Is it really all that bad to be different?

[Beavah 205]

Sorry to hear about your troop's leader selection methods, CNY. Dat's a problem.

 

Listenin' to everybody, I think we're really talkin' about different cases:

 

Case 1: Poor leaders. These "warm bodies" or sometimes "head cases" just aren't likely to be successful. They also aren't likely to use scouting's methods very well; and when they try they fail (ex. "virtual patrols"), or they can't balance (ex. latching on to one standard like uniforming, and using it to browbeat kids).

 

Case 2: Strong natural leaders, B-P's "right sort." These use the BSA program as a starting point/set of guidelines, then adapt it to the particular needs of their CO, their kids, and/or individual kids in order to better achieve the aims. They understand the principles behind the methods, and use those rather than slavishly following the printed matter.

 

Case 3: Mediocre/new leaders. These may not yet have the talent/experience to be Case 2, but they're trying. They need things simplified and standardized until they're able to develop their own good judgment.

 

Standardizing helps Case 3 a bit, doesn't help Case 1 at all, and annoys Case 2.

 

The BSA's mission and organizational structure is designed around Case 2. At the same time, the BSA tries to help CO's by providing materials to help Case 3 come up to speed. This makes perfect sense for achieving the BSA's aims.

 

 

[scoutingagain 20]

This is just a suggestion for those, (including myself) that run into things they don't like and feel there's nothing that can be done about it.

 

Worry less about what you can't do and concentrate more on what you can.

 

I have a committee meeting to go to now, and need to follow my own advice. Right now, there's not alot I can do about things in my District that go on that I don't like, but I can influence how the unit I serve implements the program.

 

 

SA

 

[AvidSM 11]

In reference to Beavah's three cases of leaders, we all start out as new leaders (case 3), keeping with the guidance and regulations as written or taught. Then, as time passes, we grow and and develop our own "style".

 

My question is, how do we know if we have developed into a good leader (case 2) or a poor leader (case 1), who just thinks they're good? Everyone likes to think themselves as a person who is trying their best; it's a natural human trait to see yourself in a positive light.

 

And, knowing this, why do we take the risk of doing things that much differently? Are we that strong of a leader that we know all these differences are for the better? Or, are our egos driving us to reinvent the wheel? Some may think they are "pushing the envelope" or "dealing with the real world". But, who are we to know where scouting is headed?

 

BSA standards and guidance are based on the collective experiences of all those who have gone before us. We should think long and hard before we choose to deviate from them.

[CNYScouter 46]

AvidSM

Right On and Ditto!!!!

[SR540Beaver 116]

Spot on!

[FScouter 24]

"We should think long and hard before we choose to deviate from them."

Is 2 seconds long enough?

[Beavah 205]

BSA standards and guidance are based on the collective experiences of all those who have gone before us. We should think long and hard before we choose to deviate from them.

 

Nah, as anyone who does this work can tell you, da BSA standards are based primarily on the opinions and experiences selected by the people who were on that particular revision and writing committee.

 

And ya gotta remember, there's little value in "average" anything. To average "the collective experiences" of all the many people in scouting is much like averaging the shoe size of every human and making only one pair of shoes. "Collective Experience" averaged into a single way of doing things doesn't fit many people very well.

 

 

Question for ya, tho... There are some troops out there, like the one I mentioned earlier, that do follow the BSA program... from the many, many years where there was no such thing as a new scout patrol, and boys just joined regular vertical patrols.

 

I've seen a few troops that still have boys participate as board members on BOR's. That, too, was a BSA standard.

 

So was having the PL's elect the SPL, who was in charge of the Senior Patrol. So was having a functional, cool outdoor uniform in line with the times.

 

So, might it be possible that a program that holds on to such features as the "collective wisdom of those who have gone before" might be doin' a better job of scoutin' than those who adopt da BSA's newfangled notions sometimes?

 

And then we have to recognize dat plenty of what is now "official program" (ex. OA, Venture patrols, the 12-point Scout Law) were at one point local adaptations and modifications. Many believe we are richer, and reach more kids, because of them.

 

Vive la liberte!

 

[vmpost 10]

Beavah, you say, "I've seen a few troops that still have boys participate as board members on BOR's. That, too, was a BSA standard." That's okay, as long as there are three registered committee members on that Board also. That is a national standard and our District will not approve advancement without that standard being met, nor should any.

[Beavah 205]

Thanks, vmpost, for agreeing with the rest of my statement!

 

As for the other, it seems to me that a council not honoring a boys BOR would be an odd thing to do to a boy.

 

There are large troops out there with small committees in some chartered organizations. Ive known a couple where the committee was the youth subcommittee of the church, only 3-4 members. If they were really forced to live by this rule they would never be able to serve the kids well.

 

And Im not ready to say that a BOR that includes the unit commissioner has somehow so undermined our aims of character, fitness, and citizenship, are you? Or the BOR where the ASM filled in when one of MCs hit a deer on the way to the meeting? Or the BOR at summer camp where a district advancement committee member joined in?

 

Standardization, like no tolerance policies always looks like a good idea, until you actually realize what it does to people in some cases.

 

 

[vmpost 10]

Aaah, Beavah, I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with the rest of your statement!

 

Call me a purist if you will, but I believe we have an obligation to our youth to follow National BSA policy whenever we can. I follow the rules. A Scout is honest & trustworthy. So if I know a rule exists and I don't follow it, what standard am I setting?

 

By not following this particular rule, the Scoutmaster puts a boy's Eagle Rank at risk. While I know this is a big "what if", bear with me for a minute: Suppose a young man submits his Eagle application. When it reaches Council or National level for approval it is discovered he didn't actually have the correct approval for his Star Board of Review, throwing his Star rank into question. It is possible (although not likely) his Eagle could be "not approved". This is a risk I am not willing to take when it is so easy to avoid the problem.

 

In regards to small committees -- I am VERY familiar with them. Our committee has 4 members. We only came up with 4 so the parent who has a child up for review can sit out. We had to switch one of our SA's to Committee so we'd have enough. The former SA still attends troop activities, as does most of our committee.

 

I'm not saying anything about anyone's ability or character. I'm saying we must do what we can to safeguard our Scouts' future opportunities.

 

I'm not judging right & wrong. I'm saying it is the rule and if I don't follow it, I risk getting slapped on the wrist. (The Scouts under my supervision risk more.)

 

It is a PIA sometimes...but we are intelligent human beings. We can figure out a way to follow the rules and be honest while working around the constraints. Do we really have to prove we are "right"? Is that more important than serving our youth to our best abilities?

[Beavah 205]

By not following this particular rule, the Scoutmaster puts a boy's Eagle Rank at risk.

 

Yeh do understand that the only thing that goes to National is the Eagle Rank Application form, right? Once three members of the committee certify the advancement, it's a done deal. So this no more puts a boy's Eagle at risk than the many units and camps out there that "subtract from the requirements." And unlike those, having da UC on a BOR really doesn't compromise the aims.

 

Call me a purist if you will, but I believe we have an obligation to our youth to follow National BSA policy whenever we can. I follow the rules. A Scout is honest & trustworthy. So if I know a rule exists and I don't follow it, what standard am I setting?

 

Hi purist! You can call me an anarchist if you like, though our forum anarchist might be upset that I'm poaching on his turf!

 

I think anybody who has ever written a rule knows dat he is relying on the intelligence and compassion of others to know how and when to apply the rule. Didn't we all cringe when the scout last summer followed the "stranger danger" rule almost to his own demise? Don't we all get more than a bit peeved when someone quotes policy as an excuse for not using common sense? Aren't we all a little upset when "zero tolerance" expels the boy scout who leaves his camping gear in his car, including his pocket knife? I think in those cases, even the writers of the rules get upset, because their rules are being applied in hurtful and unintended ways.

 

Rules are a place to start when making a decision, sure... but then context, principles, goals, compassion, experience, and other factors must be considered. A Scout is helpful, friendly, kind, brave, reverent, mentally awake, and morally straight. We don't want kids to just follow rules; we want them to exercise judgment. We don't want units to just be "standard," we want them to serve unique kids and communities.

 

Like you, I believe the real rule is to do what's right for the kids. That often means supportin' the local volunteers who are doing good work and not sweatin' the small stuff.

[AvidSM 11]

And when we make changes to the core parts of the BSA program, because we think we know better, or because we have a need to resist the order of things, or because we took the two seconds to think about it, how do we know what we are doing is right?

 

What means of feedback to we have? It's not like the BSA has a standardized test like our schools, which verify the effectiveness of our teachers.

 

One might claim that their way is more effective because the scouts are advancing faster, retention in higher, the program is more fun, etc. But none of things give any real indication as to mission success. There are many ways to knowingly or unknowingly game these metrics, to the shame of the leaders and detriment of the scouts.

 

What part of the program is most effective? Is it boys led? Patrol method? Elected leaders? The outdoors? How do you know that the part you are changing isn't the one that matters most?

 

There are core parts which are essential to the program and should be the same from unit to unit. The differences come from the people involved and how they interpret, adapt and apply the rules and guidance of the BSA. How boring and limited scouting would be if all units did things exactly the same!

 

We can only assume that what we are doing is working. We find out as much as we can by observing and talking to the boys. But, in the end, it is only our faith in the program that assures us. And, it would be hard for me to believe in the good work I am doing through scouting without this faith.