Venividi

Juggler, Are folks comfortable with her having high expectations for the scouts? Have you talked with a few key scouts to see what they think of her - not just looking for someone easy, but a view tht she is tough but fair? I can think back to when I was in school, and from the perspective of time, it is the tough teachers that I had which I now value.

acco40 wrote: I wonder, I may have saved the troop $150 but in the process reinforced the idea that "the SM will take of it" that permeates many troops. Acco, I agree that you reinforced that message. When I asked specific parents to take these committee responsibilities, and their answers were "no", there was no downside for them. Their sons still went on campouts, because the I took on the committee's work. At the time I viewed it as a necessary activity I had to do in order to let the boys experience scouting. The downside is you risk burning out, and then no one else in the

I agree, it is not hard to explain how the program works. It does beg the question as to whether everyone buys in to how the program is supposed work. I started this thread because I was surprised at the number of responses in other recent threads that took the view that a poster's 2 - 3 paragraph description was the accurate point of view, and proceeded to lambaste the SM for delivering a bad program. Those posts may indeed be factual from every other point of view also, but one cannot tell that until one sits down with the SM (and other interested parties) and discusses it. I

Eamonn, I disagree that the problem is usually that the BSA program is not being followed. My experience with parents that did not think that the program was being followed was that they did not understand the program because they had not been through training, nor read advancement guidelines, troop committee guidebook, etc. So it really didn't matter how good the material was. They didn't understand that all methods are used to achieve the aims. I do agree that there are SM's that are not well versed in the program either - but I believe that most of them are trainable, and new SM'

Thanks, jr56 There are some instances where the Scoutmaster is bringing on his or her own problems because they aren't following the program. Perhaps lost im my ramblings (or perhaps I never got to it) was a message I wanted to convey that when there are instances where a parent or committee member doesn't believe that the SM is providing a program that is consistent with BSA's directive, what is wrong with having a discussion between reasonable adults. And if the program being delivered is outside what BSA guidelines, working together to get there.

Scoutingagain said: Some folks just seem to have a pretty low opinion of adult scouters. After reading many of the responses in a couple of recent threads, I had this same thought. Along with responses recommending meeting with the scoutmaster about program/philosophy/etc. (along with COR, CC, Unit Commisioner)to deal with the issue, there were more than a few responses that lambasted the SM. Responses that the SM is definitely wrong, that the SM is untrainable, that he should be "fired". I don't see how it is beneficial to draw such a conclusion based on a 2 or 3 paragraph descript

#5 The adult leaders job is to TRAIN junior leaders and help them to learn and practice leadership skills not remove them from office. I partially agree. The adult leaders' job is to train the youth leaders. But, IMO, part of the training is instilling respect for the position and assuming the responsibility that if the position is not being filled in a satisfactory way, corrections, up to and including removal may be employed. And I would add that the scout has the ability to fail here also. Scouts can participate in leadership training, be taught how to set goals, given expectations

#2 (Scout Spirit) NOWHERE does the BSA program say that this is determined by the scoutmaster IN FACT the Boy Scout Handbook says that the BEST person to judge this is the boy himself. Aye - there's the rub. A scout that sets low standards for himself, but that other scouts do not enjoy having around because they don't trust him, or because he disappears every time that he is on the duty roster for cleanup, etc., needs guidance in adjusting his standards. It is not my understanding that a scout is eligible to sign off on his own completion of any other requirement, so I would find

This one seems to have nothing to do with building character, citizenship, or developing fitness, but rather to promote the organization. My view differs - I find it very much related to character and citizenship, even if it does serve as another way to promote the BSA. As good citizens of their patrol, scouts should have enough concern with their patrol members that when one of them stops coming to meetings or activities, they call him to find out what is wrong and let him know that they want him to be active again because they have more fun when he is there. I have suggested t

Bob, I didn't read into the post that the canoe trip was limited to the popular new scouts, but rather that the popular new scouts were being utilized to promote getting as many of the new scouts as possible signed up for the prerequisites for the trip, and then all that completed them would be eligible to go. Perhaps I am mistaken, but that is how I took it.

"I personally consult the most popular new Scouts before their first-year summer camp and ask them to sign up for these two Merit Badges so that they can participate in the next canoe trip." Did anyone else find that to be a very unusually statement? More so than unusual, I thought this particular statement intriging. Skills learned in swimming and canoeing MB's contribute to water safety. As the "popular" new scouts have influence over other new scouts (i.e., informal leadership skills), Kudu is using them to encourage the rest of the new scouts to take the same badges at summe

Mike F wrote: When the SM knows about instances where the scouts actions were decidedly Un-Scout like, these are most certainly fair game. True. And I would supplement this by adding that scout spirit shouldn't just be the absence of negative behaviour, but the presence of positive behaviour. As one example: Helpful isn't just being willing to perform specific tasks when asked or cajoled. A scout demonstrating the helpful point of the scout law would be actively looking for opportunities to be helpful; he would notice when another scout needs assistance and offer to help. Venivi

As long as we are speculating as to reasons, perhaps we could also speculate: That the SM has seen some issues with the scout through his observations and through discussions with the scout that you have not-perhaps the scout has spent his scouting time earning merit badges while ignoring other scouts in his patrol that are having diffuculty advancing (a scout is helpful); perhaps the scout held a POR to which he devoted only 2 hours of effort over a six month period (a scout is trustworthy - he can be depended on). Perhaps the scout is focused on his own needs for advancement and does n

Yes I have seen "Paper Eagles", and more often, scouts attempting to become Paper Eagles. I think it involves issues with both the adult leadership and with the scouts themselves. Scouts aren't stupid, and some of them whose focus is solely on the award will be able to game the troop adult leadership to get signoff with no/minimal effort in a leadership position and/or scout spirit, IF adult leadership is not trained and is unwilling/unable to hold such a scout accountable for just trying to slide by. Adults that have low standards for advancement have let down any scout for

Speaking for myself, I recognize that recruitment of volunteers is not one of my strong points. With it not being a strength, nor something that I enjoyed doing, I didn't spend time doing it. I suspect many are in the same shoes. Here is something that I wrote many years ago when I was a cubmaster - thought the list might enjoy. They're looking for volunteers again, Be quick and duck your head. Don't meet their eyes what ever you do, Or just pretend you're dead. Cub scouts and school and basketball, Soccer and PTO, Turn them down, every request, Be firm and just say no.

There are many styles of cooking, and it is the MB councilor's call as what he deems acceptable. I agree with the aplication of heat being required for cooking, and whether it is adding hot water to a freeze dried meal or packing in steaks and griling over a wood fire, both are cooking. This should not be the only time that a scout cooks, so the specfic menu on this one meal shouldn't be a major concern. A related cooking observation: our troop had always gone to a patrol cooking summer camp. About 4 years ago they switched to a dining hall camp. We observed not only poorer coo

We once had a patrol that elected a PL who rarely went on a campout, often came late to meetings and almost always left early, sat out of patrol competitions, and sat quietly while his patrol did campout planning. This patrol then re-elected the scout to a second term as PL! The patrol members viewed the PL job as extra work, and preferred being in a poor patrol over stepping forward and taking responsibility to improve the patrol. Not too different than those parents that think supporting the troop is "someone else's job:.

> I'm interested in hearing the comments of other Scouters. I think its a balancing act. Scouting is a place where scouts can fail, pick themselves up, and get a chance to do better. Some may be looking for attention and will really try to do better after a conference or two. Others benefit from a positive incentive (example: ice cream after the next campout to any patrol that maintains good scout spirit. This may get patrol members to put positive peer pressure on the scout to toe the line). Some require consequences - he may not recognize that what he is doing is serious if he

Bob58 Good Luck on your investigation. I do hope that what you find is a unit that is delivering a great program and a scout that was looking for eagle without acceptable level of scout spirit. That there are multiple adults that supported the SM may indicate that this is case. Sounds like a sticky situation - I don't envy you at all. venividi This January I helped a 17 yr old life scout transfer to a new unit because the new Scoutmaster in his old troop told him w/ his parents present that he wasn't Troop xyz Eagle material. There was no discussion of a lack of "scout Spirit" or

Thanks, Seattle Pioneer. The point I was trying to make was that adults need to be on the same page on what expectations are in order to minimize the potential for advancing an unqualified scout, which was the issue that started this thread. Without proper communication among the adults, everyone is running on assumptions - assumptions of what the committee will support; assumptions that things are the way they are because that is the way the SM wants them to be, etc. I agree with you that helping a scout set goals, coaching them, and then evaluating is part of what a SM does - to

I would recommend a discussion with the CC and SM, and then a committee meeting agenda item about what the committee wants the scouts to get out of the program, and what that means for standards for advancement. You may find that the SM agrees with your position, but did not believe that he would have the committee backing if he had called the scout on not completing requirements, and then not approved him for advancement. SM's, BOR members, and committee members have learning curves too, and are susceptible to the fear of upsetting someone and not wanting to make waves. I speak from an