Venividi

- The nuances of what makes patrol method work are not understood

Put using ad-hoc patrols in this category. Both scouts and scouters think it logical to combine patrols on a campout to have enough scouts to make a useful patrol. Not considering the subtle benefit of long term interaction and reliance on fellow patrol members. Analogy: Pick up ball game compared to an intramural team. both are fun, both help individuals improve ball skills; but the second one results in a team that works very well together because they know each others capabilities, and by extention, dependency and trust.

- Unit Priorities are different (Unit's focus may be advancement, which is an individual activity rather than a patrol activity)

If unit leadership and parents focus is on the measure (i.e., advancement), then use of the patrol method gets compromised because patrol method is typically not used as a component of that measure.

- Need for more focus on program

A unit program that provides increasing level of challenges that are fun and interesting, with inter-patrol competions, provide a)the enticement for higher percentage of patrol member participation, and b) a dependency on fellow patrol members to meet the challenge and win the competition. Patrol members then put positive peer pressure on each other.(This message has been edited by venividi)

> I know it is not supposed to count until they are 1st Class but it would serve the older boys right...

By inference, I am assuming that "count" means "count towards rank advancement". I think that this may be the major source of your problem. Both scouts and adults may be viewing POR's (and possibly most other activities) as something that is done to "count", rather than something that is done because it helps the troop/patrol/scouts, and good citizens therefore step in to help there fellow scouts. Its a "me" problem, as in "whats in it for me".

From a distance, (which provides for imperfect analysis and vision), your troop may have an Animal Farm view of the advancement method ("All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." )

fred8033 has the correct approach. Problem you are faced with is how to get there when you have SPL's and ASPL's that aren't hold PL's and POR's responsible. Until the unit culture changes such that the SPL/ASPL agree that it IS there responsibility, and have the comfort level to hold their peers accountable and actually do it, this is a hard hill to climb. Especially if a) the scouts' motivation is to take a position as a requirement for advancement, and they get their checkmark in the box regardless of results or effort, b) the program still moves along because others stepped in to fill the gap, or c) the program wasn't dependent on the POR's (e.g. librarian or OA rep in many troops).

> Our original plan was to have an adult counterpart for each position for guidance but we had too few volunteers.

This is one approach to help move to a culture where POR holders see their responsibilities as necessary, and step up and do them. If you do not have a sufficient number of volunteers, then the solution is to only fill the POR's for which there are volunteers to provide guidance, and do not fill the remainder.

Another factor to use when filling POR's is a) coach the SPL to only appoint scouts to POR's that have demonstrated their ability by always pitching in without being asked.

Rather than saying this:

> some life scouts are just not cut out for it.

Suggest saying something like this:

Many life scouts are not interested in advancement, or in getting Eagle. Your son has mentioned to me that he is more interested in (theater, music, track, science, robotics, ...). He will get more out of devoting his time to something that is meaningful to him than he will out of begrudgingly completing requiremetns for Eagle because adults are pushing/pulling him along. Your son has some fine qualities. He ( insert something positive that you know about him here). He is always welcome in here the troop, if HE wants to be a member. We do expect him to be a contributing member of his patrol and troop, the same as all other members.

And be sure to have a heart-to-heart chat with the scout before that conversation with mom/dad to find out what his interests are, some of his positive traits.(This message has been edited by venividi)

> However, it is equally important to remember that we cannot (CANNOT!) add to the requirements.

As I started reading this, I thought the next sentence was going to be: ... so we cannot require that scouts do a mertit badge as part of school and take an entire semester to finish :-)

Plus, while recognizing that teachers get pressure from students, parents, (and possibly administrators) to inflate grades and credit sloppy work, teachers are more experienced with dealing with such pressures and better able to resist.

so all things considered, I think the scout is more likley to come away with a meaningful experience that he would receive in a half day merit badge class.

> A boy feels like if he meets the letter of the requirement, he should get it signed off.

Oak,

A nice sentiment, but it is not supported by material in the SM/ASM specific training class. A video module in the course presentation material about advancement shows a PL that is reviewing scouts doing an advancement requirement (happens to be a first aid bandage on a forearm). A boy shows his bandage to his PL, and questions why he is not being signed off. He obviously believes that he has completed the requirement. The PL looks at the bandage, and explains that he needs some more practicing before he will sign off on the requirement.

(This message has been edited by venividi)

Beavah posted: Boys like to be recognized, eh? They appreciate being recognized by adults, but even more than that they want to be recognized by their peers. Advancement takes this desire for recognition and uses it as a way to motivate effort toward learning and personal growth.

Da thing of it is, boys have a very finely honed sense of "real" vs. "fake", eh? They know from personal experience with their peers which of their peers can be trusted with dinner, ...

I have observed this.

The unit I was with had a strong advancement focus. Very much similar to others having described; a unit that was a "do the requirement, get checked off". "No retesting; no need to retain knowledge because that would be adding to the requirements; motivate kids by "helping" them advance to first class in one year, even if skills were lacking (i.e., they hadn't really learned).

I woke up when the SM introduced a new FC scout to the troop; A scout that had just completed a SM conference and BOR, but was seen by the scouts and the ASM's as the scout with the least proficiency and spirit. There was a long pause, and then the scouts politely clapped. Most of of the scouts never said anything. I had a chat with one of the scouts afterwards; a scout that typically spoke his mind. He essentially said that the older scouts viewed advancement as a joke, because it didnt mean anything. Just something that they put up with, because the troop did have a good high adventure program. Caused us adults to re-evaluate our program, including advancement.

First and even second year scouts are motivated by frequent awards from adults, like they received in cub scouts. Once scouts mature enough to understand if the award has meaning or not, advancement loses its effectiveness in achieving aims if it has been used to recognize checking off of requirements rather than to recognize skills (i.e., what a scout is able to do).

How does your troop use advancement method to motivate scouts when the scouts see peers with minimal skills receiving awards for doing things once?

Quote from Fred: If you don't like the standards, talk to BSA.

Perhaps I am going out on a limb, but I assume that Fred would agree that his statement above applies to all BSA's docs, including the new GTA, and would therefore support it.

GTA: [The first step in Advancement]: The Scout Learns

He learns by doing, and as he learns, he grows in his ability to do his part as a member of the patrol and troop. As he develops knowledge and skill, he is asked to teach others; and in this way he learns and develops leadership.

So why discount the learning component of the advancement method, when BSA went to so much trouble to document such? The entire description of the first step of advancement belies the once-and-done approach - the scout learns by doing and by teaching. According to this, requirements should only be signed off after a scout has learned, not after he has done a requirement once.

GTA: It is important thus, to remember that in the end, a badge recognizes what a young man is able to do and how he has grown. It is not so much a reward for what he has done.

Why take the opposite position that a badge is a reward for what a scout has done (i.e., requirement is done once and checked off), and discount the specific statement that a badge is recognition for what the scout is able to do?

GTA: Unit Advancement Responsibilities: Work with the unit leader and help to support

and facilitate his or her vision for advancement.

The GTA acknowledges that a unit leader should have a vision, and that the unit's advancement committee is to support it. Does any unit truely have a leader whose vision for advancement is to create scouts that are not proficient in scouting skills?

GTA: It [advancement] is a means toward accomplishing the Boy Scouts of America mission. It is not an end in itself. When as advancement administratorsboth volunteer and professionalwe recognize this, we can expect success. To see it otherwise is to indicate we have forgotten our purpose.

Lets not forget our purpose.(This message has been edited by venividi)

> "A Boy Scout badge recognizes what a scout is able to do." No. You're thinking of a >Norman Rockwell painting and marketing brochures. The rank recognizes completion of requirements as published by BSA. No more. No less.

The rebutal statement above really puzzles me, since the words in quotation marks are equivalent to "A badge is recognition of what a young person is able to do, not merely a reward for what he or she has done." (which is Bolded text on page 3 of Advancement Committee Guide Policies and Procedures, 2004 printing.)

I see a distinct difference in view points here between those looking at the letter of a requirement when viewed seperately from the overall program (i.e., do it once is what the requirement is), and those that are looking at the spirit of the requirement in the context of the overall aims and mission (i.e., what is the program trying to acomplish.)

One can paint all sorts of imaginary conversations between a SM and a scout where the SM is a hard hearted SOB, and therefore draw the conclusion that the best alternative is to have low expectations and ignore the learning component. Gotta tell ya, I haven't seen a SM like that being described by Calico. I caring SM would be more likely to have a friendly conversation with the scout providing encouragement; not being harsh, nor being a pushover. A caring SM sometimes says no.

There is a video clip in the SM training about advancement that shows a patrol working on a requirement. The PL is shown checking the scouts' results. Most of the scouts are signed off, but one scout that has clearly completed the bandage, though not to the satisfaction of his patrol leader, is told that he still had more practicing to do. The scout is obviously disappointed, but he hasn't met his units expectations. So even the SM training class provides support for having reasonable standards rather than a once and done approach.

In the 11th addition of the BS Handbook on page 14 is this statement: "Scouting provides many oportunities for you to learn skills and take part in terrific adventures. The [bSA] will recognize your achievements by awarding badges of rank." Thus BSA explicitly tells the boys that badges of rank are tied to learning skills. So why the animosity toward units that implement a program that supports this? (I leave it to others to look at the current edition of the handbook to see if BSA has severed the relationship between learning and the advancement program.)

I repeat once again that if a unit believes that once-and-done is equivalent to learning, (i.e. that if a scout completes a requirement on a campout, he has still learned it even if he can't remember how to do it a month later because there is no requirment to retain knowledge), and is the right way to approach advancement for their unit, no one is going to pull their charter. But don't insist that other units must do it that way when their reasonable standards are clearly supported by scouting program material.

(This message has been edited by venividi)

And we've come full circle. Perhaps even gone around the circle several times. Put energy into a challenging and exiting program, so the boys have a need to learn the skills needed to survive in the woods by themselves, and you and up with scouts with those skills, and oh-by-the-way, scouts that are wearing a first class patch, or have the skills if they are internally motivated rather than externally motivated.

Sure beats the other way, with a focus on advancement driven once and done.

Sure is like that suntan, which you can get by having fun in the outdoors, or by sleeping in the backyard or in a tanning bed. The good thing is, we as adult scouters, get to choose which we think is more beneficial to the the boys that parents have entrusted us with. I may disagree with the choice that some make, but then, they disagree with me as well.

> Some lazy adult just pencil-whipped a requirement.

A bit perjorative, methinks. Given that units have the choice to use program materials to meet the needs of their chartering organization, some units choose to focus on advancement method with "no need to master or retain" not due to laziness, but because it meets their needs and/or goals.

I have found that it is a rare scout that carries the personal first aid kit he made to meet second class requirement (or even knows where it is).

Differentiate trust from expecations and priorities. I trust each of us to act accoring to our priorities, the priorities of the group each individual works for (i.e., unit, district, council, national), and within the available resources (i.e., a district cannot put on a good district program if there are insufficient volunteers both willing and with the correct skills).

I am certain that we all have different expectations of each level that likely doesnt match with reality - I know of several people critical of district/council programs that have not contributed to making them "better", or whose definition of what constitutes a "good" program doesn't align with others view of "good".

bnelon,

Why ignore the sentence immediately preceding the one that you quote?

First Class still signifies that a Scout hase mastered all of the basic Scouting Skills.

I see the word "mastered" in it. I dont see how that is consistent with your statement "...someone who has received the camping merit badge, maybe you can assume some level of competence, but by 1st class, it isn't there"

I recognize that you have the freedom to implement your interpretation reasonable expectations. I miss however, how interpreting "mastered" to be equivalent to not competent to take care of themselves in the woods is helpful to the scouts in the long run. Low expectations may make life easier for adults in developing a program,and alow everyone to feel good about themselves by receiving lots of awards, but is it good for the scouts? Scouts will rise to the level of expectations, whether those expectations are reasonable, or low.

I am reminded of the caution to "beware the sublte bigotry of low expectations". No bigotry involved here, but low expectations never helped anyone, and are counterproductive.

(This message has been edited by venividi)

> The Scout is not required to retain any knowledge once he has met the requirement and > the requirement is signed off of for rank advancement

Only in America - No wonder businesses have a hard time find qualified people to fill jobs. When the attitude is that scouts do not need to retain knowledge, and that being signed off is the equivalent of having learned. Does anyone believe that this actually helps a boy? Are people so wrapped up in checking off advancement requirements that they no longer care about learning?

If focus is on providing a challenging program instead of advancement requirements, and the skills needed to meet those challenges, the boys will learn AND retain. Make advancement secondary to program, not the other way around.

Fair enough. I got lost because I didn't get that impression from basement dwellers comment. I actually thought it quite reasonable (as an expectation, not as a requirement.) All is well.

bnelon,

Why would you assume that a scoutmaster has that view any more than you would assume that a scoutmaster has a view of do a requirement once with some guidance and prompting and the scout has learned it and the requirement signed off?

Both are strawmen.

(This message has been edited by venividi)

> Applying pressure to try and make Scouts attend activities is just foolish.

Better to provide incentive than pressure, though peer pressure can be useful.

bnelon,

You have confused me. When a scout has met all the requirements for first class as written, hasn't he developed the basic skills needed to take care of himself in the woods? I agree with you that there is no requirement to actually do so (take care of yourself in the woods).

If the skills that are learned on the trail to first class aren't the skill set for taking care of onesself in the woods, what other skills are needed?

They have learned how to set up a camp.

How to navigate with a compass and map.

How to plan a menu, purchase food, store it properly, and cook it.

They know first aid with sufficient skill to be able to splint broken bones and twisted ankles, take care of animal bites, ...

etc. etc. etc.

What am I missing?

Good points, Eamonn.

I'ld also hope that they participate to have fun with their buddies, make new buddies to have fun with, and plan and attend things that they do together. In otherwords, to bond together to the extent that choose to do things together as a patrol rather than as individuals. Perhaps even trying something that wouldn't otherwise enthuse them, but choose to do so because a) they have fun with their patrol whatever they are doing, and b) they have a sense of duty, responsibility, and comraderie with their patrol that they participate in things like a service project, even if staying home and playing Wii is more fun.

SM call. Base your decision on the aims of scouting - character, citizenship, fitness. If you are achieving your aims, then it works.

Explore why the issue is coming up. Perhaps take a look at your troops service projects - is there good participation from the scouts? Or are there scouts that dont participate in them (or would choose not to participate in them if given a choice) because they believe that they have met the rank requirement through school "required" service?

If the first, then the issue wouldn't arise, because the scouts have far exceeded the minimum required for rank advancement.

If the later, then your troop has a different issue - that scouts are seeing service as a requirement, rather than as an opportunity to do good deeds by helping others for the simple reason that others need help. Something that is done because that is what a good citizen does.

Addition: sorry, I misread the original message. You specifically asked about a participation in a scouting service project. As moosetracker says, it is the schools call as to whether they accept it.(This message has been edited by venividi)

2cubdad,

I'm impressed. Actually considering what will benefit the boy when implementing the MB program.

dg98adams wrote:

I know the Crew that my Life Scout son goes to is managed more by the girls (including his twin sister) in the crew than the boys.

Are the Scouts burned out from providing leadership/direction to the Troop, maybe... probably.

Great topic for a discussion. Your observations are not unusual.

Ten or so years ago, Scouting magazine had an article by Michael Gurian. Gurian has written a number of books about boys, about the impact that changing society has on them. One of his comments that struck me was about that whenever girls step up, boys step back. I took a look at my kids middle school and high school yearbooks, and saw that it was true - in all of the student organizations in school, the majority of the organization officers were girls (70% or more). Service clubs such as Key Club didnt even have any male members. I pulled out my old yearbooks from the '70's, and better than half of club officers were boys. There has been a large change in the past 40 years.

Look at how boys and men are portrayed in popular culture - lovable slackers; arrested development, failure to launch. Self centered, looking for fun, avoiding responsibility. Look at college graduation rates - more than 50% of graduates are now women.

Look at high school, college, and young adults out for a night on the town. Girls are dressed to impress. Boys are wearing ratty t-shirts and old jeans.

I don't think that the boys are burnt out, I suspect that they are adapting to the prevalent culture. I'm going to have to go back and re-read Gurian's older books, and check out his new ones.

Anyone read any of his books lately, or have observations or experiences to share on boy vs girl leadership?