ajmako

gtscouter, Two things you want to keep in mind: 1) A Scoutmaster Conference can happen at any time for any reason. It doesn't just deal with advancement requirements. In fact, the SM Conference is the number one tool for adult leaders. You can't help a boy you don't know, and the way you get to know him is by sitting down and talking to him. 2) Don't wait for a Scout to be ready to advance to deal with a discipline problem. Advancement is neither the stick nor the carrot in developing a Scout's behavior. If there is a discipline problem with a particular Scout the SM or another ad

Strictly speaking, no. Even less so because of the size of the troop. In my experience I have discovered that there are times, regardless of the size of the troop, when cooking and eating as a troop would be adviseable. In some troops, particularly small or brand new troops, cooking and eating as a troop is really the only practical thing to be done. So it's not always necessary to do patrol cooking. As far as the Patrol Method is concerned each patrol should plan its own menu, purchase its own food, and handle the work of cooking and eating on its own. It's all part of being an ind

>> The newest, youngest scouts seem to be the most dedicated.

My only suggestion is to focus on teaching the skills and providing opportunities to complete requirements. Don't schedule advancement focused activities, schedule activities that provide the opportunity to advance. Then challenge every Scout who wants to advance to seize the opportunities as they come, and if they don't see a particular opportunity, make one. Ideally you want to run a fun program and only have to worry about advancement when a Scout comes to you (or someone designated to sign off requirements) and says: "I did this, can you sign it off?"

Eamonn wrote: Maybe due to my age I'm not remembering things but 30 years ago when I first became a leader I don't remember hearing of children with ADD and ADD HA. Of course now I have and am willing to allow these children some "Slack". I now know that this is an illness.Still even if this is an illness is it an excuse for lack of respect? Eamonn, That's because it wasn't called ADD, ADD-HA, or any of the other disorders that fall under the umbrella of ADHD. Thirty years ago it was called simply Hyperactivity and only covered a small subset of those with the disorder. Before that it w

My personal ethical perspective and background is simple. I grew up among the first generation of Americans to live without segregation--I was about 1 year old when the Civil Rights Act was signed. Most of my schooling was in a Catholic parish school. I became a Cub Scout at the age of 7, and have been registered in Scouting in one capacity or another since. I must also admit that I am a miserable failure at living by the ideals of both Scouting and Christianity, but I keep trying. Rules and regulations are imposed, even in a voluntary society, to ensure the survival of the society. In a

while I'm not as sanguine as Ajmako that you can simply apply the Oath and Law to all situations. Hunt, Cheerfully optimistic? Yes. Hopeful? Yes. Confident? Yes. I am all those things when it comes to the idea that you can simply apply the Oath and Law to all situations. That is, after all, what we expect a Scout to do. We teach him the Scout Oath and Law and tell him to do his best to live by them in his daily life. We tell him to apply the Oath and Law to all situations and let those ideals guide his actions. He can only learn how to do that by observing us apply the Oath and Law to a

Start by focusing on teaching skills, not checking off requirements. Use troop and patrol meetings to teach, then go to camp with a purpose other than "working on advancements." Let the TG take the lead in this. Let him do most of the work. The NSP-SA should be in the background. If you teach the skills like you teach a kid to tie his own shoes, and go to camp for a reason that is fun, advancement will happen. The TG should obviously know the requirements and have the authority to sign them off. As far as the PL is concerned, you can make a schedule, like a duty roster and rotate the PL a

Kudu writes: What's wrong? It is a description of your progress, not his. That's your interpretation, not mine. I don't judge a Scout's progress according to my own standards or anything like that. I set high expectations, develop a relationship with each Scout, and I watch each Scout grow. When it comes to signing off Scout Spirit, I ask myself if this Scout has done his best, based on what I know about him, to live by the Scout Oath and Law in his everyday life. Sometimes I ask him if he thinks he's done his best. And then I sign it off. Kudu writes: Ask yourself: why do you need

Yah, I agree with ajmako, but I think he's leavin' out a whole bunch of stuff. Yeah, that's par for the course. Would you believe I was trying to simplify things? No? Okay, then I must have forgotten all the other stuff. But the cause of what ajmako describes is the right adults in a long-term relationship with kids. Hello Muddah, hello Fadduh, amen Bruddah! I think ajmako's exposition is only tryin' to tell people to avoid traps #2 and #3. (He/she will have to let me know if that's right ) That's good advice, eh? But it ain't enough to pull off what s/he's talkin' about.

Well, we've gone a little far afield of the original topic, but that's to be expected. Stosh: After all, isn't the whole idea behind a venture patrol and NBP meant to be stratafied? It allows a program focus that isn't possible with mixed patrols. Historically, the venture patrol concept was created to deal with a problem of older Scout retention. It's not really a new concept since long, long ago the BSA had Senior Scouts, which turned into Exploring. The NSP concept was introduced to deal with two problems--one with low Webelos-to-Scout transition rates and the other with younger S

Kudu wrote: How do you "measure" Spirit in a Scout's everyday life? When I was SM, I didn't measure Scout Spirit, at least not formally. I watched the Scouts interact with each other and with other people in the course of doing Scouting while he was working toward advancement. When it came time for an SM conference, I sat down with him and talked to him about things he had learned, how he was doing, and what his plans were for the next rank. I rarely had trouble finding out if he had done his best to live by the Scout Oath and Law in his everyday life. I rarely had a hard time seeing if a

I was asked some questions about my post privately, but they are good questions worthy of being answered publicly: But my question is now HOW do you implement that? You mentioned that after some time, it won't take more than a scoutmaster sit down to nip things in the bud. But how do you get to that point. I addressed this in another thread (see RE: name calling again). This isn't a quick, easy fix. The adult leaders have to put forth a bit of effort to make it work. Simply put: 1) Get rid of all behavior rules and zero-tolerance policies. 2) Sit down with the Scouts and estab

I used to want to save the world. When I was a newly minted adult I left my boyhood troop for what was at that time called an "inner city" troop. I did it because I wanted to do my duty and to help other people--especially those who needed it most. I was just a kid from the suburbs and really didn't have a clue what real life was like. Once I got to know the boys in the troop and got to understand the sort of neighborhood they lived in, the schools they went to, and what they and their parents had to contend with, I wanted to save the world even more. I did my best but some of the kids I

C-BOLT wrote: The real problem is, some scouts not listening to certain leaders in our troop. This happens usually when the Scouts are convinced those certain leaders won't back up what they say. For example, if a Scout does something and a leader says "don't do it again or you get sent home," that can either be a warning or a challenge. If the Scout knows the leader means it, it's a warning. If the Scout isn't sure if the leader means it or not, it's a challenge. If he doesn't listen and the leader just says "don't do it again or you get sent home," the Scout now knows it's an empty thre

Stosh: I have never been a fan of bringing new boys into existing patrols for a number of reasons. Obviously the boys are now separated from those they have been with in scouting for many years, the older boys have other interests and operate on a different skill/maturity level. This is a concern, but I don't buy it as a big enough concern to rework the whole patrol system over. Part of being a patrol is having comraderie. Part of being a Scout is being friendly, kind, helpful, and several other things. Too often we use "older boys have other interests" as an excuse. But what are we reall

Stosh wrote: But listen to the comment I made. TG acts as PL, that means no one else can be PL and the TG has usurped the rotating PL responsibilities and more importantly - authority. I get the feeling the rotated PL isn't really a functioning PL, just a ego building training tool. I guess it depends on the TG, doesn't it? I'll say this much, you won't get an argument from me. To me the whole idea of the NSP is badly thought out. You end up with a patrol, but it's a patrol of Scouts who have a different status than the rest of the Scouts in the troop. If, at the end of the first yea

Regarding Stosh's questions about the TG, perhaps I didn't say what I meant quite right. The rotating PL thing was only supposed to be the first half of the NSP tenure. During that period the TG has many but not all of the roles of a PL--he teaches skills, and makes sure the PL's responsibilities are met. The PL does the job as far as he's capable, with the TG holding his hand, and picking up the slack. Once all the patrol members have had their taste of PL or APL, the patrol elects a "permanent" PL and the TG takes a step back. His role is strictly Instructor/Mentor. That is theoretical

Beavah, When the NSP concept was originally created it was advised that the positions of PL and APL be rotated monthly until each member of the patrol had a chance to experience at least one of the positions. This gave them an opportunity to understand how difficult the job was and how important it was for patrol members to be followers first. At the same time the TG had the opportunity to train each Scout for leadership in a hands-on way that didn't take over the whole program. Once each Scout had this opportunity, the patrol was supposed to elect a "permanent" PL who would hold the positio

How did you get from point A to point B? How did the mere presence of adults cause your problem? The thing that moved us from point A to point B was that the patrol advisors followed a "work closely" method. When the patrols got together for their patrol corners during troop meetings, the patrol advisors went with them, and sat in on the patrol meeting. What am I missing? Were the boys intimidated by the presence of an adult or were the adults trying to take control? Yes. The natural tendency of youth is to defer to the adult in the room. It's what they are used to doing at hom

jblake47 wrote: "I am the CA of a venturing crew and the president of the CO. That makes me the Executive Officer AND crew Advisor. After 8 years of working with the crew, I'm not going to step down just because the CO elected me president/senior officer." I think you'll find there's no problem here. The IH position isn't a registered adult position (the IH is registered through the New Unit Charter Application). It represents the final authority for the CO. As far as I'm aware the IH can register in any adult position he or she wants (but has to follow whatever rules apply to that positi

BrentAllen wrote: "I think the term 'permanent patrols' may be confusing to some." Just to clarify, a permanent patrol is one that continues to exist long after the Scouts who started it are gone. Bringing in new Scouts is a vital part of it, and so is training those new Scouts in the First Class skills. The BSA's description of "regular" patrols (as per the SM Handbook) suggests the BSA expects regular patrols to be permanent patrols. The problem is that B-P intended patrols to be permanent to the Scout as well. That is, he joins the Bat Patrol, and from that point on the Bat Patrol

Since Beavah asked for real, live examples, I'll give one. Years ago I joined up with a pretty big troop as an ASM. This troop focused on permanant patrols, insisted patrols plan and conduct their own activities, and handed Scouts most of the authority. When a group of new boys joined, they usually formed a new patrol, gave them an ASM and TG, and set them loose. It was probably the best troop I had ever been associated with. About halfway through my tenure with that troop things started falling apart. The patrols still functioned on their own, but the junior leaders were sort of slacking

First, I would point out that the BSA prohibition is against corporal punishment, and the suggestion is that unit leaders find positive means of changing bad behavior. Having tried several methods, some of which I am told could be considered corporal punishment, and miserably failed with all of them, I know of only one method that works consistently. It does, however, require a great deal of effort to establish. The first thing that must be done is to establish a standard of acceptable behavior and stick to it. In Scouting we're quite lucky because we have the Scout Oath and Law, whi

The original idea behind Scouting was that boys would form patrols, do things on their own under their own leadership, and in that process they would learn personal responsibility and many other qualities of good citizenship. The key to this was that the Scouts really did do things on their own. The adult mentor taught skills and established what was expected of a Scout, but his responsibilities pretty much ended there. Another key was that patrols were permanent and troops were merely local groups of patrols who relied on the same group of adult mentors. In the BSA system the importance