Venividi

Bearclaw wrote: The problem with assigning everyone a POR is that not every one of these scouts needs a POR all the time – leaving some idle during troop meetings. And Den Chiefs, QM and History POR scouts don’t usually have a lot to do for their duties during troop meetings.

Bearclaw,

I recommend working to bring a change of thinking to the troop from "not every one of these scouts needs a POR all the time", to "the troop needs scouts to do things and contribute regardless of whether they need a POR or not". Perhaps a sublte difference, - the first view is self focused, the second is group focused.

Basement,

sometimes scouts shooting an idea down stems from tendency of boys to stay with the familiar. I had something similar when I wanted to introduce patrol competitions based on scout skills into troop meetings. Scouts shot such games down, wanting to continue to play basketball or football during what had become known as "game time". I offered to PLC to plan a couple of interpatrol competitions, and they were happy to let me. They had fun and adopted started incorporating scout skills competitions into troop meetings.

You might try something similar with campfires. Or simply extend an invitation to the boys for them to join your campfire. You will likly have a few scouts drop by as they tire of ghost in graveyard. Have some campfire stories ready to tell, and you may have boys looking forward to a campfire at future campouts.

SR540,

Perhaps there is a bit of memory of several very vocal posters in a recent similar thread who were quite adamant that the requirement for advancement was to have done the requirement once; that expecting proficiency was adding to the requirements. Looks like this time around that we are all saying that proficiency is and should be required before signing off on a requirement. And that after signoff, there should still be opportunities for scouts to show off their proficiency.

Beavah,

I'm assuming that OGE was referring to 1st class skills, not MB's.

OGE,

I don't think it should be an either / or. A good program should provde many opportunities to use first class skills. Scouts should have opportunity to use and practice the skills many times before he is tested and recognized. Scouts should continue to have the opportunity to use the skills. In a mixed age patrol troop, the first class and above scouts should have plenty of opportunities to mentor the younger scouts in their patrol in those skills. Younger scouts should have the opportunity to look up to older scouts as "proficient", and have the opportunity to be mentored by them.

trails? don't need no stenkin' trails. In the Badlands you are free to hike cross country.

You might also consider the badlands in North Dakota, or the Black Hills, which offers a more shaded environment. Perhaps combine both Badlands and Black Hills.(This message has been edited by venividi)

I agree. Units have the wherewithal to focus on outdoor adventure rather than advancement. And thus attract scouts that are interested in adventure as it builds a reputation for adventure, (perhaps with a focus on a specialty area). Families that are interested in advancement for its own sake will naturally join a unit that supports their interest, and avoid units whose focus is adventure (or service, or ...).

I'm with moosetracker. I like that there is recognition that an option is needed when it is obvious that a scuot didn't get the benefit from a merit badge that only comes from actually doing the requirements as written; no more, no less.

BadenP,

Something that looks like a no-brainer from the outside is very often much more difficult than it would initially seem. I would suspect that they have to figure out how to get new videos made, which doesn't happen overnight - new scripting, reshooting, re-editing,nwe funding, etc.

My opinion only, which may or may not be worth anything.

National has costs. Program costs, staff costs, real estate costs, IT costs...; generally the same type of costs as any other large organization. When losing a source of income, either the income needs to be replaced or costs need to be cut, or a combination of both.

I suspect that advertising income (in boys life and scouter magazines) has dropped. 1) in keeping with the trend of advertisers to move advertising dollars from print (nwespapers and magazines) to web, and 2) decline in number of scouts, and therefore fewer readers of the magazines, affecting ad rates.

How this may have affected units is evident in changes that National has implemented over the past number of years. A good example is the change tried a few years ago where active = registered, doing nothing in a POR = completing the requirement for advancement uless the scout is removed from position (i.e., fired), and transferring any responsibility to be engaged from the scout to the SM. I don't see any reason for such an interpretation other than an attempt to keep membership numbers up by trading on the mystic of Eagle Scout. A view that continued awards would keep the membership numbers up more so than a focus on outdoor adventure. And perhaps they are right, given another macro trend of more indoor activites with computer games, and parental fears of what accidents and dangers lurk outside the confines of the house.

SR540,

I see the difference in why I was not getting your point. In my view, I don't make much of a distinction or care which governmental body is putting it's hand in my pocket to extract my hard earned money. I don't like it being taken and the government (whether federal, state, city, township, school, library, park district,...) deciding how best to use it, and then using it in a wasteful manner. (and yes, I do think that armed guards to purportedly protect against the possibility of another school shooting is wasteful - How are they going to protect against a shooter in a building across the street from shooting kids on the playground?) I want my tax dollars used efficiently, and for necessary services.

In any event, the additional cost to pay for the additional staff would come from taxpayers. Which is something that I would expect would be supported by state legislature in Illinois, a decidedly blue state that likes to increase the public payroll. It just surprises me that a red state like Oklahoma would want to incerase taxes to support armed guards in schools.

As an aside, the police officers in your schools - are they there as guards against potential outside intruders, or are they there as community service officers? Not to say that they cant do both, - do you truely believe that the current level of staffing would prevent a shooting in or around the schools?(This message has been edited by venividi)

> We've had Troop Guides assigned, but for some reason they have tended to be spotty in their attendance or have been focused on other goals (i.e. attaining Eagle Scout). I feel like there's not the same "sense of ownership" with a Troop Guide as there is with a PL.

In the race to Eagle, have SM conferences been held with these young leaders to discuss whether they are or are not meeting the needs of the patrol for whiich they are TG? Whether they are living up to the scout oath and law if their attendance is spotty? An in-depth discussion on the expectations of someone holding the position, and whether the young man believes that he is truely fulfilling his obligations to the patrol and troop? Is it a "gimmee"; i.e., a job that done half heartedly still results in adults saying "Good Job - Here is your award"?

Just some additional things to think about to engage the young men in a manner that makes a difference.

SR540Beaver wrote: Beavah, the 23,800 schools that currently supply armed guards today do not do so with federal funds.

SR540, I'm not getting the point that you are trying to make. Those guards you mention do not work for free. It doesn't matter if they are paid for with federal funds, state funds, or local funds. It's still tax dollars (or borrowed dollars for which taxpayers which will need to be paid by taxpayers in the future).

I'm with acco in thinking that armed guards will not make public schools safer. It's a PR thing to give the illusion of safety. Still too many opportunities unless you ban outdoor recess, have indoor bus loading, ... The risk at schools is still too small to make the expense worth while, unless the illusion of safety is important.

I also don't think that our children should have to go to school in an environment where there are armed guards. An officer friendly, sure. But not armed guards as proposed by NRA. Let grade school kids enjoy the innocence of childhood for a while longer.

Question - When your scouts choose vehicles to ride in, do they ride by patrols, or do they mix?

Comment - when I was SM, I asked the SPL and ASPL to ride with me. Gave us opportunity to talk about their plan for the weekend.

Innumeracy in America is incredibly common...

A bit like an airplane crash makes national news, but a traffic death only makes local news. Even though airplane travel is much safer.

Difference being that people accept the risk that every time they get in a car they might get hit and killed. Steps have been taken to reduce that risk (DWI laws, etc.). Still, people accept the risk and the collateral damage because of the benefit that driving and flying provides.

Parents (and most of society) dont want to accept that the deaths of children to gun violence is acceptable collateral damage in the support of the keeping guns for what appears to have no relationship to the keeping of a well regulated militia.

1 Theschool guard is my shepherd; I shall not want.

2He maketh me to lie down under my desk: he escorteth me to the drinking fountain.

3He restoreth my safety: he leadeth me in the paths of armed protection for my safety's sake.

4Yea, though I walk through my school's halls in the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for the armed guard art with me; his bushmaster and his glock they comfort me.

5He preparest a defensive perimeter before me in the presence of mine enemies: he anointest my head with a bullet proof helmet; my cup runneth over.

6Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the government provided security guard for ever.

After a day of snow tubing, boys will be hungry enough to eat whatever is served.

We had the occasional cooking contest, with award to the most inventive dish. Note: had to resist pressure from ASM's that wanted to declare it a 3 way tie so that no one would feel bad.

Not to be snarky back :-), I'ld like to keep this thread away from any comparison of age based and mixed age patrols. There are plenty of other threads for that. Lets keep this one for sharing of experiences in making age based patrols work. Keep it friendly, no "yah but...the other way is better."

Eagle,

Yes, SPL stopping the meeting is an effective method; I was thinking about PL keeping his patrol from being disruptive; forgot about the SPL controlling the entire troop when the PL is unable to do it.

I agree with using the TG; we only used them for a 6 month period. Perhaps they needed to stay with the patrol for a longer period of time.

Sentinel,

It was not my intent to exaggerate your position, and if that is how it came across, I apologize. I was merely trying to make an analogy, and perhaps didn't do such a great job.

I wholeheartedly agree with your statement "I'm certainly not advocating that the Scouts can literally do ANYTHING they want. There is a program that the adult volunteers do have to carry out."

In addition to a program, we have been given aims of character, citizenship, and fitness. As adult leaders, we mentor our charges. We guide them based on what we want the scouts to get out of the program. Some of us want scouts to hang out with their friends and learn a few outdoors skills. Some of us want scouts to learn leadership skills.

So in my mind, I see little difference between guiding scouts to select meals that need to be cooked and guiding scouts in structuring patrols.

Cooking requires scouts to work together; it helps them become self confident by learning and continually practicing a skill. Something we want, so adults either require it, set expectations, or use a socratic method to help the scouts arrive at the same conclusion.

Patrol structure impacts how scouts learn leadership. From my view, one structure teaches leadership by scouts first learning to be followers of other, more experienced scouts, and then are able to emulate that when they want to try their hand at PL. The other structure tends to put a scout in a leadership position in more of a trial and error situation, where he has to try to lead scouts when he has not had the experience of being led by another scout, does not know any more than the scouts he is leading, nor have any more experience than the rest of the scouts in his patrol.

I think that mentoring scouts in meal planning, in selection of destinations, and in patrol structure is within the purview of the ScoutMaster, as part of helping to achieve the aims of scouting.

(This message has been edited by venividi)

Sentinel,

If a patrol wanted to order pizza on every campout, or eat only poptarts and cheerios for every meal because the didn't like to cook, would you let them? If you didn't let them, would that be an indication that the troop is not boy led?

Fred and a few others are passionate about using age based patrols. I was not able to find ways to overcome issues that I saw when working with a troop with same aged patrols. I did not find any recommendations in BSA training or literature dealing with the issues that seemed to be inherent. I do accept that others have found good ways to deal with such issues, where I did not.

I'm starting this thread for sharing ways to make age based patrols work. Following are some of the issues I saw with same aged patrols. Please share with the group ways you found to address them.

1) A patrol of same age boys (up until about 14), have difficulty staying focused for even the 15 to 20 minutes of the instruction portion or patrol meeting portion of the meeting. They frequently engaged in horseplay, disrupting the meeting. In multi-aged patrols, there was less opportunity for horseplay, and the senior members of the patrol wouldn't put up with it and put a stop to it without adult involvement. How do you keep the younger lads (10, 11, 12) from engaging in horseplay in same age patrols?

2) A major component of troop meetings and campouts is the inter-patrol competition, which helps strengthen scout skills. In age based patrols, how do you set up a fair competition between patrols?

3) Fred has said that he likes same age patrols because scouts get to be leaders right away. My experience was that young scouts (i.e. 11, and 12)don't want to take on the responsibilities that come with being a patrol leader. They would attend PLC meetings, but with no preparation. How do you get a young scout to really lead, when he has never had the opportunity to learn leadership by observing other boys lead?

4) Scouts that are 11, 12, and 13 didn't willingly listen to or follow their same age PL, even after electing him. Elections were often a "let's stick Billy with it", because being a PL is a lot of work. How do you keep that from being the lesson that young patrol leaders learn? Similarly, patrol members at 11 and 12 would become patrol scribes and patrol QM's, but not want to put the effort into completing those jobs. How do you get 11 and 12 YO scouts to do those jobs without a lot of adult oversight?

5) How do you get the older scouts to feel duty and responsibility to younger scouts when they are in separate patrols? How do you get them to become mentors when they are not in the same patrol? How do you get them to teach the younger scouts unless they are serving a term as troop instructor?

Thanks,

VV

AZMike writes:

It's not honorable to demand that someone else's money be used for the poor, or that he should have to give more because he has more

Mike,

I think you missed Beavah's point. Higher taxes correlate with higher services. Sure, perhaps what is visible is the person in Walmart buying food with food stamps. That is a drop in the bucket (budget?) compared with the cost of national defense. National defense is of much greater value to wealthy people, because they have more to protect. (Perhaps taxes should be paid on overall wealth rather than income?)

Once upon a time I picked up a scout and his Dad from a small grass airstrip near a scout camp to shuttle them to the camp. During the car ride, I asked about whether there was a charge for using the airstrip, as I didn't see any facilities for collecting money. He said no, that the airstrip was government funded. What income level to you think is the main beneficiary of this government funded facility>

perdidochas,

I think that many people believe that the right to bear arms is for self defense, but self defense has nothing to do with it. The right as provided in the second amendment is to defend the state, not the individual.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,...

Thanks, Eagle! You get my point. Without structure, mentoring and guidance, it is not as likely to make a positive impact on the youth!

Eagle,

Here is an example from a quick google search:

http://www.troop124.us/

I have no association with this troop.

A troop might start with the mission of their chartering organization as a guide. You are volunteering your time - what would you like the troop to look like in 5 years? Excellent outdoor skills? A lot of boys with rank of Eagle? Servant based leaders, with Older scouts that help younger scouts without being asked? Boys that volunteer with other charitable organizations? Boys that are strong leaders that are leaders in other school organizations? A fun place for boys to hang out with buddies, and perhaps learn a few basic skills?

Unless the goals are shared, it can be expected that the various families involved will make assumptions of what is important. chaoman's initial question referred to a parent whose vision is boys getting the eagle rank. Implied is that he thinks that lots of eagles is his vision, but rather, perhaps that learning is, with perhaps eagles coming out of it. (simply making an assumption here).

Without a shared vision, people pull in different directions, and it becomes difficult to tell someone like the parent chaoman refers to that his view is not in line with what the leaders are trying to accomplish.

The neat thing is, that when you start to discuss a vision and gain acceptance, while you will lose some scouts whose families' view doesn't line up with your troop's vision, you will attract other families that want the type program that comes from focusing on that particular vision.

How does one leap from freedom having a government that refrains from favoring one particular religion to being against Christmas in general (i.e., at home with the family and in the private sector?)