Venividi

"So why is it the adults are running the show under the disguise of boy leadership?"

That could be said about so many things; i.e., why are adults determining the advancement requirements? Would boys select knot tying, cooking, hiking, identifying wildlife, etc. for requirements in their troop or patrol? What if they chose to replace them with beating a given number of computer games, memorizing episodes of sponge bob, and eating 12 big macs at a single sitting at McDonalds (or any other requirement that the boys want)?

Why are adults determining the aims of scouting? Why not let the boys decide what the troop and patrols aims should be? So what if the aims they come up with are different or non-existent?

Whay are adults determining the methods of scouting? If a patrol wants to use a method they call "hanging out", etc., why should an adult care?

This can all be characterized as "adults running the show under the disguise of boy leadership".

"I guess none of you remember Clinton's 2000 "Cops in Schools" program"

And your implication is what? You thought that the Cops in Schools program was good, so that is why you are for the NRA proposal? That one bad idea from requires unquestioning support of any similar proposal?

Hutchinson's statement refers to planning and implementing a program to place armed guards in schools. He does not state that NRA will pay for those guards.

"Hmmm, which teacher is carrying concealed? Is it the principle [sic], the gym teacher, the librarian, or is is it the history teacher? "

I don't think it matters. Seems that those individuals that have done these atrocities expected to be killed, or took their own lives. I therefore doubt that not knowing who might or might not be armed would be a deterrent.

Anyone that truly believes that having an armed guard or one (or more) teachers with a concealed weapon will stop or even deter a shooter, please raise your hand. I have a hard time understanding how anyone could believe NRA's recommendation could be effective. There are just too many opportunities to simply take the same actions against students without actually entering the school or stepping on school grounds.

Perhaps outside recess should be banned, no outdoor sporting events allowed, and flanks of teachers at the beginning and end of the day as the students are escorted to and from buses?

1) SM, ASM's, CC, and Adv Chair all have to have a common vision. If vision has not been discussed among these folks recently, make this a priority. It is easy to assume that the others have the same vision that you do, but that assumption is usually wrong if it has not been discussed repeatedly and written down.

2) Communicate to the parents. Troop vision might be published on the troop's web site, most certainly should be communicated in an annual or semi-annual parents meeting.

3) Parents whose vision for their son is focused on advancement get a consistent message when talking with SM, ASM, CC, and Advancement Chair.

4) Enlist the aid of parents that understand the troop vision. They can assist in explaining the benefits of the troop program and the changes that they have seen in their son that is worth much more than rank advancements.

5) If parent doesn't come around, have a meeting with the parent and suggest that this is obviously not the right troop for his family, and you will be more than happy to transfer the scouts records to another troop.

Note: this type of behavior needs to be handled quickly and directly. Other scouts and families will notice if troop standards are bent for a vocal parent.

chaoman45,

It depends on what your goals are.

My experience with age based patrols is that the job of PL is much much harder. New scouts look up to and and are willing to take direction from an older patrol leader. His couple of years more experience than them makes him an expert in their eyes. They learn from the older scouts in their patrol, and then are ready to lead other new scouts as they come into the patrol. Younger scouts are less likely to take direction from their immediate peer - who doesn't know any more than the rest of the patrol and is not respected to the same degree as an older scout would be, so they aren't as likely to take direction from a PL their own age. In an age based patrol, the PL is less likely to really "lead", because 1) it is difficult to lead others when you don't know enough to give them guidance and direction, and b) the scout has not had the opportunity to be led by a PL that has had opportunity to learn leadership skills through practice, and therefore has no one to emulate. In a mixed age patrol, with proper guidance, older members of the patrol grow to feel responsibility for the new members of the patrol.

If on the other hand, your goal is to have a place where boys have fun hanging out, then age based patrols fill the bill. As the boys age, and some drop out, patrols start to merge. They don't feel the same level of responsibility for the younger scouts and new scouts, because they aren't in their patrol. Older age based patrols that I have observed tend to hang out without doing much unless pushed to do so by adults, and they then grow to feel that they are being made to be baby sitters.

Something to consider is letting boys make decisions with appropriate guidance from the SM. Depending what the adult leaders vision for the boys, you will help them learn. Scouts need guidance, because there are a whole lot of things that they dont consider, because they dont have the perspective based on multiple experiences.

After a few months, meet with the patrols and ask some guiding questions. Things like:

How are the new scouts learning scout skills? Do you think that their scout skills are as good as they could be? How have you made them to feel that they are part of the troop? Do you feel that you have a responsibility to them? Why or why not?

How are the interpatrol competitions working when you have the age disparity between the patrols? Does one patrol have an unfair advantage because of size and age? Are the competitions truly challenging for the older patrol? Are the competitions unfair for the younger patrol?

With this type of guided questioning, the scouts should gradually start to understand, and consider when making their decisions.

allangr,

I agree with your comments.

Building on Barry's insight, it makes apparent why it is counterproductive to form ad-hoc patrols on campouts by combining members of various patrols when only a few members of each patrol attend; the benefit of attending a patrol cooking summer camp rather than a dining hall camp; the benefit of real inter-patrol competitions at troop meetings, campouts, and events. It is all structured to provide an environment where the patrol storms naturally.

Each of 7 scouts likely personally knows some people younger than themselves, whether through their churches' youth groups, high school sports teams, neighbors, and as Qwazse suggests, girlfriend's younger brothers. Each of you can invite two people to come to your next activity. And the activity after that, and ... (Invite to activities, not to meetings; unless your meetings are as fun as your activties)

Thing is, you just can't tell prospective members that you have great trips, you've got to let them experience them. And they won't experience them unless they are invited. Advertizing to groups is not as effective as personal invitations. If you want the troop to grow, all of you will have to invite, and invite again and again, person to person.

What gets in the way: people's fear of rejection. It is the same thing that keeps someone from asking the cute girl in algebra class out to a movie - what if they say no; I'll feel like a moron, they will tell their friends that I am a jerk, etc. etc. Thing is, this fear is natural, but typically overblown. Some of the people that you personally ask will say no, because they aren't interested in that kind of activity, or for a number of other reasons of their own. Most will feel good that you thought enough of them to invite them, even if they don't come.

How to get the 7 of you to follow through on invitations: At your next meeting, discuss this, and ask for their commitment to invite 2 people before the next meeting. Once people verbally commit to their peers, they are more likely to follow through. then review each week and thank those that did follow through, and ask those that didn't for renewed commitment. (as a side benefit to this, the fear of approaching and asking will diminish, and your friends just might end up asking out the cute girl in algebra class)

Seattle Pioneer writes: I don't know about others, but I'M impressed wen I see the Eagle Scout box check on a youth application by a father!

My experience was different. Back when I was a new cubmaster, I was excited when I reviewed the tiger cub applications saw a number had marked life and Eagle.

To a man, all declined involvement as a tiger cub leader, even after several requests for assistance. Sometimes Eagle means that the holder was more interested in his own advancement and reward than in the team (i.e. patrol).

sthumper

I think you are on the right track, though I would caution against an over-reliance on training. (I recognize that I may be inferring improperly from the frequent mention of training in your last post).

As training chair, I've had many discussions with people whose solution to "whatever issue" is training. Yes, training is necessary, in context, and when the person to be trained is ready for the lesson. This has been the case for both adult and youth - if there is an issue, many people want to address it by adding it to training.

However, my observations is that training is no substitute for mentoring, nor for the careful consideration and setting up of an environment where learning takes place on it's own. Adults have the benefit of being able to sit down together to discuss a problem and possible solutions, though they are as likely to need someone to pull them together for a guided discussion as the youth are.

Regards,

VV

duplicate post(This message has been edited by venividi)

Try adding interpatrol competitions that get the patrols to pull together. Give points to winning patrols in the weekly inter-patrol competitions. Points for interpatrol competitions on campouts. Points on campouts for most creative meal for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Points for first patrol to set up thier patrol campsite. Points for first patrol to break camp. ( Deduct or disallow points if cookware is not cleaned properly).

Have a quarterly award and annual award for winning patrol for the quarter / year. Make the award meaningful to the boys - pizza at the COH for the winning patrol, or a special dinner for the winning patrol cooked by SM at the next campout, ...

Boys love competition. Using inter-patrol competitions in a meaningful way will start to get them to pull together. the older boys wil have to help the younger ones learn skills in order to win patrol competitions. Without competitions, and recognition that comes with winning, the boys are really just hanging out, and it is understandable that if they are just hanging out, would want to hang with the other boys their own age.

curiosity question: you state "There was little scout spirit with helping the younger along [in the old structure]." Meet with the SPL, ASPL, SM, and ASM's and discuss what the units expectations are for the scout spirit advancement requirement. sounds like the boys may be being told that they have scout spirit (i.e., the requirement is signed off), but that you have rservations that maybe they don't really, at least not to the level that is expected.

You don't say where the great idea to blend patrols came from - while that is water over the dam at this point, consider givng the PLC the challenge of determining a solution to the issue of "older patrols wanted little to do with the younger patrols". Help them see that this is a real issue, and they need to solve it. then provide guidance.

Recommend that you search old threads here, as same age vs mixed patrols has been debated frequently. Once you get past peoples personal preferences, you will find descriptions of the pros and cons of each, which you can bring up in discussions with PLC and other unit scouters.

(This message has been edited by venividi)

Spiney,

1) Lack of attendance at patrol meetings

Thought to consider: Are patrol meetings really important for a reason that the scouts believe, or are they important because adult leaders say they are important? Analyze why or why not the scouts view the patrol meetings as important. What is the impact to a scout or patrol if scouts miss patrol meetings? Doesn't sound like the campout is impacted, because patrol members simply hook up with another patrol. Likely you will need to figure out a linkage between attendance at patrol meetings and things that the scouts (and perhaps parents) care about. And then let the consequences happen, even if that means letting scouts flounder for a bit. Afterwards is a good time to have a conference with the scouts about how to do better. [similar to the scene in SM/ASM specific video after scouts didn't show up to an event that the PLC had planned].

2) Lack of signups for high adventure

I've seen this. Boys tend to be very risk adverse and unsure of themselves when considering something like a high adventure. They don't want to fail, and will choose not to participate rather than risk failure. It is particularily true if the basic T-2-1 scout skills are weak. Two things are needed here: a) up the game on the basic skills. evaluate whether scouts are getting signed off and then infrequently using the skills. b) Adults and older scouts should talk to scouts individually, talking about what the trip involves, how fun it is, and that they have confidence that the scout will do well on the trip. Note: don't have this conversation with those scouts that truely are not ready due to lack of outdoor skills, social skills, maturity,...(This message has been edited by venividi)

No rule against it, but any scoutmaster that has the best interest of the scouts in mind would send his scouts to a variety of counselors rather than to one counselor for many badges.

Why look for a rule from National to back up a decision that a scoutmaster should be making? We're already awash with rules; dont need rules to make decisions at the unit level that further the aims of scouting.(This message has been edited by venividi)

thoughts - seperate the two, (backing out on their commitments and the MB work) and (Scout master role and MB counsellor role).

A natural consequense of not living up to their stated committment to attend the camporee and the expected commitment to their troop would be that they are not demonstrating living to the scout law. Have conferences with them individually to listen to each boy's view of how they preceive that they are living up to the scout law when they are not supporting their troop, not supporting the new boys, and backing out on their commitments. Express your disappointment, and, if they are motivated by Eagle, that you will need to see a change in attitude and effort before the troop will recognize that they have met the scout spirit requirement.

When you take off the SM hat and put on the MB counsellor hat, don't mention any of the above. continue to have real but reasonable expectatins for their MB work. If you are scheduling the time to meet on the MB, stop doing so. Tell them that all future MB meetings must be scheduled by them, with a specified lead time (several days in advance in consideration of your time; not a " hey Mr Travis, can we meet right now?)

It's good to ramble. A lot of good thoughts come out.

I was thinking along the lines of alignment of advancement and patrol methods. I think of the often seen phrase used in sports: "There is no I in team". Extending to the patrol method, there is no "I" in patrol. As you say, skills development is a key in a patrol. A team or patrol works best with no "I". Teams are all about the group and the group accomplishments. The best person on a team can't win if there is no teamwork. The win is the award for performing well as a team, and is the incentive to get better as a team. I don't see a similar award for incenting performance as a patrol. Rather, scouting puts greater emphasis on the "I" through the awards given as individual awards rather than as patrol awards. Since typically one gets what one incents, individual advancement fequently trumps the group. It's easy to see when patrols frequently have 2/3rds or less of patrol members at meetings and outings. The citizenship lesson of being there for your patrol, of being trustworthy and helpful to the patrol; the character trait of showing up because the patrol needs you, even if there is something else that you would rather have done tht night, the loyalty to the patrol; are not very well incented by the advancement method.

In that respect, team sports may actually do more to develop citizenship and character than scouting - because the impact of not showing up to a team practice or game is greater on the team than not showing up at a scout event is to the patrol. Sports does provide some individual awards - most improved, MVP, etc., but they are typically less important than the team award. In scouting, that seems to be reversed.

note: it doesn't have to be that way, but it is the way that the incentives are lined up.

(This message has been edited by venividi)

In the other thread, several people commented on the benefit (or lack thereof) of the various required MB's for advancement. it got me to thinking bigger picture, and whether the entire advancement process has a positive impact on patrol method. Requirements are done as individuals. Awards are given as individuals. Sure, there the honor patrol award is available, but do more than a few troops use it or even promote it? Is it held in as high esteem as Eagle scout? I think not. Fostering citizenship and character are to a large degree based on doing things for others; helping others; yet the highest award is based on individual effort.

Would scouting be better off if being in an honor patrol meant more than eagle scout?

BD,

See Eagle732's quote from the advancement guide. Yuor questions gave you doubt that the scout completed the requirement. As per the quote 732 posted, you do not have to accept a partial. You have sufficient reason for not accepting. so your statement that you cannot retest a signed MB requirement is not correct.

When I encountered a similar situation, I explained to the boy and his father that the scout law applied to me as well. I was expected to be trustworthy, and that when I put my signature on the card, BSA was trusting that I, to the best of my ability, believed that the requirements were completed. That I believed him that when he said that he had already demonstrated how to apply a bandage, but I needed to verify, because BSA was trusting in me as a MB counsellor. We then worked together to make sure that he learned the material, because he couldn't demonstrate at even a novice level.

Simiilarly, based on your questions to the scout, you could not ascertain that the requirements that you asked about had really been done, or otherwise the scout could have answered your questions. You did the right thing.

Side noe: had a friend go through something similar, and was willing to work with a boy to complete the MB correctly. The boy chose to find a different counselor willing to sign off.

At the end of the day it comes down to whether when you look at yourself in the mirror, you believe that you did the right thing for the boy, because you will also get answers here that advise you that you must sign.

> I don't want to see any boy quit, ...

Why not? If it is clear to you that they do not want to do scouting, they may be wanting to be asked to leave. Don't spoil scouting experience for the boys that want to be there in order to keep a few that don't want to participate in the planned activities.

> I want to take care of this before it gets to a point where I have to ask them to leave.

Meet with each boy individually. Explain the expectations for continued membership, then ask if he wants continue to be part of the troop. If the answer is "no", it may be that he needs help telling his parents that he really would rather be doing something else. If the answer is "yes", make clear that you will be calling his parents to pick him up if you see him continuing his present behaviour.

Part of a friendly SM conference to ask questions, listen, find out what is going on in the boy's life, share your concerns for him and how his actions are affecting the rest of the troop, and request his buy-in.

You will get better results with one-on-one chats than by talking with thenm as a group.(This message has been edited by venividi)

A WSJ article that is appropriate given the concern people have over minimal checking off of requirements for rank advancement vs. having realistic expectations. Boys need challenges.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443819404577635352783638934.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle

(This message has been edited by venividi)

We all have different skills and abilities. GKlose has spent many hours on this. In an ideal world, the SM has all the abilities, and all the time in the world to deal with every situation involving each boy in the troop. And still have time for his own family.

Its not an ideal world. As long as we were of common mind and in general agreement on the goals, objectives, and methods, as a SM I would welcome the help of GKlose in this manner. It is something to discuss in advance, or as soon after an ad hoc discussion with a scout on such a topic would occur.

Teamwork

I'll take a stab at that answer. from my perspective - it is common to look back at "what I should have done, or what I should have said", when thinking of how we could have handled things better. I look back at one scout that I think I could have helped better by not pencil whipping the scout spirit requirement for 1st class and star. It doesn't gnaw at me, I don't think of it frequently, but it occasionally comes up when exchanging the inevitable war stories that scouters share when getting together in a social setting. Perhaps "regret" is to strong a word; though there is much to learn by reflecting on such things.

Many people think that Eagle is the the goal of scouting. Should be a goal of all (o most) scouts. And many scouters come at it from a minimum requirement, got all the boxes checked, here, you get the award, mentality. Somewhere, lost in all of this "there is no bad boy, only bad leaders" mentality, we forget that scout spirit is a huge part in the list of requirements on the trail to eagle. When adults forget that, it is no wonder that scouts try to skate and claim a right to an award with minimal effort.

And the unspoken message sent to all the other scouts is "you get praise and awards for being the sloth of the troop; that the troop rewards those that focus soley on themselves, ignoring the needs of their patrol and troop mates; that you're a schmuck and a sap if you put forth effort".

The whole advancement methodology is curious. It is an individual award that purportedly rewards both self initiative (learning, OK, to some, doing once, various skills), and service to the group (POR's, scout spirit demonstrated by being helpful, kind, courteous, etc.). If the people responsible for approving the awards, (i.e., the adults), have such low standards for scout spirit that a scout that is never seen is brought up in front of the troop and lauded as the best of the best, as an example of what they should aspire to, the whole thing becomes a joke to the boys. The award becomes the goal, everything else be damned.

Stand up for what you believe is right. Stand up for what you believe is in the best interest of ALL the boys in the troop. And if that means that you don't sign the eagle application because you have not seen the boy demonstrate scout spirit, and he cannot adequately explain exactly how he has demonstrated scout spirit, so be it. Explain the appeals process, and let him pursue it. Should the council or national approve giving the award, so be it. That is there perogative. Your responsibility is to the ENTIRE troop, and part of that is teaching and demonstrating standing up for principles. We want our boys to learn that in scouting. The best way to teach it is to let the boys observe you living it. Sure, it is a difficult decision. Let the boys see that is OK to stand up for principles.

GKlose, I hope that one of the lessons learned is that in the future, when a scout is not seen for a period of time, he is contacted for a conference, and if he is not interested in actively participating, then his membership is not renewed. Many adults are reticent to do this, thinking that membership in BSA is a good thing, even if a boy isn't active. As you have seen, this comes back to bite you. And serve as a negative example to all the other boys in the troop. You have to ask yourself if you are willing to sacrifice the lessons that scouting can provide to all the boys of the troop to serve the desires of an individual boy and his family.

It is s hard decision, and many here have provided well reasoned responses from the other opposite viewpoint as well. You and the other adult leaders are the ones that need to consider arguements from both sides, and ultimately be able to look yourself in the mirror and believe that you are doing the right thing for all the boys in the troop.

jamis,

That is a pertinent piece of information - a cycle of observation isn't realistic for you because the troop is short staffed with adults in the program area. Which spawns a question: is the committee well staffed, or is one or two people wearing all of those hats? If the latter, don't start to pick up committee duties because no one else is doing them. Think of the parents as being similar to a patrol - there should be the equivelant of a "duty roster" to divide the jobs up among all of the parents. You wouldn't require a patrol leader to do all of the work for a patrol; don't let that happen to subset of adults. Recruit at least one additional ASM to have useful backup for campouts. It is understandable that the troop takes a summer hiatus if the SM is required to go on every campout.

Consider meeting with the SM and committee chair and outline all the support that you need, (consult the troop committee guidebook; perhaps invite someone from another troop that is known as being well run - perhaps someone that you have met at round table). The CC can then use this list in recruiting adults to take on the various responsibilities. Just like a patrol leader would do in assigning tasks to patrol members :-)

Read the Patrol Leaders handbook. That will give you a good idea of what the patrol leaders are supposed to be doing (and are being taught in Jr Leader training). You may then start to see things that would make good discussion items between you and the SM when you see things in the PL handbook that are being done by adults.