HelpfulTracks

It's just common sense.  As an ASM, I don't sign off knots the same meeting that they are taught.  

This goes back to my comment of teaching in context. If a scout is being taught how to set up a tarp or secure a load using 2HH, then there really is no need to sign of at that time. By the time the Scout wants to get sign off he has tied they knot a dozen or more times. When he comes for sign off he can usually do the knot, he may need some prodding, like "remember that knot you used to set up the tarp." But they usually remember, even if they have to think about it for a moment.

Sounds like an outstanding leader. Getting Scouts involved and active is critical.

Not that I know of, but why would you teach them and let them demonstrate it the same meeting then sign off? They’ll just forget it within the next week. It makes them practice, and to remember it. But, it still follows the EDGE.

This is the problem I have with "Instruction for Advancement."

If Scout learns so they can get a check or signature next to a requirement on a page in a book, they will not retain it.

Learning Scouting skills should be done in context. A scout learning a taut-line hitch so he can set up his tent or dinning fly properly, build camp gadgets etc., will be much more likely to retain that knowledge.

I am finally allowing my son to quit Scouts. We tried everything but in the end, it just isn't a good fit for him. He finished with a rank of Scout after just one year in the Troop.

 

There are a couple reasons it didn't work out. He enjoyed the Cub Scouts but the Boy Scouts is a really different animal. I offer the following observations as a post-mortem, with follow up questions at the bottom.

 

1. He crossed over early (Webelos in 1 year) This wasn't my choice but the den leader's. He wasn't ready for the skills needed in Boy Scouts. I think BSA should actively discourage this except with a waiver in special cases.

 

2. Most of his friends quit, as of this writing there is only 1 out of 6 members of his den that are still in the Troop. From adults that were in Scouts, I have been told most boys stay in because their friends did.

 

3. The Troop is actively focused on the older boys. Most activities planned include things like 50-mile hikes and 100-mile canoe trips. Usually there is a shorter event for the younger boys thrown in as a courtesy. I would have liked to see one adult assigned to help make the new Scouts feel more welcome and included. The Cooking Badge was offered as a group activity and my son was told he was too young. Just the older boys wanting to get their Eagle stuff done.

 

4. There isn't enough supervision. The leaders take "boy-led" too far, and the older boys don't act as mentors many times but as antagonists and task masters. They don't know how to organize a meeting because the adults haven't shown them. Older boys are cursing and "roasting" younger kids because the adults are doing their own thing and not paying attention. Is there any problem with assigning an adult to each patrol to make sure they stay on track and are obeying the Scout Law?

 

5. Meetings are BORING. Most of the time they're just sitting around tying knots or talking about the next campout. Cub Scout meetings were much more dynamic and included games and songs and actual advancement activities. Again, adults should have more input here.

 

6. Time commitment. Meetings 7-8:30 pm on a school night EVERY Monday, and at least two weekends a month, one for a campout and another for volunteer or Eagle Project work.

 

7. Camping. My son just didn't like camping. Yes, I get that it's the entire point of Boy Scouts. I don't want to take that away from anyone. But, I would have liked to see something like STEM activities, day trips, or just fun things like a trip to the trampoline park.  In the end, his dislike of being outdoors in general ended his Scouting career.

 

So, I'm not looking for solutions or analysis on my own child but curious about the greater trend. I still think the program has many strengths, but I'm interested if retention is a problem at the troop level. About what age are they leaving? What reasons are those boys giving for leaving? And what is the secret of troops that don't have a problem retaining scouts?

 Retention in our Troop has been good. IN the last 3 years we have gone from about 30 to about 50 Scouts. In that time we have lost 4 Scouts due to losing interest. Two more we lost due to moving out of the area, the rest aged out, most attained Eagle Scout.

Most of those I have seen leave from other Troops early have either moved on to Venturing or quit Scouting after attaining Eagle, though there are always a few that find out that scouting is not for them or get caught up in other activities as they age, usually when they hit 16-17.

My son started in a different Troop, it wasn't a fit because there was not enough outdoor and too many non-Scouting activities/games. In his old Troop he was still a Scout after a year. After he changed Troops to one the had more of an outdoor focus he was 1st Class in a few months and now is about to get his Eagle.

Different Troops have different personalities, just like Scouts. I urge all Webelos/New Scouts to shop around to find a Troop that matches up with their needs.

That said, much of what you describe fits with what a typical Troop looks like. Weekly (3-5 per month) meetings of about 1 1/2 hours, 8-12 overnight outings per year, 4-12 service projects (not including Eagle projects), 2-6 fundraising events per year, 3-12 Patrol outings per year. 3-24 Patrol meetings per year. And that does not include High Adventure and OA. In most Troops Scouts are not expected to make EVERY meeting/event, but each has it's own threshold for what it considers active.

Scouts plan the program and run the meetings, if meetings are boring it is because the Scouts are not planning programs that fit their needs, but then again the program may be working for most in your case, just not for your son. Meetings may or may not focus on advancement, most I have seen focus on skills which does lead to advancement, Many troops have Patrol Advisers (ASMs), those advisers are (or should be) pretty much hands off unless the Scouts come to them (after talking to PL/ASPL/SPL) or the Scouts are not following BSA Policy, guidelines and most importantly the Oath and Law. Even then, an adviser should not be stepping in to take over, but quietly guiding the PL to make the corrections.

Adults have a very different role in Boy Scouts compared to Cub Scouts. Youth should be leading and adults should be guiding/advising THROUGH the youth leadership. Some find it a tough line to walk, some becoming TOO actively involved in the day to day and others being so hands off that they are not guiding the youth. IMO though, you should it should be exceedingly rare to see an adult at the front of the troop giving directions. If guidance is needed the adults should be working through the youth leaders to correct problems and improve leadership.

Personally, as a Life Scout who is near Eagle, would find a question like that invading my personal opinion and thoughts. I don’t think you should ask a Scout their opinion when your opinion may be different.

You will likely get a lot of questions about your opinions. What was your favorite x? What was your least favorite y? How could Scouting/your troop/summer camp be improved? What does becoming an Eagle Scout mean to you? How will you give back to Scouting?

When I ask "personal opinion" questions, I am concerned with HOW a Scout responds, not that their opinion is aligned with mine. Do they pass on the question, give an off the cuff or dismissive answer, or do they consider the issue and give a well thought out answer.

Routinely I see Scouts/Scouters say "they didn't ask me," when it comes to policy changes, so why wouldn't we want to ask those who are sitting review for Scouting's highest award?

As for being "uncool," modeling behavior works. My son would ditch his uniform top and necker whenever we stopped somewhere on the way home from meeting. He would tell me it was too hot, or uncomfortable or he didn't want to get anything on it. I never objected, but I left mine in tact.

Frequently, people would comment on my uniform or ask questions or tell me their scouting stories. I have had numerous people come up and shake my hand and say thank you, and a few times, when I asked for the check for our meal, I have been told someone had already paid it.

It wasn't long before my son started keeping his uniform on when we stopped. He takes Great pride in representing the Boy Scout's now because he has seen first hand how positively most people react.

The scouts in my pack do wear them. Not sure who decided leaders don't wear them or when. It was just how things were when I arrived.

 

Maybe your pack leaders should consider wearing the neckers. Leaders have a strong influence on the youth by modeling the behavior that is expected of them.

Unless/until it is required as part of the uniform, you won't see me wearing one. Same likely goes for most of the other leaders in my Pack, I don't get the feeling any of them would be anxious to wear a neckerchief.

 

Do the scouts in your troop wear them?

In either case, who made the decision to wear/not wear them?

"Scouting is a game with a purpose" and digital vs analog.

Scouts remember Pokémon (or any other game) because they are having fun. Knowing the games details, like Pokémon's abilities, is a natural extension of the fun. Far too often, Scouting's "gems" have become class work and drudgery. Scout's will do what they enjoy (or need to know to have fun) hundreds or thousands of times. They will do what they MUST, but don't see as fun, as little as humanly possible. The repetition is what makes it part of their memory.

Youth today are grounded in the digital world. Much, if not most, of their world is lived with a digital background. My generation was almost entirely analog. We had our hands in the mud, not on keyboards. It is just a different starting point to learn from. That means there may be more of a learning curve and thus a more to remember.

As Scout leaders it is our job to help them make Scouting fund and understand where their starting point is and, how they learn, so we can better help them get there.

That makes our job little more difficult, but I imagine no more so than the generation that taught us.

How much do the boys pay to volunteer for scouts? 

 

Sorry, but the boys are voluntarily paying for a program just like any other program being offered out there.  When I pay for an annual pass for the YMCA programs, I'm not volulnteering.

 

One does not pay to be a volunteer for a program, they pay for what the program provides in service, education, etc.

 

When a person picks a college to attend, they don't volunteer for the school, they voluntarily go there because of what it has to offer and they pay for the knowledge.

 

One trains managers, but they develop leaders.  There's a big difference. 

So as an adult Scouter, are you a volunteer or a paying customer? Are you only there to get out of it what you paid, or maybe get more out of it if you got a good deal? Or are you paying AND there to do for others?

Should we stop considering service that scouts provide as volunteering? Since they are paying registration fees, does that mean they are only there for themselves and not for others?

Yes, there is a big difference between training and development. But both managers and leaders are trained AND hopefully developed. If not you have managers without much future and leaders without many skills.

As to the original post, "who is running the show?"

I guess that depends on how you define "running" and the "show."

Different elements of the organization have different responsibilities and to different primary stakeholders and thus different levels of authority.

The CO, the committee, the SM corps, the PLC, SPL, PL, the scouts, district, council and national all have different responsibilities and accountability on different scales.

National has the ultimate veto power on certain things, the CO has ultimate veto power on certain things, they have agreed to that by contract (Charter).

The SM and Committee do and should have veto power over certain things. They have responsibilities that they cannot abdicate. None of that precludes being boy-led. Some troops do a better job of defining who has authority in what areas and abiding by those definitions.

My CEO can walk in tomorrow morning an reverse every decision I have made, no matter how well I lead, he has that authority. The board can do the same to him, and stockholders can force the board. Our customers can force changes too, and the circle of life goes on.

Everyone has someone they answer to, it is they way of life.

And boys ask questions because they are conditioned to do that. As Scouter, we only have them maybe 10% of their time at best. The other 90%, at home, at school and at work, they answer to adults. So, even when they have the authority to make decisions, they often fall back to asking anyway. Thus the saying "have you asked your PL."

Being boy-led is not culturally intuitive for adults or youth. That is why we work on it so much.

Volunteers already have the heart of a leader, that's why these people are in the military serving their country.  Scouts are not volunteers, they expect something from the organization.  Volunteers only want opportunities to serve.  Big difference.  That's why so many youth programs have problems.  Volunteers don't join an organization to be entertained and taken care of, they take care of others.

Scouts are volunteers, unless mom and dad are forcing then to be there. Scouters are volunteers. Just like athletes, business people, churches, and a vast many other organizations. Those people chose to be there, and those that lead chose to do so, no one forces them. A volunteer MAY only want to serve, but leaders are needed and usually emerge.

Regardless, I do not see how that has anything to do with the concept that one cannot train leaders. I stopped at military and and the academies in my examples, because those organizations train leaders everyday. But so do businesses, universities, churches and more.

Leadership is a learned set of skills.

One can't "train" a leader.  They can encourage an attitude in the boys that will lead to leadership, but no manual, no lessons, no training is going to produce a leader.

There are a slew of organizations that would disagree with the idea you cannot train leaders. Not the least of which would be 5 branches of the military and 3 military academies.

I read nothing into your post. You focused on training and then asked me about the slippery slope. You are making this discussion to personal to your more specific interest of applying one of the eight methods. I was speaking more about using a specific method to drive the program. My point, once again, is use adventure to drive the program. Not advancement.

 

Barry

Training doesn't drive the program, and that is not what I said. I said it is a focus, as other other things. In addition, I said it was the scouts focus on training, through doing and having fun.

But adventure doesn't drive our program either. The scouts drive our program through their plans. Sometimes they plan adventure, sometimes training, sometimes it is something else. Regardless, they drive the program.

If letting them drive is a slippery slope then I'll just have to grab my axe and crampons.

On top of that BP was pro training, so once again, I am good with being on that slippery slope.

"I cannot agree that teaching is a slippery slope. Older scouts using the EDGE method to show a younger scouts how to pitch a tent, build a fire, use a map and compass, build a pioneer gateway etc., is in my opinion, exactly what scouting is about. In fact it is part of the requirements for rank advancement to teach.

If a scout sees a another scout struggling to set up tent improperly he should step in and offer assistance.

 

'Let me explain to you about setting up your tent.

Now I'll show you

Now you try it.

Good, you have it, now pass it along.."

 

After 52 years working with youth in Scouting (and many years in youth sports coaching), I would respectfully suggest that consciousness on the part of the supposed learner of a need to learn is a precondition to successful teaching.  

 

I think that goes without saying. Some scouts do not readily accept unsolicited help for various reasons. Others do, because they are eager to learn from the ones they look up to, usually the older scouts. Those they don't want to be taught may change their mind when they wake up in the middle of night with a soaked sleeping bag because they didn't properly set their fly. Or the next day when they SPL is singing the praises of another patrol for how well their camp is set. Or when other scouts choose not to tent with them because they don't want to be in a tent that collapses on them in the middle of the night.

Regardless, I encourage my scouts to impart the things they had learned to the younger ones. Both the giving and receiving of teaching is greeting with varying degrees of excitement. In the end it is up to the scouts, I am there to guide not force.

The slippery slope is using advancement to drive the the program instead of outdoor activities for adventure.  

 

With all due respect, you read that into my post. I never said advancement should drive the program. But no one method should. All 8 methods are on equal footing. As adults we need to make sure that all 8 methods are being given due weight.

In fact I am surprised that I need to expound on this at all. In my scouting experience, teaching, learning, advancement, character building, leadership skills and more are integrated into an outdoor program. Sometimes it is high adventure, sometimes its just good old camping or a day hike, or games/competitions or some other activities the scouts have chosen to do. Sometimes the scouts even choose to make a meeting about learning. In fact, last years annual planning our PLC voted to make the month of June about completing merit badges that they started at Summer camp earlier in the month.

The concept of focus in my view comes from guiding the older scouts towards teaching, rather than letting adults jump in and do it. Most older scouts are more than happy to teach (but not all), most just don't think about it. But given a little encouragement/reminder they jump in so they can show their prowess and skills. They love it and the feedback and praise they get from the younger scouts (and from adults too).

Oh, yay! I can get on my downfall-of-civilization soapbox.

But, he doesn't have it. The thing about human memory is, it forgets! And be it one skill or another, it will be forgotten. If all that was used is EDGE, the student will be left unlearned and totally dependent on his instructor.

A scout must not first be explained a skill, or shown a skill, or condition muscle memory to do a skill ...

He must be shown a reference about a skill and, to the best of his ability, read it!!! That way, the teaching of his instructor has some permanence beyond the bounds of human memory.

 

The EDGE method falls woefully short in that department. <Rant over, for more see http://scouter.com/index.php/topic/7204-edge-why-dictate-it/?p=304641>

 

It's not book work per se that scouts find stifling. It's book work that doesn't "come alive." I think some of the girls who are interested in BSA picked up the Boy Scout Handbook or Boy's Life, taught themselves a few skills, and concluded "This is fun. More please!"

I apparently have been taught a vastly different version of EDGE method, because it is not done in a vacuum and it is not done only once. There is nothing in the EDGE method that says a scout cannot have read about it or even learned as skill to some extent, or tried and failed or tried an succeeded to some extent.

I learned/and taught via the EDGE method long before I knew the term EDGE method. It simply a 1,2,3,4 process and I am done.

Using the example above.

Sammy Star Scout sees, Nate New Scout putting up his tent but struggling.

Sammy goes over and ask if he needs help. Nate says sure. AS they work together Sammy is teaching Nate.

As they start to tie down the tent, Sammy ask if Nate knows what a taught-line hitch is.

Nate says no. Sammy explains what it is and when and why they use it. Sammy shows Nate how to tie the taut-line on one corner of the tent. Nate ties the next corner and guides as needed. Nate finishes tying the rest under the watchful eye of Sammy.

Sammy tells Nate let's go set the dinning fly and practice some more. And Nate learns a few more things beside taut-line hitch.

When they are done, Sammy tells Nate great job and that tomorrow you can use those skills and learn a few more when we do some pioneer work.

The next day as the Patrol/Troop builds a monkey bridge Nate gets that chance to tie a taut-line a few dozen more times and learn more knots.

Older Scouts and adults are watching over and guiding as needed.

This happens over and over again in different situations and needs and before long Nate can tie a taut-line in his sleep and is teaching other Scouts, Webelos and Cubs. He is passing it along, being helpful, friendly and courteous, he is showing character and leadership.

Not sure how that brings about the down fall of civilization.

I see this happen routinely in real life with my scouts.

So what am I missing?

This,

 

 

is not the same as this.

 

 

While your focused on teaching, I was speaking more in context of using the method of advancement as the main program objective.

 

I'm tempted to repeat my thoughts on advancement vs adventure. But I will rely on my previous posts to support my point that a program of advancement will never have the foundation for building character, nor will the program develop a maturity that is attractive for older scouts. Advancement is limited to the finite skills in the program.

 

Listen to this scout leader:

 

 

Barry

Honestly I am not following you post or meaning, or the distinction you are drawing from my previous post,  so I will go back to what I stated before.

Advancement can be achieved through mastering scouting skills, which can be done through activities the scout is doing and having fun. I fail to see the slippery slope in any of that.

Focusing on teaching scout skills is truly a slippery slope. i think the word that concerns me here is "teaching". Boys of the scout age learn far more by observing the skills being used in action than by instructor directing. Of course Scouts need some instruction to learn specific skills, but a troop that builds on learning skills as the highest priority typically misses the point of scouting. The main purpose of the program is developing moral and ethical decision makers. The practice of making decisions occurs best in the woods, not the classroom. A troop that focuses on adventure where Scouts see scout skills used is far more successful than a troop that focuses on first class in the first year.

 

Instead of making all the boys scout skills experts, make the program adventurous enough that if drives the boys to want more skills.

 

Barry

I cannot agree that teaching is a slippery slope. Older scouts using the EDGE method to show a younger scouts how to pitch a tent, build a fire, use a map and compass, build a pioneer gateway etc., is in my opinion, exactly what scouting is about. In fact it is part of the requirements for rank advancement to teach.

If a scout sees a another scout struggling to set up tent improperly he should step in and offer assistance.

"Let me explain to you about setting up your tent.

Now I'll show you

Now you try it.

Good, you have it, now pass it along."

I wonder where this is coming from. The National meeting is still a few weeks off.

You just mentioned call out. Is this supposed to apply to Ordeal/Brotherhood/Vigil?

What about conclaves and Pow Wow's?

Could this possibly be someone trolling/punking you?

I can understand National thinking that Scouts that earn First Class in their first year tend to stay longer, but I think that we're just rushing them along. Do the boys really get anything out of being forced to earn First class in the first year.

 

I start every new year talking to my parents and explaining the program, and how it differs from Cub Scouts and why that is. My go to line every year is "I would rather your son stay active in the troop for seven years (11 thru 18) and at our last Scoutmasters conference say he enjoyed his time with us than be pushed earn his Eagle at 14 and drop out because he hated the program. While your son may not have made eagle, he would have experienced leadership opportunities, made lifelong friends, developed positive traits, and learned skills that will serve him for the rest of his life

 

I feel the key then is not rushing scouts to first Class, but offering a good program. Scouts will advance at their own speeds.

I agree that there is no need to rush. But it is can also be an easy goal to reach if the troop is focused on teaching scout skills. First Class rank is an achievement of mastering the craft of Scouting. If the troop (and I mean youth), are learning, using, perfecting and teaching other scouts the skills of scouting then First Class will come naturally and more likely, sooner rather than later, because they are doing & having fun.

If I had to pick to change only one thing about rank advancement, it would be replace all the words 'explain', 'tell,' 'discuss' with 'show,' 'do,' 'demonstrate.' More do, less talk, and ranks will be achieved without much thought to the process.

Good Luck! Remember, try to enjoy it as well. It is the only Eagle project you will do. I hope you feel better.

What's with the snarky replies? Someone enjoyed scouts in their own way and you guys tell him he's wrong because it isn't good enough? Cchoat said he had one of his best experiences. He didn't say he had one of the best experiences. If you don't think it would be your best experience then why not just be happy for him rather than tell him he's doing something wrong?

 

Friendly, courteous, or kind?

I will tell him congrats for two reasons.

"One of" the most rewarding experiences does not rule out those experiences with youth.

Second, as someone that trains scouts and scouters, it has a ripple effect.

When I see a light go off for a PL or ASPL or SPL etc., it is even very gratifying because the effect I had on that scout will be repeated multiple times and possibly through multiple levels.

Same is true for an adult leader. If an adult I am training gets it, heads back to his/her troop with great enthusiasm, a boy-led mentality and a better tool box with which to help the scouts grow, then I have had a great day. I may not get to see the direct interactions with those scouts, but feel pretty good when I think the light went on in that scouters head. Paying it forward is a big deal in scouting in my mind, so seeing 30-40 projects (ticket items) come to life that will help scouts, seeing a scouter leave with new enthusiasm and purpose is really a great experience.

Unfortunately, most do not actually earn the merit badges. Some requirements get signed off that could not possibly have been completed.

A more frequent issue is the "DO, Show, Demonstrate" parts of the MB are done, shown or demonstrated by the counselor in a group setting.

This past Summer at our camp, the MB classes were given by instructors (many of which are under 18 and cannot be counselors anyway). The instructors would sign off that requirements had been covered, but MB Counselors back at the unit (or Counselors from District or Council) would test the Scout and sign off if they felt the work was completed according to the requirements. It was a bit of delayed gratification for some scouts, but that is not a bad thing. It also ensured that the Scouts did and understood the requirement. In some cases a requirement may need to be redone if the counselor was not confident the scout understood/completed the work.

IT worked well for us. The Scouts didn't seem to mind, because they were interested in doing the work and having fun. As leaders we liked it because we felt confident that the scout earned the badge.

Apparently, Sam Strahan, the young man that confronted the shooter at Freeman High School last week, was a Scout.

His father, who died in a accident this past June was a Scout Leader.

Sam is credited for saving lives by trying to stop the shooter, giving others time to flee. It appears Sam did not attack the shooter when his gun jammed, rather he tried to talk him down. Sam was the only person killed by the shooter. Three others were injured.

A Scout is Brave.

Thoughts and prayers with his family and friends.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/14/us/student-killed-confronting-shooter-trnd/index.html