National Standardization

[Kudu 186]

OldGreyEagle writes:

 

So there is no mentoring of a boy,

 

But that is not what I said, is it? I said you can mentor a boy who is scared of the water into becoming a BSA Lifeguard.

 

But chances are you will "Standardize" the Adventure (controlled risk) for everyone else down to his competency.

 

The reason that Leadership Development is a Cult is that Leadership "experts" do not admit the consequences of their actions: "Everyone can be a Leader" now, only because we have "Standardized" the "Outing" out of, um, Patrol Outings.

 

OldGreyEagle writes:

 

The strong survive and weak struggle

 

In a "Real" Patrol, the strong lead and the weak have great Patrol Adventures.

 

You didn't answer my question: Do you feel diminished by a "subservient role" to the strongest, most competent BSA Lifeguards when you swim? If not then you understand the meaning of true Boy Leadership.

 

My best SPLs were usually BSA Lifeguards. It is one of the few things that can't be faked now that Leadership Development controls Scouting. Before Leadership Development was invented, an Eagle Scout had to pass Lifesaving Merit Badge.

 

There is nothing wrong with recognizing and building on true strength, rather than the Fake self-esteem success Metaphors of "Position of Responsibility" requirements.

 

Scouting would be more popular if we returned to the Literal meaning of Leadership.

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

 

http://kudu.net

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Kudu, I guess it comes down to this, I understand you want the boys to run things as I do

 

I always think that I will be able to phrase things so that you will understand what I am trying to say and I fail.

 

 

[Beavah 205]

Yah, I don't think either you or Kudu are bein' unclear, OGE. I think you're just comin' at things from a very different philosophical starting place. A bit like givin' directions to someone over a radio. He says "turn left" because where he's at left is clearly da way to go. You look up from da radio and you see nothing but a cliff to your left.

 

In order to see da path he's pointing to , yeh first have to get where he's at. In order for him to give yeh good directions, he's got to figure out where you're at. Right now, he's just yellin' "Trail!" and you're just yellin' "Cliff!". Of course it doesn't help that he spends most of his time on da radio ranting about how you must have one of those 1970s issue maps that always leaves people stranded on the side of a cliff.

 

Honestly, I think both of your views lead to reasonable scouting, and I can point to troops that start where you are that I think are great and ones that are poor, and same for where Kudu is at. Of the two, though, yours might be more adult run/guided. Hey, it has to be when you're on a cliff with a map that has a few holes chewed in it. .

 

This is why Kudu rants so much, though. It's because those that adhere really strictly to the current BSA materials do tend to get in an unproductive mindset sometimes, like da First Class First Year curriculum that ol' BobWhite once presented here. Unlike him, I don't see da BSA materials as that bad, but then I come at 'em with a different perspective than someone who is new to Scouting. I do have more of an issue with our training program, which really is pretty poor by any measure.

 

Maybe it would be interestin' to do a thing from a kid's point of view..

 

Beavah

[thriftyscout 11]

I have been following this thread with interest for a while. As far as standardization goes, be careful what you wish for. I would compare it to the difference between a local restaurant and a national chain. A Big Mac is a Big Mac pretty much anywhere you go. Trying a local diner is more of a risk, it may not be to your taste, it may even be downright nasty. In many cases, however, the local fare is above and beyond what a national chain can provide.

 

I think BSA gives us a good recipe to work with regarding advancement and program. Everyone involved with Scouting is going to provide their own seasoning to some degree. I think it is a strength of the program.

 

I appreciate the distinction between leadership and scoutcraft. The best swimmer does not necessarily make the best lifeguard. If he doesn't watch his water, enforce the rules, communicate, etc. he is not going to be a good lifeguard. But yes, he does need to be a strong swimmer.

 

The question is, if you move away from scoutcraft, are you still Scouting? Youth can learn leadership from sports, JROTC, even from being a gang member. Scouting is meant to instill values, using scoutcraft as a means to that end. What about the Scout who doesn't like to camp? Is there a place for him in today's Scouting?

 

 

[moosetracker 132]

thrify asked.. Scouting is meant to instill values, using scoutcraft as a means to that end. What about the Scout who doesn't like to camp? Is there a place for him in today's Scouting?

 

answer: more No then Yes.. Maybe if he found a troop that wasn't really doing the boy scout thing, and didn't camp much.. Or If he doesn't want to do any camping but finds a troop where they have troop meetings that work on some of the skills like first aide or knots & lashings and got enjoyment from those meetings.. But your either in a poor troop, or missing the most fun parts of being in the troop..

 

I can even do better. Have them join Venturing.. It is scouting, and the group can be into something other then camping, rock climbing, water sports, ballroom dancing.. They are in scouting with no need to camp.

 

I don't think it's a bad thing though. Ask a sports coach and they think they teach values through commitmint,dedication, hardwork & teamwork.. Ask a football coach if there was a place on the team for someone who doesn't like football.. Yeah.. waterboy... Those who organize Bands think they teach values also through commitmint,dedication, hardwork & teamwork.. Ask them if there is a place in the band for someone who is tone deaf or hates music.. (Umm not sure if there is..)..

 

But is this wrong? Other groups teach kids values through a specialize common interest or goal, that everyone in the group is in tune with.. Why does Scouting have to change in order to be the "everything for everybody" group?? Then no one has a common interest or goal, and we will loose it.

 

Let those who don't like camping find something they do like.. chances our 9 out of 10 times someone has started a fine group for the youth to participate and learn in that environment, and there will be something about it that teaches values to the youth while working toward that goal.

 

We don't have to be everything to everyone when there are so many many worthy youth organizations for them to join. Scouts has to be true to those who joined it for a common interest of camping and other outdoor adventures and keep that focus, so as not to let down the kids who come to us for a specific reason.

 

Show me a football team that will come out on the field dressed in tutu's and will dance swan lake across the field, and all those that watch them take them to be serious football players.. Or even has one player in a tutu, while the rest are the normal muscle men, and the guy in the tutu gets equal field time due to him being a serious player.. (although if you watch the TV show "Glee" they did have their gay student on the football team for a few episodes.. but that was comedy and even he didn't wear the tutu, though he did get his whole team to dance pretty silly like on the field.)

[Jeffrey H 25]

thriftyscout says: "What about the Scout who doesn't like to camp? Is there a place for him in today's Scouting?"

 

If the boy has no desire to advance, it's possible. If he wants to make it to 1st Class, he will need to grudgingly attend the minimum 3 required overnight campouts. Once he's past that, he can pretty much advance to Life without camping anymore. If he wants to be Eagle, then he have to endure earning the Camping Merit Badge with the required 20 days and 20 nights of camping minimum.

 

The camping requirements to advance are very lax.

 

 

 

 

[DancesWithSpreadsheets 10]

"Ask them if there is a place in the band for someone who is tone deaf or hates music.. (Umm not sure if there is..).. "

 

Yeah, the drumline [ducking]

 

Regards,

 

DWS

 

[thriftyscout 11]

DWS,

 

I like that one, I'll pass that on to my drumline daughter, and be sure to duck.

 

TS

 

 

[Twocubdad 665]

Kudu writes:

 

Can we "mentor" a boy who is afraid of the water into becoming a BSA Lifeguard? I guess, but absent the hard-core adult supervision that we find in the Troop Method, I think the Scouts are better off under the most competent Natural Swimmers with position-specific Lifeguard training.

 

If that statement is true, it is the best arguement I've heard against hard-core patrol method scouting and for the current program.

 

I absolutely want to give every cupcake, mama's boy in the troop an opportunity to be a leader. Hell, I especially want to give every cupcake in the troop an opportunity to be a leader.

 

The second best argument against your method, Kudu, is you list of qualities of a good patrol leader. Three of your five qualities are inborn. Why not add the ability to run a 4.5 40 and you can eliminate the fat kids too? We're not going to teach 6'-2" or raise IQ levels. There's not much we can do with verbal skill.

 

I can however, teach every cupcake how to be organized, how to plan an activity, how to delegate. You can sneer that those are corporate management tricks, not "true leadership" but so what? We're not here to train these kids to be smoke jumpers or army rangers. But we do want to train them to be solid, productive fathers, husbands and community members.

 

If that means I have to dumb down the program from some lofty ideal of adventure, I'm there.

 

 

Editorial note -- for the sake of simplicity and clarity, I'm continuing to use words and phrases like "cupcake" and "true leader." But don't think I'm buying into that line of thinking. One of the things which bothers me about these forum are the judgmental, perjoritive names folks come up with to deride other folks and the way they run their programs. Eagle mills, plop camping, parlour scouts, cupcakes -- some of you guys should get a job writing for Glen Beck or Keith Oberman.

 

Sorry, but I'll not be able to continue this discussion for a couple days. I'm going plop camping with the cupcakes this weekend.

 

 

 

[JMHawkins 15]

I think moosetracker's on the right track so to speak, though maybe the tutu's are gratuitous. Or would that be gratutuitus? (Sorry, been reading over too many skit ideas for my IOLS weekend, puns and bad jokes are stuck in my head).

 

We ought to stick to what we do best. For Scouts, I think that's an outdoor, camping centric program. The whole foundation of Scouting was to teach boys important life skills by making use of their natural inclination to seek adventure and peer group membership. That doesn't mean you can't teach important things without camping. You can, but that's not scouting, it's something else. Not necessarily something worse, just something else. Doing it under the brand of "Boy Scouts" dilutes the brand message and makes for a weaker overall program.

 

So my answer to thriftyscouts' question: "What about the Scout who doesn't like to camp? Is there a place for him in today's Scouting?" is no, and that's nothing to be ashamed of or try to "correct." We don't do a boy any favors by "reaching out" to him if we don't actually have a good program to offer him. We just just distract that boy from better opportunities, and distract ourselves from doing our best for the other boys already involved in Scouting.

 

No need to be greedy, we can share the youth of the country with other programs.

 

[JMHawkins 15]

As far as standardization goes, I'm against it going any farther than it has. Some scouting programs are better than others, and we all cheerfully dissagree on why. But while we each individually may think the world would be a lot better if we were just in charge and could tell everyone else how they have to do things, the reality is that fighting over who gets to be king would take up so much time and energy, the end result would be a lot worse than just letting each other go on "doing it wrong."

[Kudu 186]

I wrote:

 

Can we "mentor" a boy who is afraid of the water into becoming a BSA Lifeguard? I guess, but absent the hard-core adult supervision that we find in the Troop Method, I think the Scouts are better off under the most competent "Natural Swimmers" with position-specific Lifeguard training.

 

Twocubdad replies:

 

If that statement is true, it is the best argument I've heard against hard-core patrol method scouting and for the current program.

 

I absolutely want to give every cupcake, mama's boy in the troop an opportunity to be a leader. Hell, I especially want to give every cupcake in the troop an opportunity to be a leader.

 

If that means I have to dumb down the program from some lofty ideal of adventure, I'm there.

 

Thank you for your excellent post, Twocubdad.

 

That is what I have been saying all along:

 

To "give every cupcake, mama's boy in the troop an opportunity to be a leader," we must "dumb down the program from [the] lofty ideal of adventure."

 

We are in absolute agreement on this "Leadership Standardization Equation."

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

http://kudu.net/