Scoutmaster Assigned Leadership Projects

[TheScout]

We all know Scoutmaster Assigned Leadership Projects can be assigned for scouts who have not held a POR in order for them to advance. I have always been part of small troops who have not had problems getting every scout that needed one a POR. So I was just curious, for those of you that have used Leadership Projects, what do they usually consist of?

[Beavah]

Yah, does anyone else struggle with token positions like bugler or librarian? I confess these drive me a bit batty. Not that there aren't troops where those are real, substantive positions, like troops where the scribe is effectively the youth treasurer (collectin' dues and doin' budgets) or runs the troop website and newsletter.

 

Seems to me that every POR should be about the same level of commitment/growth as PL.

 

Same should be true for Scoutmaster Assigned Leadership Projects.

 

Some that I've seen:

 

* Put together a recruitin' video for the troop (~ 6 months of work, probably a couple hundred hours).

* Do all the logistics work for a Venture Patrol superadventure (the actual position was APL of da Venture patrol, but that was his assignment).

* Serve as Director of Community Service (in charge of planning/leading a troop's community service activity(s)). Sorta an ASPL of Service.

* Rebuild and refurbish the troop trailer (actually youth-done at a HS auto shop, not done by dad).

* Build a few thingamadoos for a small local skate park (more like a mini-Eagle project than a troop POR, but definitely showed leadership).

* Get trained in ARC lifesaving then run safety for a series of troop watersport activities.

 

Beavah

 

[Lisabob]

Yeah Beavah, my annoyance factor kicks in when we have scouts serving as "troop historian" who do absolutely NOTHING for 4-6 months. But it counts, because a) they held the position and b) the SM (or his designate) never required anything from the boy in terms of actual leadership. At the very least, our troop librarian brings the MB book library with him from time to time, though I agree that's pretty lame in terms of showing leadership. Still, if the SM isn't going to follow through then there's little to nothing anybody else can do about it.

 

As for scoutmaster assigned projects - I know of one where the SM assigned an older boy to be a "buddy" to a scout with rather serious emotional and developmental challenges. As this scout's "buddy" the older scout's assignment was to help integrate this boy into as much of his normal patrol life as possible. For example, if the boy was assigned to be grubmaster, this older scout would assist him. If the boy was being excluded/excluding himself from patrol conversation, his "buddy" would try to draw him into the conversation. If the boy was beginning to act out inappropriately, the "buddy" and the boy had a private signal they used to let him know to back off (the boy in question has difficulty interpreting normal social cues). This was certainly a leadership challenge (how to incorporate difficult people into a team) and to some extent it worked. The boy went from being ostracized to being at least somewhat accepted and he also modified his own behavior a bit better. Not just any scout could take on this sort of special leadership project though.

 

 

[Lisabob]

OGE, I completely agree. My frustration, and I think Beavah's, is that sometimes there's nothing any one adult (other than the SM, maybe the CC, or the COR if they even have a clue) can do about it if/when the other adults in positions of authority don't (want to?) see the problem. But that's probably a whole 'nother thread.

 

(OGE here, I agree Lisa, that's why I delted my original comment that I posted here and started a new thread so as not to hijack this one, aplogies to all) (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Beavah]

Great POR, Lisa'bob, the "Differently Abled Scout's Buddy". When it works, it's a very special, magical thing. Seems to particularly work well for scouts with Autism Spectrum Disorders.

 

That's real. But I'm right there with yeh on the do-nuthin' historian and librarian. Not what we want to teach, that.

 

Beavah

 

[Stosh]

Just because one has been given the POR, they wear the patch and do the time, does not necessarily mean they get the credit. If one does not fulfill the responsibilities during the time period they will not get credit. If they do enough for a couple of weeks/months of work, they get credit, but if they do nothing, they get nothing.

 

We are constantly asking our POR people questions as to how things are going. This is not a nice little fire-side chat, it is a flat out question relative to their POR. The only unacceptable answer to these kinds of questions is" "I don't know". If a PL is asked where so-and-so is and doesn't know, he's in trouble. If the QM is asked where the spatchula is and doesn't know, he's in trouble. The number of "I don't knows" gives a pretty good idea of who well a POR person is doing his job. If they do know the answer to your questions, you can be pretty sure they are fulfilling their responsibility. Also, asking these questions is a great way of teaching the boys what their POR is all about. If I ask the QM where the dutch oven is, he needs to know, and if the first time I ask and get the "I don't know" answer, usually the second time I ask, the dutch oven has been checked out and the QM is more apt to know where it is. Our PL's know when their people are not going to make a meeting in any given week. They know their church schedule, their sports schedule and their family schedule. It's not as hard as one may think. Just don't accept "I don't know" as an answer to anything.

 

The progression in this process is very simple. It starts with 1) "I don't know", then moves on to 2) the deer-in-the-headlights look and a long awkward pause, then the 3) "I'll check it out right now!", and finally ends up with 4) a straight in the eye answer that you know the boy has already done what is expected of him.

 

The adult response is 1) "Not acceptable", 2) Let the silence do the discipline, 3) "Very good" and 4) "Nice job, Thanks!"

 

Stosh

[Hunt]

"We are constantly asking our POR people questions as to how things are going. This is not a nice little fire-side chat, it is a flat out question relative to their POR."

 

It seems to me that this approach, along with the idea that the boy is "in trouble" if his answers are "not acceptable," reflects too much adult involvement in the operation of boy leadership. I don't understand, for example, why an adult leader would be asking the QM where the dutch oven is. Perhaps I don't really understand the context.

[Stosh]

"We are constantly asking our POR people questions as to how things are going. This is not a nice little fire-side chat, it is a flat out question relative to their POR."

 

It seems to me that this approach, along with the idea that the boy is "in trouble" if his answers are "not acceptable," reflects too much adult involvement in the operation of boy leadership. I don't understand, for example, why an adult leader would be asking the QM where the dutch oven is. Perhaps I don't really understand the context.

 

 

>> There's always the thin line of where teaching goes too far and becomes doing. If in the course of instruction, the lack of a dutch oven by the patrol assigned to cook is expressed and the PL of that patrol doesn't know where the thing is, goes to the QM who doesn't know where it it, which ends up with the SPL involved and he surely doesn't know where it is. Such ripples amongst the boys usually catch the attention of adults in the support role. Now these adults can pitch in and help look for the dutch, or they can go to the POR who's responsibility it is to know where it is and ask a question. This in no way means the problem is being directed, lead, or involved beyond a training lesson on the part of the adult. Even better yet, ask the SPL to ask the question of the POR person.

 

This past weekend we had a camporee. The QM didn't attend, nor did he inventory the trailer, inspect the equipment, or watch over the food supply situation. Even if he didn't go on the trip, his responsibility was to make sure the troop was ready before it left. Needless to say, at different times throughout the weekend, multiple adults asked the question, "Where's the QM?", all fully knowledgable he was not on the trip, when something wasn't right. It emphasized and reemphasized the fact that someone was not pulling their POR weight. The SPL will be discussing a change of QM POR this Tuesday with the SM. Because the adults asked the questions, it does not mean they are directing the leadership of the troop. What they are doing is constantly dumping it back into the laps of the boys to get their problem solving skills back into action.

 

It wasn't very long before THEY had an answer to that question. They found the dutch after two other scouts went in and tore the trailer apart and cleaned it up a little. A third scout offered to get his patrol together and clean up the trailer this coming week, until a QM with some SS can be found in the troop.

 

This is why we always phrase the issue in a question. A statement gives direction, a question seeks a resolution. The onus always falls back on the boys.

 

 

One must always be aware that the question must be clear and specific. It cannot be just a frustrating challenge or that will be an interference of no value on the part of an adult.

 

For example: "Where's the dutch oven?" Specific, to the point, no editorial commentary or blaming, identifies the problem and focuses the attention on the problem. It sets out the framework for conflict resolution and problem solving opportunities. On the other hand, "What's going on here?" is a vague, editorial comment suggesting someone's to blame for a problem, and offers no direction or definition.

 

The closest thing to a directive with the initial response is the phraise "Not acceptable". This means the answer "I don't know" is not an acceptable solution to the problem facing the scout. When one gets to the training of the scout where he won't answer, "I don't know" or gives you the blank stare, he'll answer with a "I'll check it out" meaning, I'll take the responsibility of solving this problem.

 

What is interesting in this whole process is the number of times my SPL and ASPL have followed along in this process with the various patrols. It works and works well with training the leadership skills of problem solving, responsibility taking and stepping up to the plate with ways to solve their own problems.

 

If this process means adult interferences in the boy-led leadership, I guess I'm willing to accept a little bit of it along the way.

 

Stosh

 

[Eagledad]

>>The SPL will be discussing a change of QM POR this Tuesday with the SM.

[Stosh]

"The SPL will be discussing a change of QM POR this Tuesday with the SM."

 

"Very interesting. Does this mean the QM fired, or the SPL? Our Troop could not have even left the parking lot without the QM because he has the keys to the equipment and the trailer. I would be very disappointed if my SPL didnt know one of his officers wasnt going to show up and we are standing there waiting for equipment. And yes, this has happened."

 

>> I do believe the comment said that the SPL will be discussing a change of QM. I don't believe that statement makes any jump to conclude someone is getting "fired". The SPL knew the QM wasn't going to be attending the outing and he also knew the QM didn't do anything to prepare the troop because he personally wasn't going to be in attendance. I guess in your troop if the QM can't be there, the whole troop doesn't go because they don't have a key for the trailer. None of our boys has that much control over the welfare of the troop and it's activities.

 

"As for token responsibilities, I found that our newly elected SPLs were very good at getting rid of what they perceived as dead weight."

 

>> Somehow I missed out on the point being made here. My SPL is not doing his job when he discusses the QM who's not doing his job and a change might be in order, and yet your SPL has no problem with jettising his dead weight and that's ok?

 

Stosh

 

[Eagledad]

>>I guess in your troop if the QM can't be there, the whole troop doesn't go because they don't have a key for the trailer.

[Beavah]

I understand the blurred line between judging if a scout should get credit for his time in a POS. I don't disagree at all, but I've seen many SMs try to fire scouts because they forget that we are in this to helps scouts grow, not to build the most efficient troop in the district. Failure is inevitable, learning from it is the trick.

 

Yah, I agree with Eagledad here, eh?

 

One of the things I have observed, though, is that this "fire them" thing increased when the direction and perception put out by National was that anybody who had nominally held the position should "get credit" even if they did not really serve, or learn.

 

Troops then felt obligated to "fire" kids before the time was up, so as not to be put in a position of advancing a boy who hadn't grown to the point of meriting that recognition.

 

So once again a silly rule or perception of a rule leads us to do something that makes program worse, not better.

 

Da same applies to the notion that "being active in your troop and patrol" means that your name appears on the roster even if you never show. This leads a good troop that cares about kids learning and growing to drop kids from the roster.

 

In both cases, unit leaders who are responsible for kids, and CO's who are responsible for units, should be trusted with intelligent discretion rather than bein' forced into an aggressive "solution" by poor or misperceived policy.

 

[/soapbox]

 

Beavah

[FScouter]

If a QM has failed to perform his duties, replacing him might be appropriate, or not. The SPL is responsible for seeing that the Scout he selected for the QM job is actually doing it. If the dutch ovens are lost and the trailer is a mess, the SPL should have known that when he queried the QM before the outing, "Is all our equipment set and ready for the campout."

 

If the SPL didn't know what was going on, perhaps he is the one that needs to be replaced.

 

There is a higher level failure if we feel we must resort to firing (removing, replacing) boy leaders. That is clear evidence of failure on our part to develop boy leaders.

 

The directive from our National org is not that a boy holding a position but not performing must be given credit anyway. The directive is that we must train the boy to perform and fulfill the responsibilities of the position. It isnt the fault of a national policy when adult leaders preside over a troop and allow a boy fail to fulfill the responsibilities of his position.

[Venividi]

>It isnt the fault of a national policy when adult leaders preside over a troop and allow a boy fail to fulfill the responsibilities of his position.

 

 

????? I thought that scouting was a place where boys were allowed to fail. Yes, the adults are responsible for training and coaching and encouraging and mentoring to helping a boy grow. That is what adults should be doing, and if currently not, should taking steps towards doing so. Perhaps not common, but I for one have encountered a scout or two that took a POR and would not follow through even with training/coaching/mentoring. I think I am missing something here.

[Stosh]

Barry: I didn't take it personal, I was just curious how one situation was worked one way and a similar situation differently. I must missed the connection, that's all.

 

I didn't see the SPL's discussion for a change to be construed as the QM was being fired. The QM obviously was not fulfilling his obligations and a SM conference might be in order, or a change, whichever the SM and SPL deem as appropriate.

 

I do not like, however, where a responsibility and authority is given to one boy and it's another boy's responsibility to insure his success. If a QM doesn't do his job, why is it the fault of the SPL or SM? This lack of taking responsibility for one's own choices has simply gone too far. If QM doesn't do his job, it's his fault. If he is trying to do his job and is struggling with it and need help and the SM and SPL don't support him, then yes, the responsibility is shared. The QM job is not shared, but the teaching of the QM is shared.

 

If a boy has QM has a responsibility and refuses to do it because he's not going on the trip, just doesn't cut it with me. It's not a case of failure, it's a case of insubordination. There's a big difference here. If a boy accepts a responsibility, he should be trusted to fulfill it. If he refuses we are now into "A Scout is Trustworthy".

 

What's really interesting in our situation is that the SPL and QM are very good friends. If the SPL and SM replace the current QM with another, the next person to be considered would not be in the circle of friends of the SPL, but instead a scout who has shown diligence in following through on his responsibilities.

 

And if the SPL knew what was going on and didn't step in...he should be fired? Isn't this dynamic exactly what we are NOT trying to teach our scouts??? If I don't do my job, someone else will step in and do it for me. No where in BSA literature do I see this written down, suggested or recommended!

 

The SPL's job is NOT to step in and do everyone else's responsibility any more than it's the SM's job, or ASM's job, or anyone else. If a boy accepts a POR, only he can and should fulfill the responsibility.

 

If he struggles with it and needs help, no problem. If he refuses to do it after saying he would, he's replaced by another scout who would benefit by the opportunity.

 

Stosh