Venividi

evmori,

I agree that methods are not requirements; they are methods to achieve the aims. The methods are supposed to be used together to achieve the aims. The requirement that applies here is scout spirit. I believe that a unit can use a scout's attitudes on uniform, and refusal to wear it, as a factor to consider when evaluating scout spirit, and whether an individual has met the standards the unit has for that requirement.

Hence, my disagreement with the statement that a unit can't hold a scout back for a refusal to wear the uniform because they feel embarrassed to wear it. I think that a unit can choose to, or choose not to, consistent with how they implement the program to achieve the aims.

"I am tired of having to do everything".

I had a similar experience. I did things that I saw weren't getting done because they were things that needed to be done. I continued to ask the committee chair to get folks to do these other tasks (part of his/her job). Asked individuals, and got responses from "no", to "I will think about it." It wasn't until I stopped doing them that others started to pick them up. And it took a number of months of failed and poorly run events until they did.

Taking everything on myself actually made things worse. The longer you continue to do everything, the harder it will be for others to take them on.

A tip I learned in a newsgroup was the poper response to "no", or "I will think about it" is "It is really a shame that you do not have time to spend with your son."

> it's also clear that once that boy is accepted by a unit, knowing his feeling on uniforms, the unit can't hold him back because of it.

I don't think that is clear at all. One, there is no indication that the issue raised in the initial post was from a new scout joining, but rather it appears it is from an existing scout.

Two, to draw an analogy, choose another method, such as outdoors or lerdership, or patrol. If a scout had "bad feelings" about any of these, and therefore refused to go outside, hold a leadership position, or belong to a patrol, should a SM hold him back (I am assuming from rank advancement)? In each of these cases, rank advancement can be used as the "carrot" to entice the scout to rise to the challenge and grow in character to get past the fear of being seen in uniform, going outside, taking resposibility as a leader, being a participating member in his patrol, etc.

My advise for when you are debating with yourself as to whether you are "pushing" or "encouraging" is to take a deep breath and think for a while about the aims. You need to self assess if your interest is one of seeing the scout earn a patch or a pin that he can wear, and that he (and perhaps secretly you) can show others as a visible sign of his (and therefore your) success? Or is it one of seeing him develop the character and citizenship, whether or not he is given a patch or pin?

If you are unsure if you are pushing or encouraging, then I suspect it likely that the line is being neared or crossed.

Personally, I would push scouts to fulfill the duties of their leadership position. I think that the experience of actually leading others is scary to scouts, and once done successfully (with a few failures along the way), development of character & citizenship takes a big jump.

Pushing to complete merit badges required to reach Eagle may temporarily boost self esteem, but I don't see the payoff that service to others through leadership has.

Never having been a scout as a youth, it is likely that I am missing something. I know several fathers that had been scouts as youth and never wore the eagle pin. They therefore pushed their sons to complete requirements for Eagle, because they had not.

I never did understand this, because these were men of good character, and I didn't see how having the pin would have made them any better. I thought they were confusing the award with the character it is supposed to represent.

Kenk,

Since you are thinking through what you want for your son from scouting and reflect on your own life scout rank, if you don't mind, perhaps you can share: do you think that you got out of scouting what you wanted for yourself? Do you believe you are a better person for it? Do you believe you would have become a better person had you completed sufficient merit badges for Eagle?

I suspect that the answer is that you didn't need Eagle to turn into the type of quality person that would donate his time as an adult scouter. If your experience is like mine, you have run into parents that are Eagle, but turn down requests to help. I would rather have a bunch of scouts that all turned out like you (and others that post here) than any random group of Eagles.

Fscouter,

I have to respectfully disagree; I think attendance at patrol/troop meetings and campouts is a component of scout spirit. Not the only component, but part of the whole.

A scout's participation with his patrol/troop is a visible indicator of Loyalty to his patrol/troop members. A scout isn't being helpful to scouts in his troop if he is not participating.

I once had the mother of a scout argue with me that her son was demonstrating trustworthy, loyal, helpful, etc. at the theater group he was involved with, and that should be sufficient to be approved for advancement in scouts. This was for a lad who frequently missed meetings and campouts. When he did attend, he was anything but helpful, or cheerful, etc., it was obvious that he was in it for his own advancement, and had no interest or concern for the other scouts in the troop. He was there for the advancement, which both he and his family viewed as getting the right number of MB's. He demonstrated lack of scout spirit by many things, including poor attendance.

Keeping in mind that our aim is to develop character, citizenship, and fitness, and all methods, including advancement, are to support that, then each unit needs to evaluate if they can effectively aid in development of character/citizenship/fitness. We do want and expect scouts to take what they learn in scouts and participate as leaders in other areas of the community; band, student council, sports, etc. They may demonstrate scout spirit elsewhere; but if there is a corresponding lack of scout spirit demonstrated to his own patrol/troop, I don't see what is to be gained by handing out an award anyway - to do so I think it hurts both the scout and the troop.

Just had this recently - was approached by a scout telling me that he had lost his for First Aid. I had a chat with him and told him that i believe a scout is trustworthy, and I believed him. I explained to him that I was also expected to be trustworthy, and when I put my signature on a new card, I was being trusted to have verified that the requirements were complete. I then did as NWScouter suggested, and gave him the chance to demonstrate first, and then I would teach and help him with those skills which he may have forgotten.

What I interprete Seattle Pioneer as saying is: don't discount the possibility that a particular Life scout may not have developed good relationships with other scouts in the troop, and therefore, the other scouts in the are not motivated to go out of their way to help him. i.e. that he was not helpful to the scouts that he now wants to help him.

While it may be a case of an individual scout whose chickens have come home to roost, or as others have suggested, an attitude of unhelpfulness that pervades the culture of a particular troop; SeattlePioneer is suggesting that the task of getting others to work on the project belongs to the Life scout, not to the adult scouters.

I don't read into his post that meaning to suggest that Eagle Scout projects should be planned so that is also serves as some kind of mini-summer camp with competitions, activities that aren't part of the project, and work toward merit badges. I read his suggestions there could be creative solutions that the scout could use to motivate other scouts to participate; for example, for a project of a coat drive to collect warm clothing for charity, cuold be set up as a competition, with a "reward" for the patrol that collects the most articles of clothing; or for a project to build 25 bluebird houses for a nature center, research whether building said houses would meet a requirement for woodworking badge, and if so, the life scout could arrange for a MB counsellor to teach some skills at the start of his project, and scouts participating in his Eagle project may end up completing a large portion of the MB.

SeattlePioneer is proposing that there are other, creative ideas that a Life scout could use, as an alternative to a SM cajoling the scouts.

So I see two separate issues: one for the scout to solve, and a general attitude problem to be addressed long term by the SM working with the PLC as EagleDad advises.

The following was said I have no doubt, tongue in cheek:

Football players learn how to carry a little funny-shaped ball something less than 300 feet on a grassy field. Baseball players, well, play catch and hit balls with a stick - and spit. Yes, it can be fun to watch, but are these real life-long lessons?

I will use this as a springboard to say that I don't think that we should discount the values that participation in sports bring to our children; values that somewhat overlap with scouting's values in providing growth in character, citizenship, and fitness. From my view, sports can be more effective in instilling some of the lessons on these values than can scouting.

A couple of examples:

Commitment: High school level sports require a level of commitment to the team that, as a scout leader I have been unable to match. On a high school team, members must commit to attend all practices and games (or provide valid reason), or they are dropped from the roster or see less playing time. Each member has to make personal sacrifices for the good of the team. Contrast with scouts, where should someone propose that a member need to show commitment to their patrol (i.e., their team) by attending even half the time, they are admonished that this would be adding to the requirements and therefore not allowed.

Teamwork: The goal of the players is for the team to win. The highest reward is winning the game, the conference championship, the playoffs. Even the "stars" cannot advance without the support of the rest of the team, so the stars have vested interest in helping others rest on the team develop their skills to the best of their ability. And because of the Commitment to the team that is REQUIRED, the team members can develop the trust that goes with true teamwork. Contrast with scouts, where the issue of "provisional" patrols is a semi-regular topic. In addition, the major reward structure of scouts is on an individual basis; advancement to Eagle is mostly based on an individual completing individual requirements.

Fitness: In general, participants in sports get more exercize each week than participants in scouting.

There are some things that I believe scouting is better able to provide. For instance:

Leadership experience. In sports, there is a captain, or perhaps 2 co-captains, for a season. In scouts, there is more opportunity for more participants to learn leadership by serving actively as a leader.

So rather than pitting scouts against sports, position each as providing lessons in character, citizenship, and fitness in different ways. Ways that can complement each other, and/or that fit different interests.

Venividi

Something that hasn't been touched on is that scouts want to know what the expectations are, and that they want expectations to be fair.

The scouts themselves know when one of their peers is approved for advancement by the SM & BOR for merely being rostered for the appropriate length of time and for getting the right number of merit badges. They are used to adults making the rules everywhere else in their life, and will likely not say anything to us adults when they see a scout that hasn't been at more than a handful meetings and campouts since their last advancement still get advanced because he wore a POR patch and completed MB's on his own. What we as adults actually accept speaks more loudly than what we say.

I have found it rather ironic when scouts that are the least active advance (beyond 1st class) faster than those that are most active. The lease active are focused on themselves, and spend a most of their scouting time completing MB's, while the most active are busy being involved in and running their patrol and troop, being more focused on the group than themselves, so do not spend their time allocated to scouting on completing MB's. I think the later have better deomonstrated the aims scouting is trying to achieve.

Old Grey Eagle,

What do you tell a scout in Troop 1, that he cant be an Eagle because he didnt meet the attendance policies of the troop, but had he been in Troop 2 or 3 that wouldnt be a problem?

While I agree in principle that an absolute number/percentage on attendance may not be the best method for measuring activity level, I disagree with your argument. The same question could be posed about any other requirement where there is differences between troops; i.e., if one troop has high standards for scout spirit, and a neighboring troop signs off on scout spirit as a "gimme". And is there a parent that hasn't heard the argument from their child that "Jimmy's parents let him do x,y,z, so how come that isn't allowed in our family?".

Some scouts will gravitate towards the troop with "easy" standards, and others will gravitate towards those that are challenging in the same manner that some students gravitate toward classes that give easy A's, and some gravitate towards classes that are challenging.

Venividi

> Boy Scout Advancment Policy states that as long as a boy holds the position (the title is given to him and isn't withdrawn) it counts.

I have read BSA's Advancement Policy & Procedure manual #33088B and do not recall seeing such a statement. I would appreciate it if someone could point to the publication number and page number where this is stated.

CubsRgr8,

After re-reading my reply, it could be interpreted as implying you should work directly with the scouts. I meant to propose this with the SM.

CubsRgr8,

There are really two issues in your post. Working on the second one will likely help, but not eliminate your problem with invisible scouts.

For the Patrol Leader elections, you wouldn't be out of line to guide the scouts to use the method described in the BSA program, where the patrol leader for each patrol is elected by the scouts in that patrol. Consistent with patrols being "natural gangs of boys", the patrols would be established before the patrol leader is selected.

>She had taken it upon herself to reject some of the merit bage work that the boys put into the yearly planner to help out the new scouts because 'half of the boys already have that badge (first aid).

Ask her why she does not think first aid is worth being reviewed each year by all scouts. I am a MB counsellor for first aid, and personally, I would not be enthused about needing to receive first aid from a scout that had not had a refresher within the past year.

I think much is a matter of priorities and personal choices.

Parents can lay down their expectations with their kids. All the junk food advertizing in the world doesn't matter if parents teach their kids that when they say NO, don't eat those Dorito's, that is what they mean. Even if there is an open bag in the cupboard.

Same with school cafeteria food. If parents suspect their kid is buying pizza and soda despite instructions not to, parents can send a sack lunch, and not let them take money to buy lunches. If this starts in grade school healthy habits are ingrained by the time they are older. Sure, they may choose pizza and soda as an occasional treat, but to blame schools for offering lunch items that are in demand is shifting responsibility from parent to the school.

I also don't buy the story that home cooked meals take too long. Certainly not longer than waiting to get served in Chili's, Friday's, or other family type restaurants. I always found that to take longer than cooking say, pork cutlets, some potatos and broccoli.

Saying healthy food is too expensive is rationalization, not fact. Chips and premade microwaveable snacks are more expensive per ounce than hamemade meals. I have also heard that those that earn less than $25K are more likely to be smokers, so healthy habits are not followed due to financial reasons.

Like scoutldr said, parents have the ability to control how they raise their kids. To blame other factors is to shirk parental responsibility in raising kids that do not bow to the whims of marketing.

The statement "Parents' big frustration is how to change sedentary habits." is more correctly stated as Parents' big frustration is how to change sedentary habits. "Parents' big frustration is how to change sedentary habits without ever having to be the "bad guy" that says no."

Grab a copy of the Patrol Leaders Handbook. Use Page 8 as your lesson plan, and cover what each of those PL responsibilities entail; i.e., what would comleting the responsibility look like. Most likely there is more than 40 minutes of lesson right there.

I see two sub-currents in the post:

>The boy has admitted it and has now found a counselor who will sign >the badge off for him.

What is not clear is did he find a counselor that will sign because he/she sees evidence that the requirements were met, or did he find a counselor that was willing to pencil whip the requirements?. I raise this since it was phrased as finding a counselor to "sign off" rather than as a counselor to "work with". As much as we would like all MB counselors to hold fast to requirements, we all know that there are those that pencil whip the requirements. Which leads to the question of why the scout is finding a counsellor, and not using one specified by the SM. Personal Fitness is one of those badges that (in my opinion), each troop should have at least one parent that serves as counselor for scouts in their troop, because it is Eagle required, and does not require any specialized knowledge. This would aid in quality control.

>It is obvious that the boy does not have his heart in the program >and is being pushed by mom & dad.

If the scout appears to only be going through the motions and is doing it for Mom & Dad rather than himself, is he really exhibiting scout spirit? I would recommend talking with the SM about meeting with the young man to discuss the obvious lack of heart, and whether that is consistent with the scout spirit requirement.

Don't think of it as a situation of denying Eagle. Think of it as Eagle has to be earned by the scout; - by his meeting all requirements, including being trustworthy (part of the scout spirit rqmt). This puts the responsibility on the scout, and not on the SM and BOR.

A question to consider is whether you as COR, the SM, the committee members that serve on Eagle BOR's, and the committee members as a whole are on the same page with what constitutes meeting the requirements as stated. It becomes difficult if some parties see scout spirit as being a role model for other scouts to follow with respect to trustworthy, loyal, helpful,etc., and others see acceptable scout spirit as not having been arrested in the last month.

I read into this that it isn't just an occasional oversight, but a conscous decision to pass out awards for showing up. Have you tried having a discussion with her about how praise and rewards for achievements not being met may boost self esteem in the short term, but long term is detrimental? Perhaps she doesn't see past the short term.

EagleinKY wrote:

Every scout that I have seen run for SPL has run on a promise to "make meetings more fun". Most of the SPLs I have seen elected go to their first PLC and asks "OK, what do you guys want to do?", and do not offer any suggestions of their own. I asked about this at the PL training this past week, and the responses boiled down to the effect that there is a fear that their idea will be seen by the other scouts as lame, and they don't want to risk proposing something that they are not certain will be accepted. It lead to a good discussion on how the "brave" point of the scout law applies to the situation.

Majbob,

I would add to Fscouter's suggestion - purchase a copy of the SPL handbook for the SM, and PL handbook for the SM and ASM's. Those books present very clearly what the jr leaders are supposed to be doing, and the scouters can then teach, guide, (and push?) the scouts based on the discrete leader fuctions in the books.

As an aside, I just spent an evening reviewing PL responsibilities with newly elected PL's (at the request of the SM). I used the PL handbook as my guide. I found they did understand what they were supposed to do, and why. One scout did ask about what the minimum acceptable level of effort would be and still get credit towards advancement. He was refreshingly honest.

"but because of other competing activities, only a relatively small number of boys go on any particular camping trip"

This is a common problem. Some PLC's have set minimum participation requirements (emphasis on PLC decision, not adult decision). Some require that patrols stay with their patrol on campouts, even if only 2 scouts from the patrol attend. Frequently, it is as you state: virtual patrols, which makes it difficult for patrol leaders to lead, because it is never the same set of scouts, and the boys don't really see themselves as real patrols.

"Adults were heavily involved in the cooking & cleaning."

Ask questions as to why they do this - you will benefit in understanding what is behind this. There are good lessons being missed if adults are doing the cooking and cleaning. Sometimes, some troops have adults cook for special occasions, such as a campOree where the scouts are not trusted to be able to complete cooking and cleaning quickly enough to get back to the program on schedule. (I have a similar opinion of adults cooking at Summer Camp i.e. dining hall, but that is a whole 'nother topic, one in which my view is in the minority).

I personally prefer tents sized to accomodate 2 scouts. Our troop used to have several larger tents that would accomodate 3 or 4. Our experience was that with more than two scouts in a tent, there was a significant increase in lack of sleep. When the zippers failed on them, they were replaced with the smaller tents.

Sounds like you are doing the right thing in looking at and evaluating multiple troops. Capture these observations, and ask each troop about them.

I would recommend two things that would be valuable in helping you evaluate troops: 1) A description of each of the Aims & Methods. (can be found at meritbadge.com and other places). Use this check for indications that methods are being used to achieve aims, and not simply an end in themselves. 2) A copy of the Patrol Leader's Handbook. I found this at least as valuable as the Scoutmasters Handbook, perhaps more so, because it presents, in a simple manner, how patrols are supposed to operate. With this info, you can observe if troops attempts to teach the scouts consistent with BSA program.

I agree with Fscouter.

Being Courteous and Kind come to mind. I am sure that no malice was intended when the comment was made. But when pointed out by someone the insensitivity of it, it is worth considering the other person's perspective. As Fscouter says, the person deserves respect.

Eamonn,

Thanks for letting me know that I wasn't getting my point across. I didn't realize that I hadn't explained it well enough. I will try to do better.

You say in your last post "Clearly the SM was not in the right."

The point I was trying to make was that to me it is not clear, because I have heard only one side of what may be a more complicated story. I have seen and experienced too many examples of parents viewing the SM as wrong because they were not seeing the whole picture.

It wasn't my intent to get into the merits of theparticular thread you are refering to; I recognize that it may very well be an accurate representation of the entire picture. My intent was to be more general, and comment on the number of responses to a couple (or several)threads, where many of the responses were along the lines of validating that SM was in the wrong.

Yes, the SM may be in the wrong, but my premise was that it is prudent not to jump to that conclusion without first looking at a situation from other points of view.

I hope that I did a better job of explaining my point.

Cheers.

Why are you asking?

This isn't your job.

Leave it to the nominating committee, that's what they are there for.

Agree - its not the SM's job. Speaking for myself, I have to say that I was a slow learner. I think it is the "helpful" trait expanded to the extent that it overflows into picking up any job that needs to be done. Call it a character flaw.

I raised the topic after I saw the post about another SM making reservations and collecting fees as I used to do; so I see that it wasn't just me that has/had this problem of taking on tasks that I shouldn't, so thought it worth discussing.

And I will add another benefit to any SM that is making campout arrangements - that time spent is time that could have been used having SM conferences with some of the scouts; or providing some coaching to the Jr. Leaders.

Fscouter wrote: We post reactions based on the one-sided scenario that is presented. If the facts presented point to the adult leader being a twit, I don't see anything wrong with saying so.

Which, in my opinion, is doing a disservice. We don't want our scouts to "react" to a conflict situation, we want them to work it out. If a scout came up to me and told me that another scout hit him for no reason, I wouldn't assume this was factual and then suspend the second scout. I would want to ask a few questions first (or ask the SPL to do so). Because it just may come to light that only half a story was told; that the first scout had been teasing the other for the entire weekend. And that from the first scout's point of view, the teasing was just in fun, so to him the second scout hit him for no reason.

If I were to react based on the first scout's initial story, I would be validating his behavior (in his mind), implying that he was in the right, when in actuality he was a contibuting factor to the problem.

On the other hand, we (or the SPL, if we asked him to intervene), may find out that the second scout did hit him just because he happened to wander by after the scout got beaten by the Zorkons on his Gameboy.

Hence, in opinion, it is better to ask before react.

Regards,