Feedback from the advancement committee about areas of improvement was welcome.

It is similar in my place of work. It is a requirement for supervisors to give feedback at reviews twice a year. Not in a "Guess we should have hired a better employee" manner, but more in a "that last widget didn't meet our standards; do you have any ideas on how to improve quality? Any areas where you need additional support so you have more time to work with the widgets " kind of way.

All parents are in this together, and hopefully, have the willingness to support each other in improving the program, and helping each other out when quality slides more towards "advance the scout" rather than "are the aims being met".

Here is a quote from an older edition of the SM Handbook (1981 - its all I have at hind right now):

The purpose of the (BOR) review is to make sure that all requirements have been met. This means a check of both the technical skills and the Scout's attitude and practice of the ideals of scouting. Care must be taken that the review does not become a reexamination. Spot checking is all that need be done.

Beavah's post is consistent with this.

The purpose of the Board of Review is not to retest you but rather to ensure that you have completed all of the requirements, to determine the quality of your troop experience, and to encourage you to advance toward the next rank.

I do not see how a BOR can ensure a scout has completed all of the requirements if it is not allowed to ask such as described by Mike F. I suppose they could take the view that if the requirement was signed off, that must mean it was completed. But who gets shortchanged in such instances is the scout. Oh sure, he gets the rank award, but it is hollow - and the other scouts will see that the adults give lip service to scout spirit, if they advance scouts such as the librarian in the example given. That scout got more out of how Mike F.'s troop handled the situation than he would have had they not checked on what he actually did.

I think that just as there are learning curves and growing pains among scouts, there are similar experiences for adults. How a BOR can best benefit a scout is at least in part dependent on the strenghts and weaknesses of the SM, and that is highly dependent on the exerience level of the SM. From my observation, a new SM that has had only a short time as an ASM, is more likely to sign off on sub-standard POR and scout spirit performance. It is of benefit to the boy if the BOR is able to perform like Mike F.'s board did. And then the feedback back to the SM can help the SM to improve; to provide better training and guidance, and to hold scouts to a more appropriate standard.

I can't help but note the tenor of posts is highly affected by the words selected. If a scout doesn't attend for a year and the troop does not re-register him, is he really being kicked out or booted out?

I think not.

Sunsetandshadow,

Welcome to the forum. Am glad to hear you post your views. I do hope that you are not truely shocked that there is a wide variety of viewpoints held (and shared) by the forum members here. I like to understand other peoples viewpoints, even when they disagree with my own, because it does foster self-evaluation of ones own opinion. Sometimes posts result in modification my own viewpoints; often they do not. They do always help me to understand that others do not see things as I do, and that I must accept that.

You know that the world was created in a literal 7X24 hour period. Others know that it was not. That is OK here, and also in the BSA. And when different people "know" things that are mutually exclusive, that is the best time to talk and to try to expalain ones own views and to try to understand where those with other viewpoints are coming from. And to respect those positions even when we don't agree with each other.

Many of the points made have been around how the bible stories are from a christian/jewish perspective. And that muslim/budhist/shinto/wiccan/etc. stories are never included. That is a valid viewppoint, given that BSA's position is that they do not require or promote one religion over any other. I would gather that you would agree, given your statement that non-christians can learn from the bible stories in the same way that christians can learn from stories of the greek Gods. Were Boys Life to rotate stories monthly, with selections from the bible, koran, greek gods, shinto, budhism, etc., it would go a long way to reflect BSA's position that it is not a christian organization. And as you say, everyone could learn from stories from each religion.

Oh the conundrums and conflicts ... thats why our salaries are so high (big grin).

There is not getting around that scout spirit is subjective. I am sure there are cases where low participation is due to the need to work for family financial reasons, a struggling student completing homework, or volunteering with the red cross or other humanitarian organization. There are other cases where low participation is due to a lad who has chosen other extra curricular activities over scouting, and never was active (real active, not "rostered" active) for a 6 month period. We get to sort that out, and make our best judgement call. Make your call based on scouting values. Some will vent, but you will be able to look yourself in the mirror and know you stood for what was right. I can't and won't comment on which is the right call for the specific cases you have before you - you know the situation better

good luck

I used to have some interesting discussions about an unchanging moral standard with a pastor friend. He posited that christians had one, but he could not state what it was, though it existed but was obscured by man's imperfect interpretation. I would ask what the difference was between not having an unchanging moral standard, vs. having an unchanging moral standard which no one knew, nor could be stated, or couldn't be agreed upon by those saying it existed.

ASM59,

Do what is right for the troop and the scout, wthout concern for what National considers active. If you don't see 6 months of actively participating with the troop, don't sign off on the requirement. If the family escallates, and National gives credit for non-activity, that is fine. But let them do it, rather than supporting what you may consider a low level of scout spirit. Stand up for the values that you and your other adult leaders believe in. You know the scout(s) involved. National doesn't.

Our troop had a tradition of keeping non-active scouts on the role. In retrospect, I don't see where that did anybody any good (except for, as scoutldr notes, resume padding)

Firecrafter,

You have received a lot of good advice from others on why they discourage or limit relatives from signing off on a scout. Most of the time, adults hold their relatives to appropriate standards. Sometimes, you encounter those that know how to game the system,and do so. Your troop adults do not need to continue to enable the situation. And the situation is being enabled, because the troop continues to permit it by continuing to approve starting on new MB's that you permit the scout to complete with counsellors in which you have no confidence.

Fscouter recommends reporting the MB counsellor to the district. That is appropriate, but if you believe the quality of their counseling does not meet your standards, there is no reason to continue to send your scouts to that counsellor, whether or not the council drops the him/her. Council personnel do not know the people; you and your troop committee do - so don't push the responsibility to the district. From a coucil perspective, it is one persons word against another, and frankly, I doubt that they have time enough for this to get high enough on their priority list to investigate. Rather, give the scout the name of the counsellor that you want him to use. In the situation you describe, perhaps the scout says that he wants to do it with his dad/uncle/aunt, whomever. A tactful response would be that you want him to have the experience of working with a number of different adults, and he already has completed a MB with dad/uncle/aunt. Given your description, perhaps the scout will come back with dads signature as MB counsellor anyway. The proper response to such a situation would be that the SM advises the scout that he cannot approve his next rank advancement because he has shown he is not trustworthy, and has to demonstrate improvement before he is ready for advancement.

A couple of additional comments:

It is hard to deal with such situations, and most people will choose to allow it to continue rather than deal with it. This is as true for the SM as well as everyone else, so let the SM know that you and the other parents support him/her. And look for specific ways that you and others can support the SM rather than a high level statement that you support HIM/HER doing the unpleasant task. I have been in your SM's shoes in similar situations, and you are right, it is wearying to constantly be in conflict with a family about their son. It means a lot when you know that you aren't expected to address the conflict alone.

All the other scouts know what is going on. They won't say anything, but they are watching, and will know when adults saying that they expect scouts to live to the scout oath and law, but that when push comes to shove, the adults give the rewards to undeserving scouts because they have pushy parents. They can see if the adults really stand up for what they believe in.

You say: We've always been told A Scout can choose any MB counselor in his district. Response: I don't have the MB process in front of me, but I don't think that is correct. Check the SM handbook, or the MB cousellor pamphlet. I think this is covered in one of those places.

You say: I've honestly never dealt with people like this in Scouting.

Response: I am not surprised. When I was SM and had a similar situation where a set of parents were more interested in their son being given rank advancements than they were in him actually benefitting internally, I made the mistake of approving the scout for star, even though I didn't think he exhibited being helpful, courteous, kind, etc. In his SM conference, I advised him on what he needed to do better next time. When he returned for a SM conference for another rank advancement, it was apparent from the conversation that the message he received was that he had done good enough, and expressed surprise that more was expected. And this was despite several times that I took the scout aside for conversations along the way. And his mother was extremely upset and let me know.

Good Luck - stand up for values and you will be respected. We want our sons to learn to that, which is why we have them in scouts. Even though it is hard, we as adults have to be a role model of how we would want the scouts to behave in such a circumstance. Imagine what you would advise a Patrol Leader to do if he had a patrol member that was not doing his share of the camp chores.

Its never too late to change - we adults have learning curves too.

Thought I had replied, but don't see the reply posted an hour later, so I must have mucked things up. Will try again.

Lisabob,

I recommend trying to keep the implementation of the MB program consistent with the aims you are trying to achieve; principally character and citizenship. If you find you are running counter to the aims in certain situations, then evaluate and modify as needed.

you ask: What I'm wondering is whether the SM can tell a boy he can't work on a particular mb at any given time? My view: yes, if you aren't seeing evidence that a scout is not exibiting what you are expecting relative to the scout oath and law.

you ask: could the SM tell a boy that a mb is too advanced/too difficult for him and deny him access to it? My view: That's possible, but I am not sure that I would absolutely deny. Rather, it is an opportunity to talk with the scout about his interest in the badge, why he wants to take it now, and perhaps recommending that he wait, but I can't think of a case where I would deny, if the scout were interested.

you ask: What about telling a boy who is progressing very slowly through the ranks that he needs to work on rank adv... My view: I think that would be elevating rank advancement to an aim rather than a method. Based on this scenario, I assume that the scout isn't interested in collecting awards with the minimum possible effort. If the scout wants to learn a new topic, I wouldn't deny him that opportunity because he wasn't interested in advancement.

you ask: How about if a boy has a bunch of partials and wants to start new mbs? My view: When the boy brings a new blue card to you for approval to start on another MB, it provides an opportunity for a short discussion where you can ask about all of those other MB's that he started. Depending on the reply, perhaps you suggest that you would like to see him finish some of those other ones before he starts another one - as a recommendation rather than an absolute. Perhaps you find that he lost interest in the topics of those other badges. Perhaps he needs a pep talk to get motivated on those others. I view not completing a MB as similar to not getting Eagle - neither is inconsistent with the aims of scouting.

I wexpect that it would be a rare situation where a SM should not approve a MB request. From what firecracker described, that may well be a situation where it is warranted, but is a step not to be taken lightly, and the adult leaders would benefit from discussing this first, so they are all on the same page.

firecracker,

I suggest you discuss the issue among the committee and SM/ASM's.

The SM does not have to be approving the scout for 3-4 MB's per month. Or even 1 per month, if he does not think it is in the scout's best interest to be working on them. It amy be appropriate for the SM to tell the scout that he would like to see the scout "do more of xxx", where "xxx" is something that the scout is ignoring - particpating with his patrol, fulfilling his obligations in a leadership position, etc. - if the scout is not performing them consistent with expectations of scout spirit.

The SM also has the ability to direct a scout to a particular MB counsellor. If the scout is coming to the SM with requests to work on MB's that are counselled by his relatives, the SM can direct the scout to use a different counsellor somewhere else in the district.

I agree with the SM on not signing the MBC line on replacement blue cards. I agree with you on having the scouts contact appropriate MB counsellors to have the cards replaced. The counsellor may choose to give credit for work completed, plus ask the scout to demonstrate the skills and explain topics he was to learn.

How each MBC handles the situation would likely be dependent on the requirements for the badge - the scouts can show the MBC baskets, woodcarvings, leatherwork projects, etc. from craft type projects; show notes taken during field observation for mammal study; demonstration of canoe strokes to a MBC provides an opportunity for a fun outing. And it need not take long for a scout to do this, provided the quality of the summer camp badge was sufficient for the scout to learn the skills and the scouts had paid attention to their summer camp MB instructor.

I think much will depend on how it is presented to the scouts. If it is presented as a "punishment" or "you have to do the MB over", they will pick up on that attitude and see it as being penalized. If it is presented as an opportunity to show off what they learned, you can build them up.

I recently finished up counseling a scout that had come back from last summer's camp without record of his first aid MB work. When the scout first contacted me, I told the scout that I believed he was trustworthy, and trusted that he did indeed do the work; and explained that I was also trustworthy, such that when I put my signature on a card, BSA could trust me that I was certain that the scout had completed the work and had learned the topic. I offered the scout the opportunity to demonstrate the skills to me, and then provide some refresher instruction only in those areas that he didn't remember. I explained that this allowed him to benefit from what he had learned at summer camp. He was agreeable. Unsurprisingly, there was a large amount of material that he didn't know. I strongly feel that first aid is one of the most important skills, and that I would have short-changed the scout had I merely signed the card as a replacement for summer camp.

One thing not mentioned is how many MB records per scout were lost. Personnaly, I like to see about 3, with the balance of the scouts time spent doing fun stuff with their buddies; hikes, open swim, open range, etc.

Venividi

I see that somehow in my last reply a different topic previously discussed on this forum appeared in the subject line. Don't know how it happened, and appologize for the mistake.

Lisabob,

I agree with the comment about new Webelos coming in changing how the first year scouts see themselves. The Web's will be looking at them "experienced". Look for opportunities for your son's patrol members to teach skills to the new crossovers.

After one year, troop guides should no longer be necessary. I do agree with OGE that it is worth taking the time to get folks together and review why no one in the patrol is motivated to be a leader. Are they excited about participating in the cooking and patrol competitions?

I would encourage you to read some of the stuff available on the web by Barry Runnells - he does a good job of describing natural growth in scouts, and that it isn't until 14 or so that a scout really is prepared to be a good leader. (You can find similar material in official BSA publications as well; Barry just describes it better).

Personal experience has been that there is great variance between patrols based on the individual members in the patrols. We have had some patrols where after the first year, there were scouts willing to take PL position (and learn), and patrols where no patrol member ever was willing to step forward, even when they reached 14. They even re-elected as their Patrol Leader the scout that participated the least, because he was willing to take the job.

In your situation, just a guess, but perhaps the scouts currently serving as PL/ASPL need some additional guidance from a SPL or JASM or ASM on delegating responsibilities to the various patrol members so they learn to do the jobs that the patrol is responsible for getting done on their own ; i.e. patrol quartermaster, patrol scribe, etc.?

Eagle309

You state: While I would do nothing to put impediments in his way I wonder if he is moving a bit too fast and should be encouraged to stop and smell the roses along the way. Any advise on what I should do as a SM/parent? Should I just let him go or should I try to get him involved in aspects other than advancement and if so what and how?

My advice: Watch how he approaches advancement, and then give him guidance so that you are instilling the aims of character & citizenship in him. As SM, I had several very young scouts motivated by receiving advancement awards. Very task oriented. Completed a requirement, got signed off, then on to the next. Looking for the path with the least effort to get there. Where they had trouble was recognizing their duty in their POR and scout spirit requirements. Because they were so focused on their own advancement, they needed frequent reminders of their other responsibilities to the troop: i.e. that they also needed to be helpful to other scouts and to fulfill their POR responsibilities without constantly being prompted (or nagged). This may not be the case for your son, but I found it not to be unususal.

Hi Laure,

Consider sending them both. Check with your council as to whether there is a limit as to the number of attendees from a unit. (Our council's rule of thumb is 3).

Am puzzled about why the scout you send to JLT would be the scout that serves as the SPL at summer camp - I would expect that the SPL at summer camp would be the SPL that the scouts elected for the term that includes summer camp. It is not clear to me what is to be gained by having a adult appointed SPL (which effectively the case if the boy approved to send to JLT automatically gets the position).

Re: ensuring a scout attending training doesn't quit scouts - a few comments:

- In our council, attendance at JLT requires the SM recommendation. A scout that looks like he is likely to drop out in the near future may not be the best choice for the troop to send to JLT.

- Try to influence the parents that are looking at this as purely a financial decision to the troop. Explain that they are positively benefiting the boy, the troop, and the community even if 9 months from now the scout leaves the troop. No one can guarantee that the scout's parent doesn't get a new job requiring a move, that politics in the troop don't motivate scouts to leave, etc.

- One way to reimburse the scout for training is to do so as a credit for future campouts; i.e. the scout (or his family) pays for the JLT, and then the troop pays all costs for the scout's future activities up to the cost of the JLT. (Our troop managed reimbursement of adult training in this way).

I considered candidates by considering their interest in scouting. their participation with the troop, leadership position currently being held, and leadership potential. These factors were pretty much inter-related. I then met with the scout to motivate him, and also met with the parents to explain the benefit to them. (I occasionally encountered parents that didn't want their son to attend JLT because he couldn't earn merit badges, so they considered it a waste of time because JLT wouldn't help him advance).

Personally, I would not pursue a path where the scout does fundraising for his own fee - I may not be understanding how your committee would propose to do that, but I suspect that the boy would see this as a dissincentive to go - he has to do a fundraiser that none of the other boyss do.

Good Luck - send as many scouts to JLT as you can. It did make a difference in the troop - which was apparent after a couple of years when we could not motivate any scouts (or their families) to have the scouts attend.