Junior Assistant Scoutmaster (JASM)

[GaHillBilly 10]

Hey Kudu;

 

I need some advice . . . we don't have JASM problems yet, in part because another ASM and I have dug in our heels and argued every time it's come up that an Eagle who's afraid to camp without his mom along, who's afraid to swim or canoe, and who can't tie a square knot (and I mean this literally, not figuratively!) . . . MUST not be a JASM.

 

The irony is, there are some early signs that he's beginning to 'get it', and realize that his approach to Scouting may not have been the best. But, that doesn't change the fact that he's an obstacle, rather than an asset.

 

I hadn't realized the role PORs played in forcing this stupid process of replacing one unskilled, untrained leader with another one who's even worse, but your explanation makes sense of both what I've seen and what I've read.

 

But, now that I get it, the only question for me is, "How do I get around it?"

 

We're already moving toward making the "Troop Instructor" POR an EARNED position, gained by learning, practicing, and then successfully teaching a skill area (say, first aid) in TF through 1stC, as a way to give the older boys something to do. We could expand this, to open it to any boy who passes the test (we're still developing them). "Instructors" would have to agree to actually WORK at instructing, and be available to do so, to keep their POR.

 

This would allow us to return to the original view of the PL as the most competent Scout present, but allow anyone who needed a POR to gain one simply by doing the work.

 

I know some would gripe, but given the loosey-goosey structure of the BSA and the fact that this approach doesn't seem to really violate anything mandatory, it seems like it might be worth a try.

 

What do you think?

 

I'm sure I'm going to be told that this approach violates current BSA practice . . . but since I already know that current BSA practice violates original BSA principles, it won't keep me up at night! I really just want to know (1) if this could work, and (2) if doing so could cause council level problems for the troop.

 

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

 

[Stosh 3452]

In our troop, boys earn the POR's whether they wear the patch or not. If I have a boy that busts his butt doing QM work for 6 months while his buddy with the patch slacks off for 6 months, the boy that does the work gets the credit. Leadership is demonstrated activity, not something worn on a sleeve.

 

Stosh

[Gold Winger 9]

"I hadn't realized the role PORs played in forcing this stupid process of replacing one unskilled, untrained leader with another one who's even worse, but your explanation makes sense of both what I've seen and what I've read."

 

Once again, it isn't the program but the implementation of the program that is at fault which is mostly due to the actions of the adults.

 

For good or bad, most of us wanted to be in charge of something back in the wonder years. Captain of the pick-up team. Head altar boy. President of the 6th street gang. So that rolled over to Scouts and a boy would look up to his Patrol Leader and say, "I want to do that someday."

 

Today, it seems that few ever want to be in charge of anything (let's not get into a discussion of servant leaders not being in charge, I read the book and it never says that). Flat out, they don't want to do stuff. Watching troops in action, I've seen that most often the PL is the boy who "needs a turn" or "no one else wanted the job." Few ever say, "When I'm PL we're going to do . . ." or "I want to be PL to help my patrol win at Camporee this year." The same applies for SPL and any other POR. If you get an honest answer about why they wanted the job, it's "so I can advance." Why do you want to advance? "My father wants me to get Eagle."

 

I'm not an old Scout but I know quite a few and their stories are all similar. Before the overinvolvement of parents and back when children lived without constant interference of their parents, things were different. My son's old Scoutmaster was PL of his patrol for three years. Why? He liked the job and his patrol liked him. He wanted to move up to SPL but lost to the incumbent. I worked with a fellow who never made Eagle but stayed in Scouting through high school. He was the patrol leader of the misfit patrol for four years. That's what he called it. All the guys that weren't wanted by another patrol came to him. They developed an attitude of "we'll show 'em" and won most of the patrol competitions while remaining proud of his misfit status. Today, that could never happen.

 

You old guys, think back to how much parental involvement went on back in the 60s and 70s. My sources all say it was very little. You didn't see meeting halls filled with adults. Did every patrol have a de facto den leader? Maybe Mr. Smith would use his truck to haul gear to a campout but you didn't have 30 parents going.

 

The problem isn't the program, it's excessive parental involvement but that is happening to every activity. How many of your codgers had parents who reminded you of every activity and made sure that you get there? I know the most my mother or my friend's mothers would say was "Don't forget that you have xxx at 5" If we needed a ride, we'd better arrange it ourselves. We didn't have 20 parents at baseball practice armed with juice boxes and snacks.

 

Yeah, I know that I can't turn back the clock but we really need to work hard as we can to let young people learn to be responsible for themselves.

 

 

 

[SMEagle819 10]

Yes, GW, I feel your pain. Being a scout in the 80's was much as you describe: SM, 2 or 3 ASMs, and no parents at meetings. Sometimes a parent would drive to a campout, but if it was close by, they would leave and not come back until Sunday morning for pick up. Very few would stay the entire weekend. Nowadays, it's not unusual to have a 1 to 1 ratio of adults to scouts on trips.

 

I also agree that many scouts take a POR so they can get that next rank. Very few care about teaching new scouts. There are some, as I have a couple in the troop now. I am working on training our new youth leadership to operate as "boy led," using the 2 older ones I have that care as trainers/mentors. This is where I believe a JASM can make the most impact, as a tariner to the new boy leadership in a troop.

[GaHillBilly 10]

GW, I didn't say the program was the sole cause.

 

But, when you compare a system in which patrol leader selection is made, or at least guided by the SM, toward the end of putting the best leader in place, and keeping him there, with a system in which you are STRONGLY encouraged to put someone new in place every six months . . . the program is going to have a big effect.

 

Sure, you can find a way to do an end run around the mess. That's what I'm working on.

 

But the program is definitely an obstacle, even if it's not the only one.

 

GaHillBilly

[Gold Winger 9]

"with a system in which you are STRONGLY encouraged to put someone new in place every six months . . . the program is going to have a big effect."

 

I don't remember reading anything which stated that a new boy needed to be put into place every six months. That's a local interpretation for the benefit of the pushy parents.

 

A bigger problem is one that I've commented on before. Boys really don't want to be Boy Scouts. Most are there because their parents push them, that's why parental involvement is so important.

[GaHillBilly 10]

"A bigger problem is one that I've commented on before. Boys really don't want to be Boy Scouts. Most are there because their parents push them, that's why parental involvement is so important."

 

You may be right.

 

My own son doesn't 'like' Scouts, but as homeschoolers, he prefers it to studying those things (merit badge topics) via hands on Scout methods, to book and junior lab techniques. He likes camping; he likes cooking; he likes hiking . . . he doesn't like all the slackers and whiners and goof-offs he's encountered. But, he's begin to buy in to the possibility of make the troop into something he would like.

 

Obviously, that's a unique situation.

 

Other guys in the troop? I think half are there at least somewhat on there own.

 

But when you look at it through their eyes, or even mine, as a never-was-a-Scout parent, what's to like?

 

=> Car camping in gravel lots with all parents present and signs everywhere.

 

=> Bad food, badly cooked, by dirty boys OR

 

=> Mediocre food with 80% of calories from fat cooked by adults.

 

=> Unplanned random weekly meetings, led by boys who haven't a clue, but who yell a lot.

 

=> Boys treating each other and adults with disrespect (not popular with many homeschoolers!)

 

=> Archaic and utterly irrelevant skills from Scouting's past (semaphores) taught badly by adults who never used or really learned them themselves.

 

=> Relevant and interesting skills (map and compass) by adults who've read the book, but would be lost if you plunked them down in some trail-less woods with a map and compass.

 

=> Nature skills taught by people who don't know a crow from a raven, limestone from quartz, or oak from beech. Yeah, that'll teach 'em to see the wonder of nature!

 

=> Camporees that are primarily bragging sessions for the adults.

 

=> Safety and LNT guidelines that suck the life out of a boy's curiosity (No, you can't go off trail. You might get lost, and besides that damages the forest.) My gosh, much of the fun for boys is in uncovering mysteries. There are NO mysteries along trails!

 

=> A Scouting history, in which Scouts did real stuff -- first aid, rescue, War Bond collection, etc. -- but a present in which they only pretend to do real stuff, and where Boys' Life recounts "heros" who "called 911" appropriately!

 

=> A slogan, motto, oath, and set of laws that mostly no one takes very seriously. (A Scout is brave? You gotta be kidding!)

 

=> An advancement program that many former Scouts treat as the Purpose of Scouting. Hikes are done grimly, as a endurance test that leads to Eagle "because you're regret it when you're 40, if you don't earn it now!" Yeah, right. That'll suck those 14 year olds right in!

 

=> A public reputation among park and forest service rangers that totally sucks. (Boy Scouts are by far the worst group we deal with -- from rangers at 4 different locations, now.)

 

=> A national organization that is focused on "building the brand" and "selling the benefits". I've asked myself what our troop would miss, if national put all the material in the public domain, set up an non-profit insurance program, and then closed their doors. The answer I came to: not much!

 

It can be done differently. I KNOW you can excite elementary school children about birds and flowers and seeds, with pretty minimal contact. I know because I've done it repeatedly, with kids in my wife's classroom. You get 'em going, and they'll drag in every feather, every rock and every seed they can find. It's not hard, but you have to know and you have to care.

 

Scout age boys are older and tougher. They are already partly ruined by TV and school, and think that if it's fun, it's useless or it's sports or it's sex, but if it's useful or involves learning, it's boring and school like. But, they want adventure. Or at least some of them do.

 

I suspect all do, in their heart of hearts. They just don't believe that they can, or that they will. So you have to shove them out there, and help them experience it for themselves.

 

I'm pretty sure, if we can work out some ways for them to do things that matter . . . they'll (some at least) will make the committment. For crying out loud, many of these kids will join the military in a few years, and will feel that doing so is "worth it", even if it costs them an arm or an eye.

 

I think many would love it if Scouting was real, even if it wasn't all fun. But, most of the Scouting I've seen is not real and it's not fun, either. And, that's a problem with us.

 

Frankly, I think if national wanted to 'build the brand' for real, they'd drop the focus on quantity, and focus on quality and substance. I think -- don't know, but I've got my suspicions -- that many kids today DO want to be part of a "gang" that means something real, and does something real.

 

But, we're Americans. It's the Japanese who focus on quality. We'll just get bigger and flashier and more 'macho' and that'll build the brand. Heck, we'll be just like GM! Let's go raise some money! Maybe the Fed will bail us out, too.

 

GaHillBilly

[Gold Winger 9]

I don't think that bad food cooked by dirty boys bothers most boys, my son's patrol was ready to eat ground beef that had started to stink.

 

"A Scouting history, in which Scouts did real stuff -- first aid, rescue, War Bond collection, etc. -- but a present in which they only pretend to do real stuff, and where Boys' Life recounts "heros" who "called 911" appropriately!"

 

Unfortunately, much of what Scouts used to do is no longer allowed by the authorities. Carry messages in time of emergency? Radios. Sandbag a collapsing levy? On those over 18 need apply.

 

"=> Archaic and utterly irrelevant skills from Scouting's past (semaphores) taught badly by adults who never used or really learned them themselves."

 

Where have you been, semaphore and wig-wag have been gone for decades but they really aren't that irrelevant. Semaphore and wig-wag were eliminated not because they were irrelevant or not fun but because they can't be mastered in a weekend. Semaphore is fun, it's like sign language. I learned it in college along with morse and could send and receive very slowly.

 

Tracking is also gone but a fun woods skill. What's this the path of? How old is it? Which way did he go?

 

Knot tying? Once again, reduced to something that can be "mastered" in a weekend. Are most knots relevant? Not with ratcheting tie-downs but mastering an archane skill gives great pleasure to most people. Fire building isn't relevant either but we still teach that.

 

What we really need to do is kick most of the parent out of the troops and get some of those creepy guys without kids who want to see the kids learn instead of just measuring advancement.

[Kudu 186]

GaHillBilly writes:

 

"I hadn't realized the role PORs played in forcing this stupid process of replacing one unskilled, untrained leader with another one who's even worse, but your explanation makes sense of both what I've seen and what I've read.

 

But, now that I get it, the only question for me is, 'How do I get around it?'"

 

Well, that depends on where you are going once you get around it If your goal is to get your strongest Patrols physically separated on campouts, then everything else falls into place.

 

My concern is NOT that incompetent Scouts are "getting away" with collecting POR credit.

 

The real problem is (as you note) that the current business manager model encourages a high turn-over of Patrol Leaders. This causes a weak Patrol Method where teenagers are expected to camp like Cub Scouts.

 

The goal of Leadership Development is to subject the Patrol Method to high turn-overs to train as many managers as possible. This is why BSA literature recommends six-month election cycles.

 

But as Gold Winger points out, there is no rule that requires these regular elections. Likewise there is no rule against using the older Traditional BSA Patrol Method in which each Patrol holds its own separate election only when they actually need a new Patrol Leader.

 

Therefore, there is no reason to be discouraged. There is great value in reading the older "Green Bar Bill" Scoutmaster handbooks (3rd, 4th, and 5th editions) written before the invention of Leadership Development in 1972.

 

The ratio of gifted natural Patrol Leaders to unskilled Scouts is probably similar to the ratio of gifted natural pitchers in a Little League team. At best the Traditional Patrol Method is designed around the idea that this ratio is approximately 1:8, but sometimes that is overly optimistic

 

My goal is always to find these three natural leaders in every two dozen Scouts. The time to talk to them is while backpacking, if only on short trips of a couple miles.

 

I ask them to serve as if this request is the most important part of my job. When they agree, I guide them through the election process, following Green Bar Bill's advice.

 

I find that a natural leader has 1) above average IQ, 2) adult-level verbal skills, 3) a bearing that discourages being bullied by other Scouts, 4) an all-consuming love of camping (to which sports and jobs are secondary), 5) a natural and assertive embodiment of Scout Law.

 

Note that these qualities are often found in the more rebellious Scouts. Baden-Powell recommended appointing hooligans

 

Once the natural leaders are in position, my next priority is to find good Quartermasters: Obsessive-compulsives All good Patrol Quartermasters should get a Troop Quartermaster patch (a Troop is not limited to only one Troop Quartermaster).

 

AFTER the PATROL Leaders and Quartermasters are in place, THEN we match less committed older Scouts up with unnecessary TROOP Method positions such as TROOP Guides, TROOP Instructors, TROOP JASMs.

 

Your ideas are fine. My approach differs in that rather than building policies and rules around the PORs, I work with the PLC to match the REAL strengths and talents of each individual Scout to the approximate description of a POR. Therefore, this role changes with each Scout who holds the position.

 

Kudu

 

[sheldonsmom 10]

I guess I will weigh in again.

GaHillBilly, I am also a homeschooler. In general, I agree with some of what you said, but I do take exception to some of what you list.

My son is in scouts because he truly loves the program. he gets frustrated with the adults trying to micromanage and pigeon-hole but he LOVES scouts. Many of the other boys in the troop are there so their dads can relive their childhood.

Yes, there is some disrespect but rarely to my son anymore. He proved his worth....the hard way. The skills the boys are drilled in here, first aid and emergency preparation escpecially, have been demonstrated. Our boys no longer ask why we need first aid training. Little Sioux is VERY fresh in our hearts and minds here. The medal my son wears was EARNED not for calling 911 but for trying to revive his friend who was killed by a tornado in front of his eyes. That heroism award is not a reward but a reminder of how fast your life can change.

My son believes in all the ideals of the Scout Law and Oath. He may not always acheive them, but he tries. Can we ask for more than that.

If we cannot believe in the ideals we teach our scouts, why are we here? Maybe we won't reach all the boys, but they are better off for the exposure to a core value. If we cannot believe in the ideals, we should quit pretending to be scouts ourselves.

I, for one, do not believe the best was in the past; I believe the best is yet to be. I know more than 100 boys who proved that June 11, 2008.

[Stosh 3452]

"A bigger problem is one that I've commented on before. Boys really don't want to be Boy Scouts. Most are there because their parents push them, that's why parental involvement is so important."

 

Gotta love the logic. We need more parents to make sure the boys are forced to stay in a program that they don't want to be in in the first place....

 

Makes perfectly good sense to me.

 

My boys are in the program because they want to be. Yes, I have the pushy parents keeping a couple in there and that's fine, parents make the ultimate decisions for their children. But if they want their children to develop independence and leadership, they will have to step aside or all they will end up with is another parlor scout Eagle.

 

My boys are taught differently and the unit is run differently than adult/parent led. If there is a boy doing QM work and has not been "assigned" the POR and does not have the patch on his sleeve, at the end of 6 months, it will be recorded he has accomplished the requirement. Good leaders don't need a patch on their shirt to indicate they have permission to lead, they lead whether there's a patch or not. If I have an older boy that is teaching leadership and guiding the Troop Guide, gathering resources for the Chaplain Aide, showing the Scribe how all the paperwork fits together, and other miscellaneous jobs, he'll get "credit" for POR ASPL because he's doing the work of assisting the SPL with the leadership of the Troop Officer Corps. Maybe he should get credit for JASM, too. Maybe if he knows the QM is brand new and is really struggling to get things going and this scout is actually doing 85% of the QM job while teaching the new boy, he should get QM credit too. And as this post started out, if there were FEWER adults interfering in this process of leadership, more than just a couple of the natural leaders would get a chance to do some of this actual leadership. 100' between patrols? Naw, just start with 100', no 200' between the boys and the adults. Most boys don't want to be there not because of the program, it's because the adults keep promising them leadership training and opportunity and then never giving it to them.

 

Stosh

[GaHillBilly 10]

sheldonsmom wrote:

"Yes, there is some disrespect but rarely to my son anymore. He proved his worth....the hard way. The skills the boys are drilled in here, first aid and emergency preparation escpecially, have been demonstrated. Our boys no longer ask why we need first aid training."

 

That's great. And, I know that other troops exist where that's true. But, the problem is not only that our troop is not -- and has not -- been that way, but that apparently many, maybe even most, troops are NOT drilled in those skills. Many Scouts in many troops possess 'advancement check-offs', not skills.

 

 

 

"Little Sioux is VERY fresh in our hearts and minds here. The medal my son wears was EARNED not for calling 911 but for trying to revive his friend who was killed by a tornado in front of his eyes. That heroism award is not a reward but a reminder of how fast your life can change."

 

In a way, you are making my point for me: real exposure to real adversity has persuaded your son and his fellow Scouts that real skills are what they need, rather than just the 'check-offs' from summer camp or merit badge colleges that are so common here.

 

 

 

"My son believes in all the ideals of the Scout Law and Oath. He may not always acheive them, but he tries. Can we ask for more than that?"

 

No. But I think that is just what I am asking for: real believe in those ideals, and real pursuit of them.

 

And, when bogus ranks and badges are awarded and bogus skills accepted, and when the camping and outdoor experience is so padded and 'hand-railed', we are teaching disbelief in just those ideals your son is pursuing.

 

 

 

"If we cannot believe in the ideals we teach our scouts, why are we here?"

 

Why, indeed?

[sheldonsmom 10]

If the skills are not being taught and drilled, then the adults need to use Little Sioux as a reason to insist on their inclusion. Our district has a MAJOR first aid meet every march. They participate in national disaster drills whenever possible.

Sometimes the adults have to insist on the additional training that maybe scouts don't think they need to know, but we don't need to insist any more.

Use the example of LIttle Sioux over and over and over. Please let something very positive come out of all of this for all boy scouts not just ours.

Keep bringing up the tornado and what the boys did there. I don't care if you ever know their names. My son and his friends would rather be like the nameless boy in London who led to the start of BSA. We have talked about what happened and he has repeatedly said that he wants all scouts to be ready for whatever disaster may come. He wants their behaviour to be the starting point for training. I may not be explaining this well, but they all want every scout to be ready for whatever tornado may come at them. Boy Scouts are expected to know first aid, so make sure they know it! Every merit badge starts with first aid, so drill it constantly! No, they won't all be doctors or paramedics but they will all be members of society and may need to help someone else someday.

I realize I am preaching to the choir but I really need to say it.

Thanks

[ReneScout 10]

I can only speak for myself since I am only myself, but I might as well put my comment in.

 

I'm currently a JASM for my troop. Last year, my troop was suffering from sufficient leaders and we were struggling with keeping things in line, scouts and programs alike. Our SM was new to the job and was there mainly to revitalize the troop again, something the old SM could not do because of other matters. In short, my troop needed support leaders.

 

I had already served my troop in junior leadership positions, from patrol scribe to troop scribe, APL to SPL, and frankly, I was getting weary of it. I was always dynamic and made changes, especially when I was SPL, and introduced things otherwise alien to the troop, like uniform inspections and the Instructor position. So, before camporee and summer camp (which I would staff), I asked my SM if he would be interested in me serving as a JASM-- an offer he readily accepted.

 

Note that I was not suddenly given the job, but rather accepted it. It was not because I was forced to do so (I actually drag my mom to all my Scouting events), but because my troop needed me. I also was admittedly not exactly the most effective go-to leader, using slower and more methodical approaches to issues, though I always got the job and more done. I was ready for a more advisory job. After summer camp, I was given the position. It was almost funny how nobody in the troop, not even the heavily-involved ASM/former SM, knew much of the position! However, I did get the job. And frankly, I'm loving it.

 

I've eased into a mentoring capacity and serve as one of the main leaders in outdoor activities, which I am most proficient in. It could be said that outdoor events are my area in the troop, also keeping a handle in insuring that Scouting methods and protocol are kept, even advising the committee on how to make the troop better (remember, I'm dynamic). I do not feel like my position is one that is a retirement age for the senior scouts, I rather feel that I am in a better position than ever to help make the troop better. I don;t feel like a scout, but as an adult, and think my current position will certainly make me better as an ASM in the near future. And others tend to think more highly of me when they see my POR patch, cuz it's not one you see a lot in my area. I make friends out of commissioners and execs and feel listened to. I don't feel excluded from the Scouting system at all.

 

 

I'm the multi-purpose minion, so to speak. While I am aware that not every Scout (or JASM) will be the same as myself, I do think I set a good example for the job.

 

All in all, my view on the JASM is for the Scout to serve in any way he excels in best, whether it be assisting the TG or SPL, or being in charge of camping and hiking activities, like me. Treated as an adult, being a part of the adult patrol (if it exists) and operating in an advisory role. And if anything, the JASM would be in a great position to ensure the troop goes in a boy-led direction, since he has the most recent experiences and is still a boy himself (and is thus less disillusioned than the old geezers... just kidding).

[gcnphkr 11]

GW: They developed an attitude of "we'll show 'em" and won most of the patrol competitions while remaining proud of his misfit status. Today, that could never happen.

 

Why could this not happen today?