Rationale behind the rules?

[Bob White 20]

As has happened in the past Ozemu, posters are confusing Rules (BSA policies)with scouting Methods (recommended program elements outlined in the various Boy and adult handbooks). BSA policies cover three specific areas (Safety, Advancement, and Uniforming).

 

Just like the laws of our community most of our policies come from volunteer committees representing units across the country and from lawyers. They protect our participants and leaders from injuries and lawsuits. They protect our program's image and TradeMarks, and they control key elements that make the BSA program unique.

 

Everything else, like patrol method, youth leadership, and the other 6 methods of Boy Scouting come from tradition, best practices, and from continually learning more about how young people grow and learn.

 

Bob White

[acco40 95]

The Troop to which I am SM has as sixteen boys. The oldest is twelve. The youngest is 11. We do not "push" the boys to advance in rank. Two boys push themselves and each other and will be Life Scouts very soon, both many months before they reach 13. Many of the boys have nearly one year of experience and are not yet reached/earned Tenderfoot. The interest in advancement is not present within them. We do present the OPPORTUNITY for advancement to them.

 

As I see it, my primary goal as SM is to teach leadership skills to the boys. As my Calculus teacher so eloquently told me, math is like sex, you learn by doing, not by watching. The SPL and ASPL received their initial leadership training by becoming trained and serving as den chiefs (which they still do). They were elected PLs and recently became SPL and ASPL. Do they fully comprehend the responsiblities of their new positions? I don't think so but they will learn.

 

In my troop, all of the boys are essentially peers age wise. They will have to lead boys who are sometimes older than they are. They learn, sometimes the hard way, how to lead.

 

I encourage patrols to stay together. I am a believer that you do not want to keep mixing up the patrol membership to balance out experience levels within the patrol.

 

Leadership may be best when it is consistent but if the current SPL remains until he leaves the troop, the rest of the current boys would have a one year window for all fourteen of them to serve as SPL. We allow, as per BSA policy, leaders to be re-elected (no term limits!). Again, the main goal is to teach leadership, not always have the best leader in place at all times. Do you ever let someone other than your best cook prepare meals? Same applies to leadership.

 

Now to get back on topic...

 

The BSA does have aims, methods, guidelines, policies, etc. They are very good at diseminating this information. The "whys" and "hows" are not quite as clear and reasonably so.

 

I have seen "age creep" in the downward direction from the BSA. Tigers are now integrated more into the Pack. Webelos Cub Scouts are becoming less "cub like" and more "scout" like. Boys are becoming Eagles at a younger and younger age. I believe this is a response by the BSA for retention purposes. It is easier to retain the boys at a younger age. Do I agree with it, not 100%. Fifth graders and seniors in high school don't have much in common and make it difficult for a troop to have activities that will interest both. The same goes for Packs with first graders and fifth graders. Having dens with similar ages and patrols with similar aged boys helps to alleviate this problem. Nothing in the Cub Scouts says a den can't be composed of Tigers, Bears, Webelos, etc. Nothing in the BSA says Eagles and Tenderfoot scouts can't be in the same patrol. However, I don't recommend it.

[Mike F 10]

acco40,

 

My hat's off to you as you work mightily to get a new troop off the ground and running. It's a tough job -- I know, because I did the same over 25 yrs ago. As a leader, you have to adapt to get anything to work. You'll have to spend a lot of time modeling leadership and coaching those budding leaders. Eventually, the boys will 'get it' and will be the models the new guys look up to.

 

This discussion was intended more for those who have medium to large, mature troops with a full range of ages and experience. That being said, I'm not questioning how/why anybody is running their troop the way they are. There is latitude today in exactly how you implement the program as it is written and trained -- use it to your advantage based on your situation.

 

On a philosophical level, I am questioning some of the changes in methods that have been introduced at the National level over the years. I believe there are some significant Pros/Cons of these changes that are not well understood by the majority of dedicated leaders. I hope by airing some of these, we can all better understand those Pros/Cons and be better informed as we do our best, day by day, week by week.

 

Best of luck to you and all.

 

(Only read my next post which follows immediately if you're interested in that philosophical discussion.)

 

[Mike F 10]

Bob White rightly asked for some specific examples of how our methods (if not rules) have changed over time. This took a bit of digging, but I came up with the following that I believe are significant. Sources I cite are the 1967 PL Handbook, 1981 SM Handbook, and 2001 SM Handbook. In the notes below, I use only the date to indicate source.

 

Setting up Patrols Allow for leadership

1981 -- Scouts choices should be observed, but each patrol should have at least one potential leader. P 67

2001 -- Potential leadership not mentioned when setting up patrols all expected to be leaders.

 

Patrol composition

1981 -- Patrols should generally not be organized by age. p 67

2001 -- A patrol is a small group of boys who are more or less similar in age p 20

 

Requirements to be PL

1967 -- Not mentioned explicitly, but clearly intended to be ahead of others in patrol who are not yet 1st Class.

1981 -- set by the troop leadership with regard to age, rank, tenure in the troop, performance, or whatever requirements are set by the PLC. Pp 51 & 70

2001 -- The troop determines the requirements, if any, for patrol leaders, such as rank and age. P 21

 

PL responsibility for member rank advancement

1967 -- So important it get an entire chapter, #5 Are you working on your advancement requirements so that you, in turn, can teach your patrol members? As their patrol leader you are expected to pass them on their tests and keep them moving. P 69 Patrol Leaders had almost sole responsibility in this area.

1981 -- PLs have responsibility for helping members advance in rank and they are authorized to sign off on requirements (assuming they already hold the badge being tested). Pp 51, 75, 89, 260 (Note: Others also noted as having authority to sign off.)

2001 -- Some wording similar to 1981 (p 120), but much more emphasis given to the troop program revolving around Tenderfoot to 1st Class instruction and away training and instruction within the patrol under the leadership of patrol leader. Some of PLs responsibility also weakened by stress on similar age patrols where PL not as likely to have rank advantage over others.

 

Note the very significant changes under Patrol composition and PL responsibility for member rank advancement. Note also that as recently as 1981, when adult leadership was supporting the process of taking patrol requests from boys when setting up patrols, they were instructed to make sure each patrol had at least one boy who the leaders recognized as a natural leader. Although the selection was still up to a vote (assuming more than one boy met the troops minimum requirements for PL), they recognized the need to seed each patrol with leadership potential.

 

Once again we got along fine for many years with mixed age patrols and strong PLs who had significant responsibility to train and advance their younger members. What has changed to make us now recommend grouping boys more by age and reducing the PLs responsibility and authority?

 

Possible PROs to similar age patrols and less responsibility for PL

Similar interests

Better friendships within patrol therefore more likely to stay in

Less likelihood of hazing within patrol

All compete and advance together

Advancement opportunities, rates, and quality control can be better controlled by other leaders

All have opportunity to be PL earlier since dont have to wait for seniority

With all more of less equally qualified to be PL, nobody gets stuck in the job for a long period of time, allowing more flexibility to work around other commitments.

Earlier PL position equates to earlier POR for Star, Life

 

Possible CONs to similar age patrols and less responsibility for PL

Leading peers in a much more difficult job. Significant leadership almost impossible for most 10.5 13 yr olds and difficult at any age.

PL job becomes more of a coordinator, rather than real leader. He lacks the natural advantage of age and experience that others might respect.

Without standout leader in group, leadership more likely to turn over frequently.

When leadership turns over frequently, the PL doesnt have the same sense of responsibility and pride in his patrols long-term success as he does when for an extended period of time he thinks of it as his patrol to nurture and lead.

New PL has to overcome not only disadvantage of leading peers, but he also has to lead with the former PLs now serving as members in the patrol, so new PL also has to overcome the leadership inertia of the formers, causing even more leadership chaos and dilution.

PL and other older members miss out on the experience and pride of training and advancing their young members and in the process making their entire patrol stronger in patrol competitions, etc.

 

In short, it looks to me like similar age patrols serve to keep kids in and advance more of them to Eagle at a quicker rate (now 4%, versus 1% twenty years ago) so some would argue that something is working right, but I believe this probably comes about because adults are running a lot more of the program than most of us would like to admit. As a direct result of that, the boys are missing out on the real depth and breadth of leadership experiences and training that have been the hallmark of Scouting forever.

 

As I said in an earlier post, I think were doing the boys a disservice by grouping them by age and setting up a situation where leadership is likely to rotate around frequently. Where else in the real world (that we are ostensibly preparing them to enter) do they encounter a situation where the group leader rotates through the position and goes back to being one of the group when his term is done? Real leaders take charge, make their mark, and move up/out when their time is done.

 

[acco40 95]

Mike F,

 

I agree with 99% of what you wrote. However, you have to ask the question, is the goal of the BSA to have the most efficiently run patrols with the best leaders or is it to teach leadership to the boys? I believe your emphasis is on the former, mine on the latter.

[Bob White 20]

You bring up some interesting historical changes in the patrol method Mike. If you look further in those books you will see other changes as well. In the mid 60's we taught touniquets not direct pressure, we taught Artificial resucitation for drowning victims. earlier than that we told scouts to apply butter to burns.

 

Over the last 92 years the movement has constantly evolved. Replacing older concepts with more current or effective ones. The Patrol Method is no different. When I was a scout in the 60s we had mixed aged patrols and it was not the panacea you allude to. When a younger scout was elected patrol leader it was very difficult to get the older scouts to follow.

 

Boys naturally pal around with others in their age group, so to have a patrol of similar ages is natural to the social skills of a boy. Boys will usually see on or two boys within that social group as the leader, so it makes sense that the patrol leader be of similar age.

 

As others have pointed out smooth running, efficient patrols is not the goal we are after. we are giving boys leadership opportunities and training. Nowhere does the program say a boy cannot be re-elected to leadership position. If their patrol wants to re-elect a scout they can, unless the unit has put a artificial program barrier in place.

 

Are there pros and cons to these methods? Sure there are. But in the majority of troops, with the majority of sscouts, this is the most effective way to form and maintain patrols,and to develop skills that the program has proven to date. It is the method taught in all our handbooks, training courses and is used successfully in troops of all sizes.

 

Is it the same as it was 25 years ago? No, but not much of anything from 25 years ago is done the same, in or out of scouting.

 

Times change, kids change, scouting has managed to change their methods to keep up with both and still not lose it's purpose or impact.

 

Bob White

[jbroganjr 10]

Hmmmm.......yeah, gotta stir the pot.

Mike F. I do believe you have shed light on a problematic symptom of BSA and other institutions in the USA. Namely, change. and the reaction to change. And I think that what you shed light on, in many cases, IMHO, that this is a case of change for the sake of change (which is a bad thing) as well as a dumbing down of the program.

So lets back these up, cause I know Bob White is going to come down on this because of all the "progress" made by man in the last 50 yrs.

 

In 1928, the entrance exam to Jersey City H.S. was as hard as the current SAT's, except it was administered to eight graders...had to want to be there (sound like a familiar concept?)

 

Now we have institutionalized educational crap bombarded at our kids (like "self esteem" training modules) instead of emphasis on the three R and science.

 

The BSA in trying to be hip and cool, responded in the the 70's to a loose moral culture by: taking "being square" out of the cub oath ( a good change, IMHO) but went farther by eliminating the outdoor program, namely camping, in 77 or 78. If we all followed the guidelines and rules to the letter, as per bobwhite, we might not have a program today. An instance of change for changes sake or worse, change to be popular.

 

 

I believe we have dumbed down the program, especially towards adults, that it is intellectually insulting at times. The new training seems to emphasize on show and try, instead of teach and do. The methods of training are to present outline of training module, read it and reiterate. No quarter is given to group process, group experience, etc. all training is aimed at the "dumbest" of the group. Thankfully, I have yet to meet the person who is that dumb who finds all this training stuff enlightening, especially the newvwoodbadge course, biggest waste of time I have endured in my life. Training has to be positive, engaging and promote the need for further learning and then follow up with provided not only resources, but resources to find more resources. The program and training should encourage high expectations, the evaluation of failure, how to get back up on your horse and ride on...developing character and leadership.

 

In our culture today, and in our training, we think that everyone wants to be bombarded with tons of information and hope some of it sticks. I personally feels that is a waste of ammo. It has all boiled down to the 30 second sound bite. People are much smarter than that. People are much braver than they are given credit for. I think the rational behind these dumbing down rules has more to do with: One money and management, Two, national trying to break up "old boy scouting" or cowboy scouting and by doing so, has broken down the information so that 8 yr. olds could follow it, Three has made the boy program simpler because of competition with other activities, such as sports. I think in a whole that they are walking a thin line, and unfornutaley, lose focus on what is important. So, keep up these thoughts, i believe the rules will change again in my life time and resort to a more traditional method of scouting. One that is positive, character and leadership building, uses the outdoors, as it does now, but will remphasize real acheivement (not eagle mills, not judged on popcorn $ or FOS) etc. a program that people will want to flock to. A program that is FUN, REALLY Fun, with a person.

Now, having commented on training and my problems with it, I still recommend that we take it. Be realistic on feedback so it can only get better. I also believe in follow the rules (Bold type in G2SS) and guides G2ss, SM Field Book, Handbook, SPL book, PL handbook, Troop committee guidebook etc. Most of it 99% is dead on, to bad we always get hung up on that 1%

(This message was not edited at all, contains the ramblings of a tired scouter who felt the need to complain a bit and is not addressed to anyone. If you don't like it, great, its the USA and you get your opinion, this one is mine.)

[Bob White 20]

Sure I'd be glad to respond.

 

I can appreciate jbroganjr's frustration with the education system, as a parent of a 14-year old I share many of those frustrations. But I see little connection to the that and the scouting program.

 

I was a Scout leader in a troop during the time of the inner-city scouting handbook, and we followed the advancement program as it was written and we camped and taught camping skills, and the program worked. what it didn't do was bring more inner city kids in scouting, and that was the whole purpose of the program emphasis. When the BSA realized that a mistake had been made they moved away from the inner city emphasis. This is a very reactive program, but it reacts to the needs of young people and to the methods that best achieve our goals. It is not as reactive to societal trends.

 

As far as the new training, I don't know if you are involved in the training process outside of being a participant, but what you describe is not familiar to me. The new training courses are mostly on multi-media, and interactive learning.If that is not what you experienced than your beef is with you local training team not the syllabus.

 

We have every participant complete an evaluation after every course. In the last 12-moths we have put over 200 adults through leadership training and we have not had a single evaluation that is negative (and believe me we follow the training syllabus).

 

Yes the program has changed and yes it will change again in the future. But the only program that matters is today's program. As leaders we agreed to follow the program, its rules, policices and methods. We owe it to the ypouth we serve to keep that promise.

 

Know where is the unit program judged by Eagle scouts, popcorn sales or friends of Scouting. The health of a council is judged by two of those elements, but the unit program is not. Take a look at the quality unit award. This is the minimum activity that national asks from a ubit to be considered as having a scouting program. Popcorn and FOS are not even mentioned, nor are Eagle Scouts. But did you know that less than 60% of units nation wide achieve this level of activity.

 

The problem that exists in some scouting units that are not achieving the aims of scouting is in in the method of scouting. It is in the delivery of the program within that unit. There are many units that wear scout uniforms that don't do a scouting program. That's the biggest problem in scouting.

 

Bob White

 

 

[Bob White 20]

My apologies, I was heading out the door as I typed my last post and did not have time to proof read it. I have corrected my typos and am reposting for better clarity.

bob

 

Sure I'd be glad to respond.

 

I can appreciate jbroganjr's frustration with the education system, as a parent of a 14-year old I share many of those frustrations. But I see little connection to that and the scouting program.

 

I was a Scout leader in a troop during the time of the inner-city scouting handbook, and we followed the advancement program as it was written and we camped and taught camping skills, and the program worked. What it didn't do was bring more inner city kids in scouting, and that was the whole purpose of the program emphasis. When the BSA realized that a mistake had been made they moved away from the inner city emphasis. This is a very reactive program, but it reacts to the needs of young people and to the methods that best achieve our goals. It is not as reactive to societal trends.

 

As far as the new training, I don't know if you are involved in the training process outside of being a participant, but what you describe is not familiar to me. The new training courses are mostly on multi-media, and interactive learning. If that is not what you experienced than your beef is with you local training team not the syllabus.

 

We have every participant complete an evaluation after every course. In the last 12-moths we have put over 200 adults through leadership training and we have not had a single evaluation that is negative (and believe me we follow the training syllabus).

 

Yes the program has changed and yes it will change again in the future. But the only program that matters is today's program. As leaders we agreed to follow the program, its rules, policies and methods. We owe it to the youth we serve to keep that promise.

 

Nowhere is the unit program judged by Eagle scouts, popcorn sales or friends of Scouting. The health of a council is judged by two of those elements, but the unit program is not. Take a look at the quality unit award. This is the minimum activity that national asks from a unit to be considered as having a scouting program. Popcorn and FOS are not even mentioned, nor are Eagle Scouts. But did you know that less than 60% of units nationwide achieve this level of activity.

 

The problem that exists in some scouting units that are not achieving the aims of scouting is not in the method of scouting. It is in the delivery of the program within that unit. There are many units that wear scout uniforms that don't do a scouting program. That's the biggest problem in scouting today.

 

Bob White

 

[acco40 95]

One of the topics covered in the Wood Badge for the 21st Century course is dealing with change. It seems like many (as most people do) still have a difficult time dealing with change.

 

P.S. Please no "Who Moved My Cheese" references.

 

What is difficult in presenting training for Scout leaders is the tremendous spectrum of backgrounds that the leaders span. I've known Scouters with PhDs, MS, BS, high School diplomas and high school drop-outs. Trying to teach a course to that diverse mix can be very difficult.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Perhaps the "new" Woodbadge is not the most intellectually challenging program that could have been offered. It may not be all things to all people, then again, few things are. When I took my "new" WoodBdage class, I might not have been presented with skills I hadn't already seen through graduate school and multiple Training seminars, but just to be in the same room, sharing the experience with 50 other adult scouters, all of whom having the same mindset, sharing the same values as I was as rewarding as anything I have ever done(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[red feather 10]

Pardon the duncecap, but, what does the acronym IMHO stand for?

 

YIS

[SR540Beaver 116]

Red,

 

It means "in my humble opinion".

[Mike F 10]

Bob White back to your post on Wed, Oct 23. (Sorry for jumping back, but Ive been out.)

 

Interesting points. Not even I would call the mixed-age patrols I experienced in the late-60s/early-70s a panacea. However, problems with younger scouts being PL and having trouble with older scouts in patrol was almost unheard of because the older scouts, being more advanced and experienced, were almost without exception the PL until it was time for them to move up & out giving the next oldest the chance to lead for a while. This is the way the real world works most of the time, too. (Take a look at real-world leadership systems for business and military. With this in mind, I reject your comment that not much of anything done 25 years ago is done the same today. Changes caused by advances in the science of medicine are not a valid analogy. The fundamentals of leadership have been very constant.)

 

When scouts are all same age, even without a unit-applied barrier to re-election, there is a very strong tendency within the boys to just say, Ive done it now its somebody elses turn. Yes, within the same-age patrol, there will be one or two that are the natural leaders without regard to title, but the tendency to just trade off the PL position will be stronger than if some of the scouts had the advantage of age, experience, etc.

 

Note that mixed-age patrols do not reduce the number of opportunities for a boy to be the PL during his years in a patrol, so they still get the experience they just get it when they are slightly older and more mature. How do I figure? Well, a patrol always has a PL. Take a patrol of 8 scouts and figure theyre in a regular patrol for about 6 years before theyre pulled up to be SPL or some other staff position. Figure 6-month terms (2/yr) so that means there are PL elections 12 times. All things being equal, a scout in a similar-age patrol will serve as PL for one to two terms (average of 1.5) in his patrol career. In a mixed-age patrol, these same numbers hold true for an individual scout as he moves up through the ranks in his patrol career. Its just that his time serving as PL is much more likely to come when he is one of the oldest.

 

As for smooth-running, efficient patrols not being the goal we are after, I agree. In a healthy patrol, smooth-running and efficient will be a transient state. We want them to grow, to try new things, to take on new challenges all with the freedom to fail. When they stumble, it wont appear to be very smooth-running or efficient for a while. But they will be learning valuable lessons they wont soon forget. And on those occasions when they have learned their lessons well and consistently put them to work, smooth-running and efficient can be achieved and we celebrate with them. While smooth-running and efficient are not in themselves the goal, they are definitely a more desired state for the patrol and it members than the opposite. Smooth-running and efficient are a direct by-product of strong, effective leadership. Its true in Scouts. Its true in the real world were preparing them to enter. Strong, effective leadership is much harder to achieve amongst a group of peers. Some things dont change.

(This message has been edited by Mike F)