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 troop has the knowledge or comfort level to take over without major hiccups.

There is a saying "Never do a job that a boy can do", because if an adult does it for him, he won't do it himself and won't have the experience of learning how. I was finally bold enough to extend that same philosophy to the committee. (Fate seemed to smile in that at the same time, a set of new paents whose sons joined the troop were willing to take the committee roles.)

From your perspective, you saved the troop $150. I would have done the same thing, but as you are beginning to wonder, it may not have been the best thing for the troop. I suspect that from the parents perspective they see that you saved them $5.00 (assuming 30 scouts on your outing). And to many of them, while they may appreciate keeping the $5.00 in their pocket, they wouldn't object to paying it rather than taking on the task themselves.

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 think you said much the same when you wrote:

Of course if they are really that unhappy they can take their case to the Troop Committee. If Mr. Scoutmaster is following the program they just don't have a case.

I would hope that all would want to first try to work with a SM, especially a very new one, to make corrections to a program rather than dumping him if it isn't 100% on target.

I think that it is also important to recognize that members of troop committees also have learning curves. And in my experience, are much less likely to take training than are SM's, which brings this full circle back to explaining the program; And my point that people shouldn't jump to the conclusion that the SM is providing a bad program without having a discussion with him.

Cheers

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's can learn it as they gain experience.

My experience with asking for help is also different than yours. I found that it varies by the mix of parents in the group at the time. As an example, When I first assumed the SM role, the operating model of the troop committee was that the SM was responsible for making reservations, generating & collecting permission slips, taking care of equipment, being troop chaplain, etc. I do recognize that recruiting adults is not one of my better strengths, but I did individually ask parents that I thought could do a good job at these, and got "no's". Two years later, out of the group of parents of new crossovers, there were a lot of parents that were eager to help out.

Cheers

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 description.

I have to ask myself why there is such a low opinion of SM's. I expect that, like anything else, there is a bell curve, with a few bad ones, a few excellent ones, and the majority falling in the middle, devoting their available time to providing a program for scouts. Not perfect, and like everything else, prone to mistakes, especially through a learning curve. By sitting down together problems can usually be worked out. Conflict resolution is one of the skills that we try to teach the scouts. It is included in BSA's Jr Leader Training tape. If we think this skill is important enough to teach to scouts, why are so many adults reluctant to use the technique themselves when they see a problem?

I recall an issue that bubbled up shortly after my son crossed over to his troop in '98. There was a conflict in process, with one group of parents working to "fire" the SM because of something that they did not like about the way he ran the program. I never did find out what the initial complaint was, but rather than working through the conflict when it emberged, it got so bad that was a special meeting/hearing with the unit commiss, Dist commiss, head of the COR, and all parents. The DC evaluated and found that the SM was running a program in line with BSA. It was a pretty divisive situation, and did end up in some families leaving becasue they din't agree with the district's position. I recall a number of discussions while I was SM, with heated parents that could not believe that their son had not met expectations for scout spirit for a rank advancement. I am watching a similar scenario play out between the current SM and a set of parents with the CC.

My son is now in college, and I have stepped back to the fringes. I would like to consider getting involved with the troop again, but am wrestling with whether the joy helping scouts stretch and grow in character and citizenship is worth the pain of dealing with parents and committee members that wish to see a program where it is the SM's fault if their son doesn't make Star in 4 months, Life in 6 months, or Eagle before leaving middle school.

#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 for the position, and still decide not to put in the effort to fulfill the requirements of the job, (especially if he thinks that he will get his reward regardless).

I do not believe it is within the adult leaders responsibility to make sure that a scout fulfills the duties of his PositionOfResponsibility any more than it is a teacher's responsibility to make sure that every student gets a 100 on every assignment; that takes the Responsibility away from the scout and puts it on the SM. Provide Encouragment motivatation, and advice, yes. But lead him by the hand so that he does not need to take responsibility for himself, or tell him he did a good job even if he did no job - I don't see that as being consistent with the aims.

#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 it difficult to make the leap that he should sign off on his own scout spirit requirement; though that may not be what you were trying to imply. I do agree that a scout should hold himself to high standards, and that most scouts (but not all) will expect a lot from themselves.

I don't have a book in front of me, and my recollection is often faulty, but I thought that the SM did have a say in whom is eligible to sign off on requirements. In our troop, sign off on scout skills was delegated to any first class scout. I know of others where it is delegated to the patrol leader.

You have me intrigued. I will need to pull out my book tonight.

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 to more than one PL that he should call "Mark" or "Andrew", or whomever has been missing; that this is an important part of being a patrol leader. More typically I find that they tend to be concerned mostly with themselves, and an attitude of if Joey doesn't come, So what? - its not their concern.

And it takes character to invite someone new to come visit. It does require them to ush through any fear of approaching friends to extend an invitation, and I view that as a positive skill.

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 summer camp. I hadn't considered before that these potential natural leaders can be taught to use their natural leadership ability in informal ways to lead the other scouts.

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.

Venividi

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 not interact or participate with his patrol (a scout is loyal). Perhaps the SM has reviewed these or similar issues with the scout, and has reached agreement with him to provide an opportunity for him to demonstrate scout spirit to the level expected by his troop.

There just isn't enough information included in the initial post to ascertain where the problem lies, or even if there is a problem at all. Nothing in the post indicates that there is any animosity involved between the SM and the scout. Rather than assuming the worst about the SM, perhaps you can have a conversation with him about his philosophy in providing and delivering the scouting program. Perhaps you will find that the SM does have the best interests of the scout in mind, and that he is delivering a program that includes advancement which is consistent with BSA's Advancement Policies & Procedures; or verify that he is not.

Venividi

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 which they approve rank advancement without the scout stretching and growing, where he finds out what he is truly capable of.

I think fixing the problem is a responsibility of the adult leadership, since they are the ones that approve advancement.

A major difficulty that needs to be overcome with fixing such a problem is troop parents/leaders/committee members that don't fully understand the program, that fear a scout may leave or be discouraged if held to a standard high enough to be a challenge for him, that underestimate the ability of the scouts to rise to higher expectations, that don't want to make waves or cause controversy, etc. And with the continued influx of new scout parents, this issue must constantly be recognized and addressed to keep everybody on the same page.

Again, scouts aren't stupid, and they recognize which scouts get rank advancements without, for example, being trustworthy enough to take their duties as PL/scribe/etc. seriously, or being loyal to their patrol members, etc.

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.

I'm much too busy to help out, Others have much more time.

It might cost me extra money, I don't have an extra dime.

My work keeps me too busy, I've no time to relax,

To spend time with some kids you see, Is way too much of a tax.

And I've never volunteered before, I don't think that I know how,

Everyone else knows more than me, (At least they do right now.)

Others seem to know just what to do, That is easy for me to see,

They must have done it all their lives, What else could it be?

So rely on them for scout leaders For the girls and boys,

They can coach my kid's baseball team, And deal with all the noise.

I know that they make this world a better place; I want my kids to learn that,

Thats why I have them in the scouts, and sports and stuff like that.

I guess that if I admit it to myself, I've a little time to spare.

They say you can see a kids eyes light up, When they know you care.

So come on and volunteer with me, We'll learn how it is done,

I think that I will make the time, What it might even be is fun.

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 cooking skills among our scouts that had only been to the dining hall camp, but also less cooperation and cohesiveness as patrols in general. This carried over from summer camp to weekend campouts as well. Thus, this year the troop returned to a patrol cooking camp.

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 does not see any consequences as serious. Perhaps there are even some that don't really want to be in the troop, and are using bad behaviour as a way to leave.

If you and the PLC have tried positive approaches, consulted other leaders on potential solutions and they haven't worked, do keep in mind that the rest of the troop (and their parents) are counting on you to make sure that the troop remains a safe haven. Safety is an SM responsibility - both physical and emotional. And scouts are looking to see what standards you accept.

Also consider the scout law as it applies to us as adult leaders:

Can the scouts TRUST scouters to make sure that there is a safe and fun environment? Can scouts TRUST scouters to keep their word (and/or any troop bylaws)with respect to discipline?

Are scouters being LOYAL to the troop if one boy is allowed to continually disrupt the troop?

Etc.

If we are doing our jobs right, the need to suspend a scout should happen infrequently. If bad behaviour has been tolerated in the past, scouts see that as the accepted standard for the troop, and you may see it more often. That you are struggling with the decision probably means that this happens infrequently in your troop.

Good Luck

Venividi

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 any other explanation. Other leaders encouraged the new SM to take the stand & the young man left. The rules should be clear. There is no such thing as a unit specific advancement requirement. We're asking advancement & other district Committee chairs to review this unit w/ an eye toward intervention.

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 the best of his/her ability with the time available. I also agree that impromtu conferences are called for when needed. Actually, in the example that I gave I had, but did not include in the description for the sake of brevity.

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 experience I had as a new SM. Our troop had one scout that was very focused on his own advancement. He did the physical requirements, earned merit badges, but was lacking when it came to showing scout spirit by living according to the scout oath and law. Not that he did anything terribly bad, but he would do things like dissappear when it was his turn on the duty roster to clean up. At his SM conference, found it difficult to tell the scout that I wouldn't approve his advancement. There was no guidelines from the committee; I was on my own, and the culture of the troop had been that the SM provided encouragement, and everyone got approved unless they seriously violated the scout law. This scouts father was the advancement chair, and he let it be known that he expected his son to be advanced. So I as SM, and the BOR, approved his advancement. I found that the scout did not become any more trustworthy, loyal, or helpful over the next 6 months, but he was right there for another SM conference with the right number of MB's. This time I got together with a few key adults and discussed the situation, and they agreed that the scout was not yet ready for advancement. Knowing I had the support of other parents, I had a conference with the scout and told him what I expected before I would approve his advancement. I still found it difficult, but it was a learning experience for me. I came to realize that I (and the BOR) had not been trustworthy when we told a scout that he was ready for advancement when we knew in our hearts that he was not.