Venividi

dfolson,

When your son asks to go to the pool, ask your son if he has invited the other boy. If he hasn't, that is an opportunity for a lesson in citizenship for your son - that a scout is concerned for his fellow scouts. Gets scouts to think of others.

As MB counsellor, it is not your responsibility to chase scouts to work on a MB, but it would be a scout's place to contact another scout and ask him to come along.

Potential Alternative analogies:

National Ski Patrol

NSP (I was a member a dozen years ago), per their web site, their role is serving the public and outdoor recreation industry by providing education and credentialing to emergency care and safety services providers.

i.e., they provided education material for training ski patrollers, and material/instructions for the regions that have been established across the country to test the patrollers. After successfully passing, individuals receive their certification from NSP.

NSP supports ski areas, and each ski area has requirements that are based on the needs of that area. Four Lakes in Illinois has different needs than Ski Cooper in Colorado. NSP supports them both. Because they serve the needs the individual areas; akin to BSA supporting the needs of the chartering organizations.

Or to stick with franchising: Kumon education centers. Francisees receive material in how to set up and run a tutoring company. Certain standards must be met (signage, approved location, marketing,...). The franchisee's customers, i.e. the students to be tutored, have differing needs and differing goals. Thus I suspect that the franchise agreement is much different than a McDonald's agreemenets.

the other current topics about what lisabob's son was over heard saying, people's ideas on changes for the Guide to Advancement, the differing views as to whether it is better for the boys to go with once and done or have some level of proficiency of skills, the dkurtenback's observation on a disconnect between skills needed for advancement and skills needed for sucessful outings got me to thinking of some good questions to ask at a BOR, perhaps for first class and above:

BOR question 1: You've spent the last x years learning and practicing the skills needed for high adventure trips; week long backpacking, canoeing, mountaineering are all potential troop trips in the future. If you needed one of your first class skills while on a high adventure, how confident are you that you would still know how to do it without looking it up in your SHB?

BOR question 2: While you are on a HA trip, you will be dependent on the skills of the other boys in your crew. Your life may even depend on their navigation skills or first aid skills. How would you rate the first class skills of the other boys in the troop? If you had an emergency while in a remote location, do you think that they know scout skills well enough to respond?

BOR question 3: What suggestions do you have for changes in the troop in order for you to be confident that the first class scouts have the skills that they might need on a high adventure trip?

Could be very revealing, and good material for a program discussion between the advancement chair, CC, and SM. My bet is that when helping the boys to connect the skills to adventures, they would not be proponents of once and done.

bnelon,

If you want to have minimum standards for the boys in your unit, you are free to do so. The guide to advancement has paragraphs, sections, and phrases that support that. If you want to have meaningful standards, your unit can have them also, as supported by the section from the GTA that you quoted about advancement being a means to an end, not an end to itself.

Yes, the GTA is self-contradictory. Which you choose is dependent on what you are trying to achieve, and which you think is more valuable.

My wish for changes to the GTA is that the document would be re-writen to make the rest of the document consistent with the section you quoted in your post on 6/15/2012: 4:32:43 PM. But I don't think it will really matter, because those that are looking for rules to make advancement as easy as possible will find them, those that have the bigger picture in perspective will do what is in the best interest of their boys, even if it means focusing on program and ignoring BSA redefinition of words that make the words meaningless.

I understand that to some people "character" means following BSA's definitions of words for advancement. But to others, "character" means doing what is in the best long term interest of the boys in their charge.(This message has been edited by venividi)

I'ld go for no term limits. Term limits implies positions are something boys have to do to advance. The whole advancement mindset becomes "what do I gotta do" to earn my next patch? How can it get done with as little effort as possible. That's really not what we should teach.

We should be motivating the desire to do something because it helps other people, not because it is a requirement towards Eagle. Let the ones that want to hold a position and actually fulfill the duties because they feel a sense of responsibility to the patrol and/or troop, and that the rest of the boys willingly follow go ahead and do so.

Another issue that I see with elections every 6 months is that boys get put into leadership positions or POR's before they are ready. i.e., Patrol needs a new patrol leader every six months; Adam already did it, Sam has done it before; George gets voted in. George is 12, and agreed because he is in a same age patrol, his parents and scout leaders told him that he needs to hold a postion for Star, and thinks that his patrol members will listen to him because he is now in charge. He is interested in getting Star, but not really interested in the responsibility that goes with it. So he doesn't try. SPL is frustrated, his patrol mates are frustrated, adults see that scouts just can't be trusted as PL unless an adult is constantly pushing or cajoling him.

George (and most every other young scout) comes away from the experience with the view that being a PL or holding a POR is a lot of work; unenjoyable work, gotta go to boring meetings work, left holding the bag work. And future POR's get approached from the point of view as something to be avoided unless you need the time for the next rank.

A troop will have only a subset of the boys that are willing to put forth the effort that goes with a leadership position. Let them continue.

Lisabob,

Thank you for sharing. What a breath of fresh air. While adults agrue how about how to interpret requirements, the boys could hardly care less. As shared, they like it when it is theirs, and have ownership and feeling of responsibility. I note the absence of any comment about advancement. Adults seem to think that boys are motivated by getting patches as easily as possible, when in actuality, that is not what keeps boys in scouting until they age out.

Thanks again for sharing.

bnelon44,

I like your enthusiasm and commitment to youth, and to your boys in your unit. If you find that your preconceived notion of what is meant by "mastering the skills" is getting in the way of boys having fun, of boys safety in the wilderness, causing a lot of boys in the unit dropping out, etc., I trust that you will make appropriate adjustments for the benefit of the boys in your unit; either on your own, or in consultation with other leaders, unit commissioners, etc. I do believe you are one of those leaders of the right sort.

Other unit leaders are entrusted in the same way. If they can't be entrusted with this, then perhaps they are not the leaders of the right sort.

(note: I think that "mastering the skills" can be interpreted too strictly or too lieniently, and that neither extreme is of benefit for the boys)(This message has been edited by venividi)

The benefit of the term "master the skills" is that it is subjective. Just like determining scout spirit.

Trust SM's of the right sort to make choices that are consistent with the aims of scouting and the goals of their CO.

Another thought - have conferences with the patrol leaders and ask them how they can aid the SPL. If they are leading their patrols well, it makes the SPL's job easier. You don't describe the current troop environment. I have seen troops where PL's don't have control of their patrols during meetings and campouts, which makes the SPL's job tougher.

Perhaps this should be in a spawned thread, as your question is specific to developing an individual that is already in the position, and not just developing boys in general to be a good SPL.

Developing a good SPL takes several years. Starts with learning to be a good follower. Then willingly taking responsibility for part of a patrol's needs, wheterh formal or informal (i.e. patrol QM, grubmaster, or just helping out with younger scouts for the sole reason that he notices that they need help). Then being a den chief or PL of a patrol. And taking a turn at a POR such as troop QM or scribe.

All of these need to be positions and/or responsibilities where the boy steps up and does them of his own volition and enthusiasm, without being constantly pushed, cajoled, or harangued. (holding a position with minimal effort may meet BSA's requirement for advancement, but it does not provide for any skill development.)

All of these things gives a boy experiences that he needs to be a good SPL. Without this base, turning a weak SPL into a strong SPL will be exceptionally challenging; perhaps try the "take care of your boys" advise, and repeat as necessary.(This message has been edited by venividi)

With youth sports, the journey is the enjoyment of the game. The continued improvement of skills while building on existing skills. Being motiviated to improve by the desire to win a game, (or get a hit, or catch a fly ball). Learning to be depended upon and to depend on teammates. Learning to handle a loss by picking yourself up and spending time improving skills, and trying harder next time. In summary, many skills that will be useful in life.(This message has been edited by venividi)

Twocubdad,

I think you are on the right track when you ask if it is a membership numbers thing. BSA is faced with declining numbers in an era where there are many, many choices for boys, and many have hyper-parenting parents. How does BSA stay relevant in an environment like that? How do they keep advertisers and sponsors? How do they balance the needs of the majority of their CO's?

Peeling the onion - some possibilities:

- an inactive or partially active member is better than a non-member. the organization can't help a boy that is not a member towards character, citizenship, and fitness. It can be argued that a boy that is a member gets some value in being a member of a character based organization regardless of his participation rate.

- a boy that leaves scouting pays no dues. I doubt that the amount of dues is as much of a concern as the advertising revenue from Boys Life ads. (ad rates in Boys Life would most certainly be based on subscrtiption rates).

- Boys at middle school age are motivated by bling. Give them what they want. High school age boys are either a) looking for a real challenge, which they find in HS sports, music, HS clubs, church youth groups, etc., where they are motivated not by a patch, but by a feeling of being needed and valued, and by being challenged to give more than they think they can; or b) want to hang with their buddies ala the basement in That 70's Show. If you've got them registered for the middle school years, and they get Eagle by 14, it may be very likely that they stay registered, even if they never attend another meeting.

- (cynicism on) Perhaps Eagle scouts make more donations than non-Eagle scouts. If that is true, dontations can be increased by increasing the number of Eagle scouts. (cynisism off).

I am not an employee at National or Council. I do expect that they are like any other business or non-profit - they have the challenge of bringing in enough revenue to be able to support a program of any type, let alone one that develops the character and citizenship that we often expect will be in anyone that has the Eagle rank. From a high-level corporate view, it really doesn't matter if some slide through without achieving the goals. It does matter if the organization becomes irrelevant on all levels.

> How do we get the boys and parents to appreciate the journey when they are focused on the destination?

Through words and actions.

Implement a program where PROGRAM is the emphasis. You will attract families that share that same emphasis. Recognize boys(and adults) for real skills and achievements; for taking the journey; even if those awards and recognitions are homegrown troop awards. Be consistent. Stand up for the progam and vision; don't cave in to pressure from those whose agenda is the destination.

BadenP,

I see your point, though I think that it would be the parents of the scouts that would step up and support year round camping rather than expecting that a SM will do all the work for them. A unit commissioner (or DE when a UC is not available) should be advising the committee and CO as needed, but it is still the parents of the scouts and the CO that need to provide the support needed for a year round program.

One of the former SPL's would give a short talk to the troop before elections of things the boys should consider when casting their vote. This included things such as which candidate has helped out on campouts in the past 6 months? Who pitches in to help on campouts, service projects, organizes games, etc. etc.

The older boys would ask specific questions to the candidates, asking for examples of what they did in the past 6 months.

>It is not the boys fault but rather the lackluster program that most troops offer >them these days. Too many SM's would rather be sitting their fat butts on an easy >chair at home drinking beer than giving their scouts an exciting and challenging >program.

??????

I thought the boys were supposed to be planning fun and exciting programs with the support of the SM / ASM's / Troop committee to help them (the boys) make it happen.

Perhaps the problem is expecting that a SM will be "giving their scouts an exciting and challenging program." Perhaps rather than expecting the SM to be doing all the giving, expectations need to be changed to expecting boys to plan an exciting and challenging program, with the support and encouragement of not only the SM, but also of every parent of every scout.

If an exciting and challenging program, week after week, month after month, every meeting, every campout, is laid on the shoulders of one individual, then I wouldn't blame him/her should he/she prefer to spend some time at home. With or without a beer.

astro,

some random thoughts...

Spend some time talking to the scouts that you think would most likely do a good job. If they are not running, ask them why not. Ask probing questions and listen. The conversation may reveal why the position is not respected.

For those scouts that are being disrespectful of less "popular" candidates, schedule SM conferences with them. Ask each to reflect on how his actions are compatible with the scout law. I know that some will disagree, but you may want/need to explain that due to the scout's actions, you will not be ready to sign off on the scout spirit requirement for his next advancement until a change is observed.

Make this an agenda item at the next PLC. Help them see that this is a problem, and challenge them to solve it.

You don't give an age range. I've seen this mostly with 1st year scouts that are at a stage where they just want to goof off. A conversation with the PL's (individually) asking them why they are letting their patrol members behave in such a rude way when candidates are talking. This can be effective if you have mixed age patrols. If you have same age patrols, the boys are less likely to listen to their patrol leader, particularly in patrols of younger scouts.

The SPL issue may be a symptom of a lack of effective patrols and patrol leaders. It takes a lot of work to teach PL's these skills, and often troops fall in to a mode where there are not real, effective patrols, especially with same age patrols, because the PL doesn't know any more than the rest of the patrol, and is not respected as a leader. If patrol members don't listen to and follow their patrol leader, the PL will have a hard time learning leadership skills. And patrol members wont respect the SPL position either.

Beavah,

I'm not so sure that the adult leaders should be considered to have messed up for the previous 3 years.

Advancement is not required, and not all scouts are interested in advancement. If the troop is fine with a scout that is interested in learing topics through the merit badge program, while not expressing interest in advancement, that could very well be fine and consistent with the vision of the troop. Not pushing, pressuring, prodding or cajoling scouts to advance is consistent with BSA's position that a scout is responsible for his own advancement.

When a scout expresses interest in advancing to the next rank (Hi, SM, I'ld like to review a potential Eagle project with you), then is a perfect time to sit down with him and review (or re-review) expectations for scout spirit expected for Eagle rank.

Best practice is for a SM conference and BOR to be held annually with each scout whether advancing or not. There are many troops that do not have sufficient volunteer hours available to implement all of scoutings best practices. I agree with you that troops can learn from these types of situations, and make changes/fixes to the program; to decide where best to spend limited time available.

I also agree with you that when the scout is interested, then the scouters then work with him, provide him with coaching and assistance, and provide him with opportunities for HIM to reach HIS goal. (capitals for emphasis, not shouting)

> I don't think you will avoid all challenges.

My personal view is that a program that attempts to avoid all challenges will be one of little value. And even then, you could get challenges from families that want a troop for their son that has high expectations, and the benefits that go with it.

"I don't want to do any other work beyond any actual Eagle requirements."

The advancement method presents a challenge to implementation in a meaningful way. Ranks are individual awards that are supposed to be a tool in achieving the aims of character, citizenship, and fitness within the scout. When a scout is focused only on what is good for him (i.e. Eagle for me), the SM/ASM's are faced with the challenge of counselling the lad to help him towards seeing that the requirements for Eagle include doing things for his fellow scouts in his patrol and troop (i.e., scout spirit). not just for himself. And communicate those expectations. Giving him this challenge may actually re-invigorate his interest in scouting as he rises to the expectations.

JMHawkins,

Thanks for bringing back the need to fix advancement problems by focusing on program.

Because the answer to yuor question " Who. Cares. ", is the rest of the boys in the troop care. They care a lot. It is their troop. The boys have a good understanding of those they can count on. Those that are good citizens of the troop. Those that keep the troop operating; that are there for them the majority of time. Those boys that will help whenever asked, and will offer to help even when not asked.

The boys see any hypocracy if adults words don't match their actions; i.e., if adults talk charcter, citizenship, fitness, while at the same time implenting an awards program that gives awards to those scouts that the scouts themselves would not choose to give an award to.

It is good advice to take a situation like this, analyze it, and fix the program so that advancement becomes an outcome of the program.

Thanks for the link, Fred. Interesting article, though I thought that scouter could have made his point without calling the viewpoint that he disagreed with "misguided". The BSA model for most of its history included mixed age patrols, so it must have at least some advantages, (or perhaps scouter thinks BSA was misguided for most of it's history :-). I will have to pull out my SM handbook, as I seem to recall that the new scout patrol was defined as a temporary patrol, with the scouts moving to regular patrols after 6 months to a year or so. But perhaps that has changed as well.

My thoughts, the adult leaders determine their vision for what they want the boys to get out of scouting, and then put an environment in place to foster that vision. There are advantages and disadvantages to both mixed age and same age patrols. Which model to follow depends on which better aids in achieving the vision.

Barry frequently makes two points that I think are appropriate to be considered here. Paraphrased: 1)Scouting is an adult world brought down to a scout size. 2) A boy learns most of his lessons about leadership while he is 11 - 14 by watching other boys. (Barry, forgive me if I didn't get this exactly right).

Some questions to consider while determining how to create the scout sized world to foster your vision are things such as:

Will a boy learn different lessons by watching his 16 YO patrol leader in a mixed age patrol than he will by watching his 11 YO patrol leader in an aged based patrol.

Will a patrol leader have a greater chance of developing good leadership skills in an environment where he has some patrol members that look up to him as a role model as should happen in a mixed age patrol?

Is an 12 YO patrol member more likely to take direction from a PL that has more experienced than him (i.e. a 14 YO with 2 additional years of experience), or from another 12 YO that has the same level of experience?

Are there advantages for boys to develop strong bonds across age groups?

How do you balance activities when some patrol members are capable of (for example) hiking 10 miles, and the newest members can only hike five miles?

These are just some examples to consider. The model to follow depends on so many different factors that one cant be called "best" without first defining the vision, the tradeoffs involved and the criteria on which to make the selection. And it is possible that one's view changes over time as conditions change and as one tries new approaches. Mine has.

(This message has been edited by venividi)

Fred,

Could you share the criteria for providing approval that you have found in your analysis?

Personally, I think that if a SM doesn't take into consideration the readiness of a scout to work on a MB to get a meaningful experience out of it, then the direction for obtaining SM approval isn't worth anything. I find this supported in the Guide to Advancement, which says that everything done to advance should be designed to help the young person have an exciting and meaningful expereince.

Thanks,

VV

ScouterCA,

As a MB counselor, I've had scouts that were interested in the topic and after meeting with them to explain requirements and teach some first aid skills, would then spend a week or two working and practicing before our next meeting. I've also had scouts that after the same type of initial meeting would come back without having done anything. Scouts' expectation was that everything would be completed duing the sessions with the MB counselor. As scouts get older, they are more likely to be part of the first group.

My preference is for a group of 3 rather than a group of 7. The larger group makes it more school-like. With the larger group, there is more teaching and less mentoring and counseling. The scouts get more out of the MB and develop a better relationship with the counselor with 3 than with 7. Which is part of the intent of the MB program as described in BSA materials. Classroom type instruction is permitted, and overall, scouting appears to be going more and more that way. I suspect this is because many don't understand the benefits of the "soft skills" that can be developed through MB process when a scout arranges to meet with a counselor himself, rather than attending a class set up by someone else. After having counseled MB's both ways, I now turn down invitations to teach MB classes.

You are correct that the MB pamphlet does not state that only the counselor can do testing. That does not mean that he/she is adding to the requirements by expecting to meet with the scout every two weeks during the 12 week fitness program. That is completely reasonable. BSA assumes that MB counselors are adults of the right sort that harmonize with the aims of scouting, as Beavah described. It would be nice if the counselor had the flexibility to meet with each scout individually at a mutually agreeable time. Such flexibility is lost when conducting MB's in a group. Scouts should make every effort to meet the scheduled appointments; that is not too much to ask in consideration of the time that the volunteer is providing.

When I teach SM specific classes, I make a point to stress how important it is to focus on program, and to de-emphasise focus on advancement. Advancement will come naturally when you focus on delivering a fun program. When advancement becomes the focus, the fun in the program decreases.

It sounds like advancement is a focus in your troop. Perhaps the scouts and parents have bought into this concept, and your program attracts those families that are looking for Eagle. Note, this is an assumption on my part, based on the following items in your post:

- Getting scouts on camp outs is not the easiest.

- Scouts are in attendance for MB class, but leave before the game - (which is the exact opposite of a typical troop - boys love games).

- scouts that just want the position in name only to get the leadership needed to advance

- We have a good troop. There have been 31 Eagle Scouts that have come out of it.

Some thoughts:

- We have a good troop. There have been 31 Eagle Scouts that have come out of it.

Work to redefine your definition of a good troop. Ignore how many Eagle scouts have come out of it. If none of these scouts are willing to step up and be SPL, if they are not willing to go on campouts, if they are not willing to contact MB counsellors and meet with them outside of troop meetings, if they want leadership positions for credit without doing anything, ask yourself, have they really met the advancement requirements? Or are they being given a "gimme" on the Scout Spirit requirement? I can't see where the behaviour that you are describing matches what would be expected of a star or life scout, let alone an Eagle scout.

Consider changing your definition of a good troop to something like "our troop's outings are so exciting - we go white water rafting, do century bike rides, backpack, work at the homeless shelter, etc."

Make sure that the campouts have challenges for both the older scouts and the younger scouts. Older scouts don't want the same old same old. they need new challenges, whether those challenges be harder activities, or the challenge of helping the young scouts in their patrol learn scout skills to win the interpatrol competitions at meetings and campouts (your troop does have patrol vs. patrol competitions, right?)

> having scouts stay for the entire meeting is becoming a problem. Participation on troop activities, camp outs and Eagle projects are not always the best.

I think that this is an indication that the scouts in the troop are there for themselves - a "whats in it for me" attitude. If scouts are not willing to help out their fellow scouts (whether at Eagle projects, or campouts, or any other time), and they are still getting the sign off on scout spirit that they want for themselves, why would they change? We want scouts to develop a comraderie and sense of duty that when one of their buddies -someone that they have had a lot of fun with - needs something, they are there. That just wont come when there is an advancement driven culture, since advancement is an individual based activity.

3. The last area is on youth leadership. There are scouts that just want the position in name only to get the leadership needed to advance. Others that have matured and look like they could do a good job don't want the positions (Specifically SPL). This is frustrating. When I was a youth we fought hard to become SPL. But this is about all leadership positions.

Take a look at whether leadership positions have been sold to the scouts as something that is necessary for advancement, rather than as something that is necessary for them to do to plan and conduct fun and exciting outings for themselves and their friends. So they are looking at POR's that are as easy as possible, and SPL is viewed as a very hard position where none of the other scouts listen to you. If holding a position for advancement is the objective, scouts will gravitate to the easiest way to achieve it.

So first, get with the SM and CC to discuss and get consensus if you want to move from an advancement driven culture to a program driven culture. If you agree that you want those changes, note that It WILL take time and effort to change the culture from one of "my son is here to make Eagle" to one of "my son is here because he is having fun in the outdoors". Expect to lose some families. But note that you will also start to attract scouts and families that want more in a program than advancement.

Good Luck

Recognizing the problem is the first step in change, and I think that you have idemtified it.

(This message has been edited by venividi)