Must a new cub MEMORIZE the requirements for Bobcat....

[GKlose 24]

I've seen a number of local packs (my kids cycled through 3 of them before we found a "best fit") and I think a disservice is done when it becomes all about marching Cubs around from activity to activity and then hand them their badges. At the same time, I've seen a number of burnt out Cub Scouts leave the program prior to finishing Arrow of Light (because of a variety of excuses: "it's just not his thing", or "we have too many other activities", or "he wants to do just sports", and things like that).

 

It occurred to me this morning that the standard should be FUN. There should be a number of fun and interesting activities, and the end result of that should be advancement, right? Memorization can be fun too, but only if it is presented in the right way.

 

The Pledge of Allegiance is an interesting point: as far as I know, virtually every kid memorizes it. But I've never heard stories of them being required to, disciplined at school for not having memorized it, having to sit down and practice it with parents, or not advancing in school for not memorizing it, or even being graded on it. It probably isn't considered anything like fun. Maybe in later grades they might learn the history of it, or maybe talk about what it means. But still, memorization happens.

 

And yet, Cub Scouts isn't supposed to be like that. Yes, there are elements of character, citizenship and personal fitness, but the overall standard is supposed to be fun.

 

Guy

[Oak Tree 15]

I absolutely agree - the whole point from the kids' point of view should be to have fun. And we had fun memorizing the promise when I was a Tiger den leader. And the kids had no trouble doing it.

 

But when parents asked me - "Does this really mean he has to learn it?" - I would say, "We can't change the requirements. What do you think 'Learn and say' means?" The same goes for other requirements in Cub Scouts - yes, for the first three ranks the parent is Akela. But they generally take their direction from the den leader and you have a lot of influence on it. I've had parents ask me if going camping meant their son really had to sleep outside, or couldn't we just sign him off based on other things he had done.

 

I was never in a hurry to get awards for the kids. Take your time, have fun. Don't rush it. Don't burn yourself out or burn the kids out.

 

In general I didn't change the requirements, either, just to award badges. For the Pledge of Allegiance, you're right, they don't get tested on it. But they don't get a badge that says "I have learned the Pledge", either. If they were to get a badge, I'd expect that they had actually done it. I'm not sure I get where you say this is adding to the requirement. The requirement is right there - "Learn and say". There's no rush to get the Bobcat badge. So all I'm saying is to have fun and enjoy your time with the kids. But in doing so, I personally wouldn't tell the parents to change the requirements.

[GKlose 24]

I don't think I said I feel it is modifying or adding to the requirements. But by the same token, where does it say that learn = memorize?

 

I'll also have to admit to my personal bias here -- although neither of my Cubs went through this (in the three packs they were part of), I've heard stories of not only required memorization, but testing, and recitation (by themselves) in front of an entire pack. It happens, and my opinion is that is completely contrary to the intention of the Cub program.

 

Guy

[Oak Tree 15]

Guy, I suspect that if I were to watch you run a Tiger den, or you were to watch me, we would detect very little difference in how we actually behave or work with the Scouts.

 

I would say that testing and recitation by yourself in front of a pack is way over the top. I might let a Tiger do it if he really knew it and really wanted to do it, but no way would I demand a shaky kid get up and do it by himself.

 

It was Dean, not you, who said that making them memorize it was adding to the requirements. You did say something that I took that way, which was There is absolutely no mention in the handbook about setting a unit-imposed standard on anything. I took this to mean that setting the standard of memorization was a unit-imposed standard (i.e., adding to the requirements).

 

You ask, "where does it say that learn = memorize?" I guess you might be asking rhetorically, but as for whether learn means memorize, I thought I was just using what appeared to me to be the plain meaning of the term.

 

The requirement doesn't say to learn about the Promise or to learn what the Promise means or to learn of the Promise, it just says to learn and say the Promise.

 

So where does it say that learn = memorize? Pretty much any dictionary, I'm guessing.

 

From dictionary.com

 

learn

 

-verb (used with an object)

to acquire knowledge of or skill in by study, instruction, or experience: to learn French; to learn to ski.

to become informed of or acquainted with; ascertain: to learn the truth.

to memorize: He learned the poem so he could recite it at the dinner.

to gain (a habit, mannerism, etc.) by experience, exposure to example, or the like; acquire: She learned patience from her father.

 

The only one of these definitions that appears applicable is number 3. How would you define learn? You might be right that there's some normal usage I'm just not thinking of, but any place I can think of where someone says "Learn X", where X is some specific body of words, they mean to memorize it. So I really didn't think I was stretching to create the definition - it was just my natural interpretation.

 

 

[GKlose 24]

Yes, Oak, I pretty much was speaking rhetorically, but since you bring it up: I feel that if the BSA had intended memorization, they probably would have written the requirement to specifically say what they intended ("learn and say" versus maybe "memorize and recite").

 

But I think it odd that now that you've looked up the definition, you can only see one way of interpreting the definition ("The only one of these definitions that appears applicable is number 3"), when in fact all 4 could apply in one way or another.

 

I have to add an aside here, that one of my avocations is that of a musician, and in other forums, I've commented frequently about the topic of memorization. In those circles, it is a commonly misunderstood *skill* (a skill that warrants special practice). I've seen lots of comments ranging from "memorization is extremely important" (in a musical sense, I'm talking about) to "I can never memorize anything".

 

In this same musical sense, it turns out that it is "internalization" that is the important step. If a musical concept is internalized, then memorization naturally follows as part of the process (*if* memorization is addressed specifically). Then it gets messy because there are different kinds of memorization (muscle memory, for example).

 

But music teachers are all over the map on this. Internalization is always vital, while some teachers think memorization is important, others think that sight-reading (the specific skill of reading sheet music) is important, and some followers of either camp feel that the two are mutually-exclusive (and they are not -- they are specific skills that need to be learned and practiced). A personal pet peeve of mine is the young musician that can't play a note unless there is a piece of sheet music sitting on a music stand for them to stare at.

 

So getting back to Cubs -- do I think learn = memorize? No -- I'd rather have a Cub know what the Oath means, inside and out, and if they happen to memorize it along the way, then that is a happy byproduct. An active Cub is going to have tons of opportunities to recite the Oath and Law of the Pack with others, so memorization is bound to happen. But would I put a Cub, especially a first grade Tiger Cub, into a position where they would have to recite the Oath, and if they stumbled, I'd say "I think you should work some more on that" and withhold a Bobcat Badge from them until they could "pass the standard"? Never.

[Oak Tree 15]

It wasn't an issue for me. All my Tigers memorized it with no problem.

 

I think you put too much credit in the BSA in terms of the precision of their choice of wording. These are just ordinary people doing their job. They may have just chosen the simplest way to say it for first graders.

 

As for whether the other three definitions could apply, it just doesn't seem a natural use of the language. Sure, we all bend definitions and interpret to our advantage sometimes, so I could see it as a possible argument - but I'm not seeing a natural interpretation for those other example sentences of having the promise be the same general type thing as

 

a skill or language (skiing or French)

something to be ascertained (the truth)

a habit/mannerism (patience)

[DeanRx 69]

Yes, it was my statement that requiring memorization is placing an addition to the requirement - and I stand by that statement.

 

Don't be quick to dismiss the handbook's authors intent when choosing the words "learn and say". These standards have been developed over 100 years with input from child educators and child psychologists and have been revamped over time. There is very little (if anything) in any BSA handbook that hasn't undergone years of critique from multiple sources. If BSA's intention was for a cub to 'recite from memory', the handbook would say "recite from memory". The intent is to LEARN the MEANING of the words and be able to say and understand what they are saying. To understand what they are pledging themselves to. There are times when reciting from memory is part of the requirement, as in requirement #7 for the Tenderfoot rank in Boy Scouts (BSA Scout Handbook, 12th ed.), "Repeat from memory and explain in your own words the Scout Oath, Law, motto, and slogan (pages 22-27). Someone out there correct me if I'm wrong, but the requirement of "repeat from memory...." doesn't appear anywhere in the cub handbooks. The recite part only comes into play once the scout it in Boy Scouts and appears in the requirements for Tenderfoot.

 

As I stated in the previous post, I would (and do) encourage memorizing it. But, I would stop short of requiring a cub to recite it from memory as a condition of awarding him rank. BSA is extremely clear on the concept of WHO is responsible for signing off on a requirement for the ranks of Bobcat, Tiger, Wolf and Bear. It is the Akela as defined in the given rank's handbook.

 

The Akela is the adult in the child's life. Like I said - if Johnny's mother, father, aunt, grandpa, etc... shows up at the den meeting, states that Johnny has completed x,y and z and they are willing to sign off on it - then the DL and all other unit leaders MUST take that at face value. It doesn't stop you from having a heart to heart offline with the adult to clarify what the expectations are. But, it does stop you from quizing Johnny to find out if the Akela is being truthful.

 

The exception to this is in the Web I and Web II years when the Akela and the DL have shared responsibility for signing off on rank advancement achievements.

 

This means as a DL you are not allowed to quiz, test, retest, or question the achievement once the adult Akela has signed off on it. Your job is to record, track and report to the advancement folks at the unit level. I would agree that the DL has the ability and responsibility to set the expectations in their den and communicate these with both the scouts and the parents / adults. But, the DL cannot ADD to the requirements.

 

The DL can also (as part of their meeting) have the scouts take turns reciting each line of the promise or Law of the Pack. They can, as a skit or presentation, have their den recite these things for the entire pack at a pack meeting. They can play any type of game they want in a meeting to help scouts remember the words and commit them to memory. What they should not (and per BSA guidance can not) do, is make a scout recite from memory as a condition of awarding the rank whether in front of the pack, in front of the den, in front of the DL, or even in front of the kid's parents.

 

Its pretty black and white in the handbook. The standard is "Do their best" = achievement passed. The person(s) who get to define "Do their best" is the parent / adult / Akela, not the DL or anyone else in a leadership role within the unit.

[Oak Tree 15]

DeanRx, I think we'll have to politely disagree on this one.

 

I could just as easily say that if the BSA meant "Learn the meaning", they would say "learn the meaning." But they said "Learn the Promise." I find on these forums that people are very quick to jump on the "you can't add to the requirements" bandwagon, when in fact it has to be up to the person signing off on the requirement to interpret what the requirement means.

 

At any rate, I agree that the parents are Akela. You as a leader do set the expectations, and you want to work with everyone to make sure that they feel things are reasonable. You want the kids to have a good time, and you also want them to get a sense of satisfaction by accomplishing something, earning awards, and being recognized for it. If you're doing that for the kids in grades 1-3, you're accomplishing plenty.

 

One of the most essential tools for any leader to have is a good sense of judgement. That, and some great interpersonal relationship capabilities. Use those to decide what's the right action in a particular situation.

[SSScout 1619]

Make the Cubs memorize the Promise and LotP? Naw...

Make the ADULTS learn'em. Those are the people that will give the Pack the most trouble, not the Cubs.

 

When the Pack meeting begins, and the flags are presented, and the CM asks a Webelos Cub to "Lead us in the CSPromise and LotP", here's what you do...

Say "hold on a minute, Toby, I want to see if our Akelas know as much as you do. Here, I want everybody to pull a card out of this bag..." The CM then walks to the back of the room and lets the parents draw a card out of a paper bag. On each card is one word of the Cub Scout Promise or Law of the Pack. CM continues: "Now, I'd like all the parents to line themselves up to spell out the Cub Scout Promise and the Law of the Pack. No, you may NOT use the book!" And watch the boys wiggle.

Don't forget to give'm "a BIG hand" and a special cheer:

 

PARENTS cheer: "Wash your hands!"

CUBS cheer: " I already did!" Alternate until everybody is tired...

[GKlose 24]

Now that sounds like FUN! :-)

 

I got a germ of an idea from this forum: "Who Is Smarter Than A Cub Scout?" To create a game show for the pack, pitting parents against Cub Scouts, with appropriate rewards and penalties. Questions could be drawn from basic Cub Scout knowledge.

 

The CM wouldn't go for it :-( (same basic reasons: hadn't been done before, sounds like too much work, "parents would never go for it", etc).

[Oak Tree 15]

Sounds great to me. The CM or his delegate could play it up, do his best Howie imitation (or Richard Dawson or Alex Trebek or whoever). Your CM certainly sounds a bit set in his way. How do you ever do fun new stuff if you never do anything you haven't done before? You could offer to do this game show skit for him, if he doesn't want to do it. Our pack often has den leaders leading a game of some sort.

 

Would the parents go for it? Of course the parents would go for it. But you can't act tentatively and ask them if anyone wants to come up. You just call out their names, "Mr. Steve Bazoma, come onnnnn doooowwwwwnnnnn!!!" If you want, you could discuss it with a few parents ahead of time.

 

Too much work!?! Other than coming up with a list of questions, it doesn't sound too bad. Yes, there's a little bit of work. It usually takes a little bit of work to have fun at a pack meeting.

 

You'd want to try to pick questions that the Cub Scouts would likely know, but that the parents may not. It can be a little bit tricky to figure those out. Test it out with your own son. See what all he knows. You might even be able to make him a ringer up there.

 

It's good for kids to see their parents having fun, being goofy, able to make mistakes. Sounds like a great time to me.

[GKlose 24]

Our youngest graduated out of the pack this last spring, so we've moved on to germinating new ideas for a troop.

 

But as far as the pack goes, I hope nobody ever runs into a Cubmaster like this one. Name, Blanket, first name Wet.

 

I could go into a whole bunch of stories (and I have, on other threads) but this pack helped me write a "How To" which I delivered at a district roundtable (I'm a district membership chair). This was it:

 

How to Kill a Unit:

1. Don't recruit.

2. Don't do anything to keep the Scouts you already have.

3. Offer a lousy program.

 

So, I'm being sarcastic here (but I did really deliver that exact "How To" at a roundtable) but I think you get the idea. It's not like I've been around the block too many times, but I've seen a bunch of poorly run units.

 

Guy