Venividi

Calico,

I don't see anything in the text that implies the SM is providing a "suggestion" when they are providing a name of a counselor, nor that it's "even more up to the Scout's parents" to select the counselor.

It gives the appearance that that you are reading your own thoughts into the text that you quote, in the same manner that you are saying that others are doing.

It is common, perhaps universal, for young scouts to forget their duties. It is the patrol leader's responsibility to follow up with the scouts in his patrol to make sure that their duties get done. The SPL is responsible to check with the patrol leaders that the patrol has completed the duties assigned to the patrol. And Scoutmaster may need to remind the SPL of his responsibility to call the patrol leaders.

This is easier with mixed age patrols, where older scouts serve as PL's and SPL. ThIn general, maturity follows age. A 12 year old patrol leader is going to be as likely to forget his responsibilities as a 12 year old scout. Since your troop is 14 and under, it is likely that even with reminders, the scouts will still neglect to perform the duties that they had agreed to do. Let them fail. If a patrol that was responsible to bring, say desserts, doesn't bring them, then there are no desserts for the event. After the event, review with the PLC the effects of the patrols not doing what they had agreed to do. After 5 or 6 of these, they will start to learn. It's letting them fail in a safe environment.

yep - lots of bits generated about ideas for creating and implementing a program that develops character, citizenship and fitness for boys from age 11 to age 18, each year building on what was developed the year before, and still there are people that misinterpret this to mean that those that have differing opinions are basing their opinions solely on physical age.

What AL is doing is adding FUN! So what if they are also getting a MB? I can see scouts valuing the slide more than the badge because of its uniqueness and that it comes from the unit.

A cool next step could be to engage the SPL / older scouts in making and presenting the slides. And having them suggest and take ownership of other fun unit awards.

Anyone else have the experience of coaching the SPL to come prepared with the school calendar, and PL's to bring ideas of what their patrol wants to do for the next year ... and then at the planning meeting everyone shows up without having done any of the preparation that they had agreed to do?

If yes, what happened next?

If not, how did you prevent it?

allengr - have you tried having the SPL be responsible for bringing the posters/visual aids?

I always like to have the SPL attend the committee meeting and present the planned calendar to the committee.

Beavah: I'm arguin' for the second in both cases.

I'ld argue for the first. I can understand that you prefer the second, but think that your disparagement of those that find planning tools useful distracts from your argument rather than enhances it. I plan for a living. I use tools that are in some ways similar to duty rosters. Responsibility is assigned to individuals - and - team members all pitch in to help. Dispensing with the plan and planning in favor of ad-hoc winging it might work in your field, but it does not work in mine. Different life experiences, different views on the importance of structure and tools to use within that structure. I get it.

Beavah: Real responsibility and communication are learned in other aspects of da badge and program.

I'm not understanding why you think that responsibility cannot be implemented throughout the program. Not understanding why a scout taking responsibility for even the things that you think are "trivial" do not contribute to the development of youth. Perhaps not being responsible for "trivial" items isn't important in your field, but it is important in mine. Again, I suppose the different view is based on our differing life experiences. I ask that you not belittle mine (and two cub dad's)view of the imortance of taking responsibility by saying that the reason is for adults to "feel a swell of pride. The kids have learned how to march. It looks neat and organized." We know it won't look neat and organized. but being neat and organized is a life skill that is beneficial to learn. Though I recognize that you may disagree with the need for organizational skills in life, and therefore may consider it a waste of time to teach.

I find your whole argument that a scout need not take responsibility, coming from a person that strongly advocates the position that a scout cant learn in a once and done manner, highly surprising.

Beavah,

I think your example is trying to compare the wrong documents. Comparing the massive program planning material document with a simple tool such as the blue card misses the mark. I think a better comparison of the blue card would be with the troop meeting planner. Both are simple tools that boys can use successfully.

Would it be beneficial to dispense with the agenda and replace it with something else? You could argue that the agenda is a rigid structure that takes away creativity. That to use the meeting agenda is simply "scouts filling in the blanks". That successful use of an agenda is "the boys have learned how to execute a plan within a rigid structure set up by others." That when boys learn to use an agenda effectively, then "Lots of adults look at that and feel a swell of pride. The kids have learned how to march. It looks neat and organized." If you think that use of planning tools is "of limited usefulness in this day and age to the lads".

But I have yet to see a successful troop where the boys were not required to perpare and use an agenda. (or a duty roster, etc.)

Now in this day, an agenda completed on an ipad could work. As long as it included the various components of the meeting with enough detail listed for the SPL to run the meeting.

I suppose that there is a first for everything - I can't recall disagreeing with Beavah on a scouting related thread before. I think that learning the benefit and usefulness of such tools is one of the benefits that boys get out of scouting.

I've been trying to make sense of this dialog, but am getting lost.

Structure is provided in planning meetings.

Structure is provided in running meetings.

Structure is provided in planning and conducting outings.

Structure is provided in developing skills needed for fun and adventure in the outdoors.

Structure is provided in leadership development.

But structure is not needed in the MB program, and troops that use blue cards are adult driven bureaucracy??

double post

(This message has been edited by venividi)

>Every mixed age grouped patrol has the older boys doing everything for the newbies, but it isn't until the newbies become the old-hats, will they ever have the opportunity to truly lead.

Mixed aged patrols have older boys that are teaching the "newbies" how to do things, delegating tasks to them, helping them learn by watching, and then doing.

And yes, it is when they become the "old-hats" in their patrol that they will have learned leadership skills from watching and working with the prior patrol "old-hats", and then hone them by emulating what they learned from the previous "old-hats". And then the cycle repeats - Its a wonderful thing after it gets rolling.

(If the culture of a troop is such that the older scouts in a patrol are doing everything for the younger scouts, it is time for the SM to bring it to the attention of the SPL.)

Sasha,

When dealing with a reasonable parent, I agree with you. When dealing with a difficult parent that is frequently stirring things up, I would want to put a stop to it. My view is based on my experiences with pushy parents.

Your experiences may well be different.

VV

Many are offering possible ways to accomodate this mother to get her son aquanaut activity pin.

My advice is "don't do it". If you are having difficulty with this parent now, you won't make things any better by changing the program that you have planned in order to accomodate her wishes. Demanding people continue to be demanding; if she is successful at getting you to change your program, she will find other changes that she will want you to make.

If your program gets the boys to Arrow of Light without aquanaut, stand by your program. Any suggested changes, put back on that parent to organize - under the condition that ALL the boys in the den are invited to participate, and that it is a reasonable cost for the families.

I found this exchange interesting and eye opening. It is true that our perspectives are colored by our experiences, and I am suspecting that some of the differences in views expressed on this board about developing a good SPL, and advancement, and POR's in general are the result of those experiences.

Eagledad describes a program where the average SPL is 16 years old. Bnelon commented about a program where SPL held a position for 12 months wouldn't have been designed by a 12 yo boy. Bnelon didn't say the average age of his SPL's, so this comment is general.

In a program that Eagledad describes, I suspect it is unlikely that a boy that is less than 15 years old would consider running for SPL. The boys see the effort that they put into it, and they realize they aren't ready. The SPL position builds on skills developed when they were 13 and 14, they observed older scouts doing the job and being successful and making a difference. The holder of the position is respected for his skills.

In a program where a 13 or 14 YO is elected as SPL, it is unlikely that a 16 YO would consider running for it. They see that the SPL has difficulty leading a troop and running a meeting, the SPL likely doesn't have the skills as yet as a 16 YO would so really can't without a lot of adult intervention. Plus the 16YOs already have the POR completed for advancement, so why take that headache?

This is where I think that the directive of FCFY and star within 2 years falls short. It rushes advancement and doesn't let the skills needed by a good SPL to develop naturally.

High adventure opportunities

Fred,

Would you agree or disagree that the previous GTA that stated scouts that held a POR for 6 months and had not been removed from the position, has met the POR requirement, even if he did nothing, was in a boy's best long term interest?

That was part of the advancement method as per the previous GTA. Do you believe that everyone else should also regard it as good for the boys, because BSA put it in the GTA?

And what is your reaction to the most recent GTA that backed away from that statement? Was wearing a patch without doing the job good for the boys for a couple of years, and then no longer good for the boys after the section was re-written and re-published?

Reading posts over the past week or two, (and especially today), reminds me of a popular bumper sticker in the late '60's / early '70's: My Country, Right or Wrong. This was a jingoistic response to those that protested against the VietNam war. To those that espoused that view, it did not matter if the war was constitutional, whether it was of benefit to the citizens of the nation, whether there were corporations secretly lobbying because it was good for their profits. It only mattered that the government had made a decision to "support" Viet Nam, and therefore citizens must support it, even if there was legitimate disagreement or doubt as to the purpose for the "war".

I see a strong analogy to those that support statements in BSA documents in the most literal sense. Even if those statements are not consistent with BSA's own rules and regulations, nor with specific sections of the Guide to Advancement that provide instructions to leaders on the advancement method: not an end in itself; designed to educate; recognition of what a scout can do, not a reward for what he has done; personal growth being prime consideration; age appropriate surmountable hurdles; a scout learns as the first step; that it is to be administered in a way that is harmonious to the aims of scouting.

Even if that interpretation is not be in the best interest of the boy (I have yet to see anyone argue that it is good that a boy can forget a requirement a day, a week (or 15 minutes) after it was signed off), but yet they still express the view that one cannot expect such retention, because "that would be adding to the requirements".

And they are correct, when requirements are considered in isolation. But there is much that must be ignored, both in the BSA literature and in what is in the best long term interest of the boy, in order to read those requirements as literal. In order to comply with the one sentence that says, in part, don't add to the requirements. Apparently that statement must be taken as "law", as an isolated statement, because it came from BSA. All of the context provided by BSA, all of what is actually good for the boy, must be ignored. That rule, that "law", must trump everything else.

My BSA, right or wrong.

(This message has been edited by venividi)

> Getting the scouts to eagle is important but not at the cost of having fun and learning leadership, outdoor skills, and citizenship.

Getting scouts to eagle should not be important to us. Providing a fun environment where scouts are challenged and can develop character, citizenship, and fitness is what should be important. It is a mistake to think that one implies the other.

I suspect that is what you meant.

qwazse,

It's easy to figure - if you have a fun program that is constantly providing new challenges, many of the boys are there for the fun. Very likely the lad isn't there for advancement, and isn't concerned about it. It is typically adults that get wrapped around the advancement axle, thinking that they (ie. adult leaders) are not successful if the boys aren't advancing as quickly as the adults would like them to.

I'ld like to blame it on the schools, but it wouldn't be true; I had a brain freeze - and edit option wouldn't let me edit the topic :-( oh well; I suppose it is good to be humbled occasionally.

At the COH immediately following summer camp, the SM would give an award to the scout that most exemplified scout spirit. It was a neckerchief slide that he had carved during summer camp.

After high adventures, miscellaneous awards would be given to particpants, related to something that happened on the trip: a broken fishing pole to a scout that had broken his during the trip; a picture of John Wayne to a scout that had picked up the nickname "The Duke" during the trip.

David McCullough Jr's commencement address at Wellesley High School is in the news; apparently gone viral. Certainly relevant to the discussions on whether BSA advancement should be based on what a scout can do (as specified in advancement literature), or be based on once and done (which can also be derived from BSA literature, as has been argued by some on this forum).

Here is a link to the transcript:

http://www.theswellesleyreport.com/2012/06/wellesley-high-grads-told-youre-not-special/

A quote from the address that was highlighted in this week's newsweek: ...we have of late, we Americans, to our detriment, come to love accolades more than genuine achievement.

Needless to say, there are both people that agree with Mr. McCollough's address, and people that disagree.

(This message has been edited by venividi)

bnelon,

That is the type of hypocrisy that youth see right through. They see when adults give out awards for one and done, that their standards for handing out awards is pathetic.

Why in the world would a sane youth be motivated to pursue an award that, through first hand observation, is not given for what a scout can do (as adults like to say), but is given out for a one and done. Given by adults to scouts that other scouts do not respect. Any young man worth his salt will ignore such awards and devote his attention to something that matters. Something that gives him a feeling of accomplishment.

And yes scouts like success and recognition. But to have success and recognition, troops need good programs.

Success:

Depends on definition of "success". Given the discussion that has been going on, lloks like there is dissagreement as to what "success" entails.

Recognition:

Young scouts like recognition. For anyting.

Mature scouts like recognition when it is for real accomplishment.

Challenging opportunities for real accomplishment will keep boys in scouting. Recognition without being tied to accomplishment will not. (my opinion based on observation)

The common ground that all are agreeing upon is "gotta have a good program".

I'll add a clarification and comment or two:

If your son calls to invite the other scout, and the other scout doesn't want to or can't come, dont feel guilty about signing requirements that your son completes.

Eventually your son will get the message that you expect him to call his fellow scout before he asks you to go to the pool to work on the MB.

I like the suggestions that in the future, strongly consider not working with your son on a MB when there are other counsellors for the topic in the area. Per the MB program material, having a scout call a n adult that he does not know to ask him/her to be a counsellor is one of the benefits of the MB program.

I am not a fan of MB classes because the classroom setting eliminates benefits such as a scout calling to set up appointments with his MB counsellor.

If you are only recently a MB counsellor, you will experience that most scouts that start a MB will not finish. Do not be surprised. It's not the counsellor's responsibility to make sure that they finish.