Venividi

There is a follow on question that is in the background to these questions - which is "do the adult leaders see value having the boys do these things. i.e., does it support the mission of the unit? If the adult leaders see value in the boys learning to do these things, then they will put in place a program where the boys are taught the skills, and expectations are set among both the parents and boys. If the adult leaders don't see value, i.e., its not part of their long term vision, then the unit wont move in that direction. As can be seen in the responses, there is not universal agreement.

It is very similar to the thread a couple of months ago about whether learning should be expected as part of the advancement method as instructed in the GuideToAdvancement, or if having that expectation was adding to the requirements because the scout handbook doesn't specify "learn" as part of the requirements, (and the GTA is not issued to scouts :-)).

Fred made a good point in that other thread, that if a SM couldn't explain to a scout reasons why he (the SM) expected the scout to actually learn the skills, then once and done should be all that is required of the scout. Same thing here - if the SM can't explain to scouts and parents the value of boys actually doing planning at this level, then the unit shouldn't strive to go that direction, because it will never get the support needed.

The respected scouter that Fred refers to created a list of various stages of "boy led" that a troop may be in. It was a well written piece that gave characteristics of troops at various points on the continuum of boy led. We always urge the boys to stretch and grow; we can do the same for ourselves by taking on the challenge of moving a troop a little bit further along that continuum. It's part of the vision thingy that Barry always talks about.(This message has been edited by venividi)

Program, Program, Program - boys are there for a fun, exciting, challenging program.

They know and accept a such a scout leader as a whole package, and if he is a great role model in the areas that count most, they will, as desert rat suggests, accept his idosyncracies. Similar to how boys know the scout leaders that smoke, even though per scout rules, they don't do it in front of the boys. Doesn't make them want to start smoking.

Follow on question: How are your BOR memebers trained?

Jump in and wing it?

Attend several as an observer, and then serve?

Advancement chair give a brief overview to whichever CM or parent is available at the time?

Advancement Chair gives formal instruction?

Formal training class at a scouting university?

Other?

One additional thing:

Consider BOR's availability and ability to conduct BOR's. What ever cutoff date prior to COH that you and your committee determine for recognition at the next COH, look at how many BOR's that you can support in a night. If it typically takes 1/2 hour per, then the board might provide a sign up list with 4 slots, starting 1/2 hr prior to the troop meeting start time. Scouts sign up on a first come basis; when all the slots are gone, they can sign up for a slot at the next opportunity.

Implicit in this is that BOR's will be scheduled on a timely basis, but perhaps not on the night desired by the scout, due to supply and demand constraints.

Be sure to separate the awarding and recognition of rank from the recognition at the COH.

(note: I'm confused too about a MB not going through - perhaps you could elaborate)

Engineer,

Suggest to your Advancement Chair that she meet with the CC to discuss this issue.

Then review with committee and request committee support for established cutoff dates prior to COH's.

CC should then run interference with any and all pushy parents. In the future when parents approach the advancement chair, whether by phone, email, text or in person, the response is "I am following the process as approved by the troop committee. If you have issue with that, please take it to the committee."

Troop leaders need to have each other's backs; clearly communicating with each other their needs, communicating them to parents. It is likely that your advancement chair experiences a FOH because a) parents haven't been told that their son should be doing this, not them, and therefore the requests are inconsistent with the aims of scouting, b) parents and scouts aren't aware that there is a deadline, c)everyone is aware that there are deadlines, but as they have not been enforced in the past, people know that they don't matter, so ignore them.

Lastly, one can wish all they want that the someone else should be taking action, but in situations like this, it is the person that is feeling the pain (i.e., the advancement chair), that should take the necessary steps to 1) stop entertaining late requests, and 2) asking the CC to add this item to the next committee meeting or raise it during the "new business" portion of the next committee meeting.

Nancy Reagan's "Just say NO" is a great piece of advice to follow here.

Some suggestions:

Meet with SPL to review what happened. It should have been his responsibility to approve or deny request to leave early from the campout, especially since they were PL's and QM's. SM needs to guide/coach/teach SPL to consider the ramifications of telling allowing scouts to leave early; SPL is then responsible to make sure that the slack is picked up. Remind SPL that he is responsible for the PL's, and his ASPL is responsible for the QM.

Admit to the SPL that the adult leaders broke the chain of command when they allowed scouts to leave early instead of directing them to go talk to the SPL, and agree to work on doing better in the future.

Have SM conferences with the PL's and QM. Ask them if they had gotten appointed another scout to fulfill their obligations before they left. Ask them if they felt it was fair to the other scouts that they left early. Ask them how leaving early was consistent with living by the scout oath and law. (and yes, if one of them is soon to be ready for a rank advancement, how he will demonstrate scout spirit between now and then in order to complete that requirement).

If yuor troop culture is that the SM sends out reminder emails about changes in meeting plans - stop that immediately! That is the SPL's job.

Again, talk to the SPL and appologize for jumping in to the wrong place in the chain of command, and that the SM sould have talked to the SPL about the need for a clean up night and potentially recommendation that the Monday night plans be changed. Then it is SPL's role to make the decision and communicate it to scouts.

Meet with CC and ASM's to review what happened, and agree on steps that you all want to take to move the things that SM/ASM are currently doing back to the SPL and PLC, where they belong. Follow up with PLC on your expectations of them going forward.

Then schedule a meeting with all parents, explain what your vision is to move to boy run ot a greater extent, why you are doing it, and what the benefit will be to their son. Use the example of the past weekend to review with all parents what happened, that adults stepped in when they shouldn't have, that adults have learning curves too. Also, that going forward PL and SPL will make decisions about coming late/leaving early, and change in meeting plans. And adults will do their best to step back from that. Explain that communications will likely get worse in the short term rather than better, as the PLC learns through practice. Ask for their patience as this occurs, as they would expect patience extended to their son when their son has the opportunity to serve in a leadership role.

Good Luck

TT,

Yep, in MB counselling, strive to connect and mentor the boys; to get them past a simple checking off of requirements to uncovering and discovering natural curiosity in the boy.

And overall within the troop adult leadership, strive to communicate to parents to continue to remind them of the differences between aims and methods.

shepo1,

You will find a minority of boys (and parents) that will knowingly "interpret" requirements in their favor, with interpet in quotes because they are looking for a way to shortcut the requirement.

I don't have the MB book in front of me, but I would be surprised if the text in the book does not describe and explain a pet show. It's even possible that a parent told the to show the pet to a neighbor. Typically when you meet with an 11 YO and explain the requirement, they will understand and go back and do it correctly.

Parents are more difficult, as you have found. My advice is don't back down. By giving in when a parent pitches a fit, they are being trained that there actions gets the results that they want.

It makes your job (and the jobs of other volunteers) more difficult down the road. Others see what shortcuts are permitted, and more will continue to push the limits of that boundary.

As you get experience with difficult parents, and you see the impact on the boys and program, it becomes easier to stand your ground.

> Is that person that people look to for guidance a good leader because he or she was born with some natural aptitude for leadership? Or because he or she spent several years practicing leadership, making mistakes, learning about leadership, or *gasp* developing leadership skills?

My opinion only: individuals in the group are looking for someone to make decisions for them because they don't know enough about the situation to know how to proceed, or they do know enough, but are afraid to make a decision because they don't want to risk being razzed by their group members in the event that they make a mistake.

I don't think the group gives a whip about whether the person that they look to has learned about leadership, or practiced leadership, or developed leadership. I think that individiuals are more concerned with 1) do they think that this person knows what he is doing in this situation, and/or 2) does the person that they look to have self confidence.

An aside related to reason #2: On a troop ski trip, two 1'st year scouts headed directly for the slopes rather than to the lesson that had been set up for them. Before the trip the mother of one had specifically told me that this was his first time skiing, and to be sure he took a lesson. I asked the scout why he wasnt headed to the lesson. He said that scout B was going to teach him. I asked scout B about how much experience he had. His response was that this was his first time skiing too. Scout B had exuded the "natural leadership" that others would follow, (even if he didnt know what he was doing).

Notice that I use the term "natural" rather than "natural born". In my view, a natural leader emerges as the result of charisma, which as far as I know, has a large genetic component, added with experience.

Take a group of scouts into the woods (or mountains, or COPE course, etc.). The natural leader is the one that most of the group looks to for guidance.

dg98,

Congratulations on running a MB trail drive. I hadn't heard that term before, nor seen something that spans multiple weekends. (I am assuming that the participants are working on the same MBs over the course 3 weekends, rather than on different MB's each weekend). I am sure that there is a lot of work to doing it right.

My experience teaching at a MB weekend was much like Lisabobs. (I particpated reluctantly - it was a favor to a friend that organized the weekend, and the person he had lined up had to back out at the last minute.). The expectation was that scouts would "earn" their FA MB in a half day session. Format was for counsellor to show a skill, have the scouts do it, then sign off completion of the requirement. Had several scouts specifically ask if they would "earn" the badge that day. Didn't get through all of them, so sent scouts home with partials. but I did not feel proud, or feel that the scouts went away with much, if any, knowledge that would be retained in what I consider an important life skill. Pure impression that completing the badge was what was more important than actually learning a useful skill. But perhaps thats just me.

Scouts went away from the weekend with 3 or 4 badges, all with the focus of getting badges rather than a focus of providing experiences.

And that is where I think the MB program falls short in its implemetation. Adults have an objective of helping a scout earn a badge, and particularly when done in a large group setting with expectations (whether stated or unstated) that scouts will leave with completed badges. To do so, adults end up finding ways to provide short cuts. To remove things that BSA has explicitly stated are part of the MB process, such as completing requirements individually (how does one effectively have a class of 10 or 20 or more all complete multiple "describe" requirements with a single counsellor?)

I differ in the belief that National or Council should do something to ensure quality at the local level. I believe that is up to the folks at the local level. I think that expecting National/council to do something additional in this realm is analogous to expecting the Federal/state government to solve all of our problems. Sure, they could, but I for one don't really want them to be more intrusive in my life. (Does that make me a Libertarian?)

Note: I also think that the material for training counsellors is quite good at laying out expectations for MB counsellors and the MB program (http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/TrainingModules/MeritBadgeCounselorInstructorsGuide.aspx). It simply gets ignored, discounted, or not referred to, and that is a choice at the local level. Every unit has the ability to vote with its feet. And with the prevelance of experiences that dont match dg98's described program, the feet are saying that there are customers for the opportunity to knock out a few quick MB's. Don't blame the providers when there are willing customers.

Discussions like this are great, because they bring up a lot of pros and cons, and then folks can make informed choices based on the priorities that they have for their unit.

(This message has been edited by venividi)

Ann,

I am not sure what you mean by "preparing to learn to be boy scouts" or "to learn the stuff that you'll NEED to LEARN"; and how that differs from preparing to be a boy scout.

A suggestion: stop at the library and get a book about ages and stages of boys from childhood through adolecence. Perhaps something by Michael Gurian. It will give you a perspctive of what is appropriate at what ages. In general, in the US, children are much more capable that adults believe they are. In Webelos, the program has to be fun. Fun involves more than playing. Fun involves accomplishing new and different things. In webelos, it shouldn't be the challenges of sitting down indoors and learning ala memorizing oaths and creeds, but rather challenges as laid out in the readyman and other requirements, as you have succinctly described.

With a little familiarization from learning about the ages and stages of boys, and watching the experiences the boys have, you will find the balance of providing the proper level of challenging experiences - not so tough that 90% of the boys give up in frustration, and not so easy that the boys become bored with the activities.

Don't be afraid to let the Webelos leader push the envelope - to offer something up that is a little more challenging than you think they can handle. Because it is easy to underestimate their capabilities. It is very likely that the boys will find it fun, want to do more, and brag to their friends about the cool stuff they did. And in the event that it is obvious that the event didn't work, its easy to scale back.

As Barry often reminds us, don't let the adult fears limit the opportunities for the boys. If the Web DL guides them in challenges that they otherwise wouldn't have had, you will have given them memories that they will have for a lifetime.

good luck, and please give us updates on what your Webelos do, how they surprised you by rising to challenges that you had doubts about offering, and the things that you tried that didn't work.(This message has been edited by venividi)

Seattle,

I am interpreting your comment on "preserving the integrity of the MB program" as meaning guiding the MB program to be consistent with the aims of scouting.

I think that "preserving the integrity" can be interpreted by some as placing more emphasis on the program than on the scout. Which I don't think you meant.

Bacchus,

with regards to blue cards in the scenario I described above, I meant the scout returned with a blue card signed by the counsellor. The scout would have attended the event with a blue card empty except for the title of the MB and the SM's signature.

I appologize for not being clear.

In any event, I think you get my point - that there are advantages and disadvantages of each, and that is the SM's responsibility to direct scouts to the venue that he/she thinks is in best keeping with the aims of scouting.

Individual SM's have their own reasons for directing a scout one direction or another. A couple of possible reasons:

A SM believe that the MB process is important in developing character, and when possible, direct the scout to a counselor where the scout has to follow the process of contacting the adult and setting an appointment, and want the benefits of small group setting and establishing a relationship with a caring adult.

Another SM may see that exposure/taste of a topic is in best keeping with the aims, and/or completion of the MB as more important than the path to get there.

Many will choose a mix, so that a scout experiences contacting a counsellor, and also gets some through the more efficient process of MB classes at University.

Perhaps some are devoting their hour a week on working to improve troop program/instructing jr leaders, etc, as a higher priority, and analyzing the troop's MB program isn't one of the top priorities, so doesnt get attention.

As others have said, all scouting is local. MB Universities are offered because there is demand for them. Individual units are entrusted with the responsibility of choosing if/when the universities help them achieve the aims of scouting for the boys in their troop.

Bacchus,

It is apparent that I did a poor job of explaining. I thought I had made clear, but obviously didn't, that there are reasons for assigning a scout to a MB counsellor that is teaching a MB at a MB University, and reasons for assigning a scout to a MB counsellor in a traditional setting.

You give valid reasons for sending a scout to MB university. I'll give you a "what if" question in return: say that at your council's MB university they offer citizenship in the world and First Aid (as examples). In previous years, scouts have returned with signed blue cards from a weekend. Your troop has two parents serving as MB counsellors, one of which is a civics teacher, the other a paramedic. Both know their material well, and are good at relating to boys. Both hold to the standard of no more, no less. It typically takes a scout several meetings with each of them over the course of a month to complete the badge. They learn a lot.

With that "what if", if a scout came to you wanting to take these two badges in a weekend at MB university, would you approve? Why or why not?

cheers,(This message has been edited by venividi)

I think it is quite a leap from discussing implementing a program that supports the aims of scouting in a manner that is consistent with BSA's program materials to interpret this as "protect[ing] the sancitity of badges and ranks...". I haven't met a scouter yet that is more concerned over protecting badges and ranks than with helping boys grow into men.

There are different views as how to do this, however. In the end, its not about badges and ranks. Those are simply part of one of the methods as a SM's disposal to achieve the aims. The SM is entrusted with using the program to that end.(This message has been edited by venividi)

> If they want to go, why hold them back?

BSA has entrusted SM's with utilizing the MB program as part of the overall scouting program to achieve the aims of scouting. A SM may choose to approve a scout's attendance at a MB "Univerisity" for some MB's if: it is a limited opportunity that would be otherwise hard for a scout to arrange with an individual counselor; if it provides a taste of a certain subject, etc.

A SM may choose to direct a scout to a counselor outside of a MB "University" (i.e., "hold them back" from the Univeristy)if the SM believes it is in better keeping with the aims of scouting. Perhaps that the scout will get a better experience with an individual counselor. Or that he/she sees that a scout is looking to "game the system" by taking a perceived "hard", required MB in a half day classroom session. Or that the SM sees that a scout has taken most of his MB's at Summer Camp, and wants the scout to experience and get comfortable with the process of calling a counsellor and making an appointment, and experience all of the other benefits of meeting with a MB counsellor in the manner described by BSA in their merit badge program literature.

According to BSA, meeting with a MB counselor in a mentorship type of situation is preferred over the classroom type setting, and perhaps the SM prefers to follow BSA's recommendations.

There are probably many other factors that a SM may choose to support scouts taking a MB's in a classroom setting, and many factors that a SM may use to decide to direct a scout to a traditional MB counselor. That decision has been entrusted to the SM. It is a decision that should not be taken lightly.(This message has been edited by venividi)

As an aside on tent stakes, 'tis the season for material for making new stakes. After primaries are over in your area, collect old campaign signs (with any necessary permissions). The kind that are cardboard over a U-shaped wire frame with legs that stick in the ground. Its a good sized wire guage to serve as tent stakes.

Cut stake sized lengths from the frame. clamp one end in vice. Bend until it looks like a tent stake. Makes a great scout project. A scout is thrifty.

(optional: use grinder to dress the ends.)

Return to subject.

Twocubdad menitioned it, and a few others alluded to it: define what you are looking for; i.e., committee needs to consider the charter organizations mission and the impact that has on the direction and expectaion of the troop; understand where the boys currently are with respect to mission, aims, and most important, program that they want that challenges them and keeps them engaged.

Then consider candidates that relate well to boys, are able to motivate them, and whose goals for the boys line up with those held by the CO.

Even what constitutes "minimum standard" is subject to debate, and the answer depends on one's answer to the question "Minimum standard for what?" Minimum standard for skills needed to camp in the back yard? For camping in a state park with a campground having modern facilities? For camping on the back 40 acres of a farm or ranch? At Philmont? At Northern Tier? In a National Forest that is a 10 hour hike from the closest ranger station, and then a four hour drive to medical facilities? And for each of the preceding, minimum standards also depend on the level of "hands-on" that adults think that they must provide.

Coach the boys and help them arrive at a list of the advantages and disadadvantages of the program.

If all the MB's become group classes, share the MB program info with the PLC - the literature that describes the benefits of scouts calling a counsellor, meeting with a counsellor one on one (within the guides of safe scouting), and ask the PLC to structure their program within the guides of the MB program.

If the MB's are citizenship, personal mgmt, and other eagle required type badges, ask the PLC if they think that the younger scouts will be bored, or get much out of them at their age.

If they are inviting a MB counselor to teach a few related skills, with the scouts being responsible to contact the MB counselor individually to complete the badge, congratulate them and tell them you are proud of them. With a few wise conversations with the SPL, the boys just might arrive at this conclusion, even if that hadn't been their original plan.

Sounds like a great bunch of guys that will put together a good program, with your gentle guidance.

>Not a lick of difference between that and theology. The beliefs that stand the test of time, the ones that get written down and passed on to others are the ones that are viewed as the most useful, that have best contributed to human understanding and are most supported by the data of human experience with the divine.

I gather that you are not of a conservative protesant denomination with a strict interpretation that the bible (the protestant bible) is the inerrent word of god. With every word literally true. Thus, as it was explained to me by denomination headquarters, is why one of MS Lutheran's positions is that the world/universe is relatively young, all physical evidence otherwise not withstanding. No explanation as to why physical evidence makes it look to be old, but speculation was offered that perhaps god wanted it to look old.

My view is that is one example of a belief that denies the test of time. (and one example of why I left the denomination). I do recognize that there are people with a bumpersticker philosophy of "The bible says it, so I believe it, and that settles it", and such denominations are a perfect match for them.

Seems to me that there are a whole lot of assumptions going on here. Assuming that the scout is beset upon by uncaring, unhelpful adults. Assuming that the scout consiously made a decision NOT to take a POR because he wouldn't have time to fulfill the responsibilities, etc. But we only have half a story. It would also be possible for one to assume that the scout has been inactive or borderline inactive for a a lot of years, was only marginally interested in scouting, that the SM's experience with the scout has been that, even with a lot of coaching, the scout never put effort into leadership positions that he has held in the past. Perhaps he was only in the program because his parents wouldn't let him quit, and troop leadership kept him on the roster because a parent was influential in keeping him on the roster even though he hadn't attended a troop meeting in a year, etc. And perhaps the scout's current interest in Eagle is driven not because he wants to help younger scouts, but because having Eagle on his resume will give him a bump in rank in the military. Or extra scholarship money. The scout may have made priority choices to be active in other areas. Life is full of priority choices, and if the lad has received a military appointment, then it appears that those choices were the correct choices for him. He obviously has motivation, talent, and ability, but he may not have applied them to scouting. We just don't know.

Not that I believe that this was the case, but it is as likely a scenario as the one that has the scout being considerate of his fellow scouts by not taking a POR.

As has been said elsewhere, a POR isn't a right, it is earned by demonstrating the interest and commitment to his patrol and troop. That said, my viwe is that this could be an excellent opportunity to re-engage a scout in the troop, and motivating him to use his ability and talents to help fellow scouts in the troop (the academy appointment shows that he has the ability and talent). After all, character and citizenship isn't about what the troop can do for me, its about what I can do for fellow scouts and the larger community. I believe this applies both to the scouts and the SM/CC.

Great point on ad-hoc patrols. If you think of it it is usually because an adult doesn't want to haul another patrol box or something for a 2 or 3 guys. They almost never work or are fun. I suppose it might be different if the boys came up with the idea themselves.

Tampa, My experience hasn't been that ad-hoc patrols are the result of adults not wanting to haul another patrol box; that is a small bit of work, and may likely be in a troop trailer anyway (in troops that have trailers).

Rather, both scouts and adults see logic in combining patrols. Scouts see it as logical and combine patrols because as you say, its not as fun with 2 or 3 scouts, plus the camp chores are divided among fewer people.

Adults see it as logical because a) 6 - 8 is the number that has been learned in training, though perhaps without the understanding of the trade-offs when combining patrols, and/or b)all patrols camp adjacent to each other anyway, and/or c) they have made a priority call (consiously or unconsiously), on where to spend their scouting time; i.e., they may be fully consumed with advising SPL on other issues, conducting SM conferences, doing committee tasks if the committee isn't doing them, etc. Probably many other reasons as well.(This message has been edited by venividi)

> So how to you tell a unit with 10-15 Eagles a year that they got it wrong?

You don't. Lead a discussion of the trade offs between various ways that patrol method may get implemented, and how each relates to the aims. Determining priorities within an individual unit is not in the purview of an instructor. It may be something that a wise unit commissioner might influence over time. Also, unit culture may change as different familes join/leave. But beyond that, its their choice as to the level of PM, etc that they implement. Not something that you can force.