Boy Scout Age Specific Activities?

[Bob White 20]

How exactly does a scout just "take" a leadership position? There is nothing in the BSA program that suggests you allow that is there?

 

A Scout should be with his patrol at a camporee. You learn the skiil at the event, you are supposed to learn it before you go and apply it at the event.Shouldn't you?

 

He does not HAVE to join the Venture Patrol...he GETS to. Where are the scouts in the unit you serve getting the idea that moving up in scouting adventure is a bad thing?

 

Make up your mind, you say scouts don't want to babysit (and by the way who is training them that they look at serveice to other scouts as babysitting?) so you don't want to separate them.

 

As if putting them in the same patrol with far fewer skills than the older scouts will make the older scouts feel they are NOT babysitting? If a feeling of babysitting is your concern then you should want to keep them apart...wouldn't you?

 

If you think there are scouts would do better in troop offices then someone like the scoutmaster should be counseling the SPL on the officer selection...shouldn't he?

 

16 year olds who like to play chess should play chess. Don't you ever have scouts sit down at activities and play together? Do you stop them from playing chess? What if they like to fish, do you not allow time at outings for scouts to fish if they want to? I would hope you do.

 

There is another explanation for saying that something isn't true, and that is when what they say is false, whether they were aware of it being false or not is irrelevant. False is "not true". Isn't it?

 

[Stosh 3452]

How exactly does a scout just "take" a leadership position? There is nothing in the BSA program that suggests you allow that is there?

 

"Taking" turns being PL can be worked out by the boys merely going through the "election" and satisfying the requirements of a "vote". Like the boys couldn't figure this out?

 

A Scout should be with his patrol at a camporee. You learn the skiil at the event, you are supposed to learn it before you go and apply it at the event.Shouldn't you?

 

Yep, just like the first year cross-over scouts are to learn everything there is to learn before showing up for summer camp. The logic applied here is rather faulty.

 

He does not HAVE to join the Venture Patrol...he GETS to. Where are the scouts in the unit you serve getting the idea that moving up in scouting adventure is a bad thing?

 

Never said it was. If one reads that into the comment they must have jumped to a different conclusion than was expressed. Boys of this age always like to get left out of the group. A system to promote this is always a great ego builder for the boys that are "different".

 

Make up your mind, you say scouts don't want to babysit (and by the way who is training them that they look at serveice to other scouts as babysitting?) so you don't want to separate them.

 

Never said scouts don't want to babysit. If one were to read the post carefully it explicitly states that some scouts don't like babysitting. Obviously the idea of not all boys have the same interests was overlooked. All boys may at one time be 16, but not all boys like to rock climb. Again, never speak in absolutes.

 

As if putting them in the same patrol with far fewer skills than the older scouts will make the older scouts feel they are NOT babysitting? If a feeling of babysitting is your concern then you should want to keep them apart...wouldn't you?

 

That's the conclusion I drew.

 

If you think there are scouts would do better in troop offices then someone like the scoutmaster should be counseling the SPL on the officer selection...shouldn't he?

 

Makes sense to me. Especially when there are boys out there that have the interest in actually functioning as troop officers and not just wearing the badge to get the POR requirement filled.

 

16 year olds who like to play chess should play chess. Don't you ever have scouts sit down at activities and play together? Do you stop them from playing chess? What if they like to fish, do you not allow time at outings for scouts to fish if they want to? I would hope you do.

 

I find it difficult to see where I ever said they couldn't.

 

There is another explanation for saying that something isn't true, and that is when what they say is false, whether they were aware of it being false or not is irrelevant. False is "not true". Isn't it?

 

Only if what is said is really false not just just someone's opinion that it is. An accusation based on someone else's opinion doesn't make it correct. And I do believe it is scout policy to be tolerant of the beliefs of others. This of course would apply in all belief systems not just those attributed to religion. Surely different cultural beliefs would apply as would most ideas developed around a personal belief system. Just because someone's truth doesn't coinside with another's belief system doesn't make it false either. A more courteous response would be, "From my experience, I don't believe that to be correct." "That simply isn't true." leaves the impression that the person is promoting that which is false, misleading, inappropriate or a variety of other negatives. If everyone thought as everone else, surely there would be no purpose in having this forum or even having discussions at all. Would there?

 

I find it a good thing to hear the diversity of ideas in that it adds a balance of ideas that foster an arena of insight rather than regimental like-minded policy statements on how things have to be done. I always learn more from people who think differently than I do than from those who always just agree with me.

 

Stosh

 

[Eagledad 2779]

>>In fact be structuring the Patrols by age and skill level you can better follow the Patrol Method than by using mixed patrols, and you can keep scouts more active and interested, and in the program longer.

[Bob White 20]

Stosh, you didn't say a rotating PL you said INSTRUCTOR.

 

"Boys of this age always like to get left out of the group"

What age boy in what world WANTS to be left out of his social group?

 

"I find it difficult to see where I ever said they couldn't"

You said that aged based patrolsd would not allow it. "There are 16 year olds who like to climb rocks and other 16 year olds that like to play chess." What part of age/skill based patrols keep them from doing that?

 

No accusations have been made, at leasst not in my posts. I have only presented information from the BSA training and resources. It seems you are far more amiable to the sharing of ideas if they are not in support of following the program.

 

If you learn more about things that do not follow the scouting program by sharing with people who do not follow it, imaginge how much can be learned about the program by sharing with people who do follow it.

 

EagleDa, please explain this for me. "Yes, it is true that the PLC can actively provide for the new scout patrol when the adult tells them that is what they have to do. Is n't the scoutmaster supposed to coach and councsel the SPL to help him understand leadership and citizenship. Isn't teaching him to be aware of the needs of ALL the patrols and not just the older or just the younger scouts part of that training?

 

Doesn't the confidence for being successful at new challenges come partly from learning and practicing skills and then applying them? Isn't that what you do at troop meetings?

 

As for your bike riding example, I don't think anyone has posted anything against using your resources have they? The exceptions should not create the rules.

 

I think the rest of the post has little to do with the Patrol Method or the tired program level. It is a shopping list of exceptions isn't it? There would be no need to drop the 3 patrol levels for the scout who build the garden.

 

Are you suggesting that if you followed the three patrol levels that scouts would feel good about themselves? Based on what data?

 

If you have twelve scouts who want more adventure than the other scouts it would seem like a time to start Venture Patrols wouldn't it?

 

Just a thought.

BW

 

 

 

 

[Eagledad 2779]

>>As for your bike riding example, I don't think anyone has posted anything against using your resources have they? The exceptions should not create the rules.>If you have twelve scouts who want more adventure than the other scouts it would seem like a time to start Venture Patrols wouldn't it?

[Stosh 3452]

I have also found that by creating an older VP or VC to "keep" older scouts active in scouting does in fact separate them from the rest of the herd. Leadership of the younger boys is an "add on" to a program oriented away from the troop to satisfy the activity interests of the older youth. If in fact that is the structure one is going for, then it's ok, but don't expect much assistance from these boys when there's a choice between working the fun activity with the patrol vs. working the leadership activity with the troop. Unless one is great at dumping a major guilt trip on them, the fun will probably win out most of the time.

 

I have found that interest motivated activities generally are a bit more successful in the long run. If an older boy is elected PL of the NSP and he's the only one over 13 and FC, does that mean he can't go to Philmont with the VP boys? If given the option at election time saying that only the VP boys are going to Philmont, one would find it difficult to get the POR's filled that year I'm sure. Before someone gets bent, I do recognize the illustration is an extreme, but to a varying lesser degree the dynamics of the system will show through in the long run.

 

Unless there is an genuine interest being satisfied through the scout program, the scout will consider moving on to different non-scout activities. If a scout doesn't want to be PL and gets elected he will not function effectively as one who really wants it and is appointed, elected, assigned, or just "takes on the job". I have seen many times where a poor PL is "replaced" by another member of the patrol who actually functions as the PL without the badge. Elections may sound good and look good on paper, but functioning leadership always is more effective than many of the electoral games going on in the troops/patrols.

 

Stosh

[Bob White 20]

Wouldn't it wonderful the things that could be accomplished if we had a national philossphy where trained leaders followed the national program rather than a few thousand different personal ones. You don't suppose that is why the BSA has training and resources that support the BSA philosophy?

 

just a thought.

[Stosh 3452]

I'm not used to discussing symantics, but if a boy is elected to a position it doesn't mean he has to take it.

 

And yes it would be ideal in an ideal world that everyone did exactly what was outlined by the BSA program. However, one-size-fit-all kinds of programs don't meet the needs of different situations. Small troops have to operate differently than large troops, experienced troops operate differently than new troops or rebuilding troops.

 

I would be delighted to get a pre-packaged troop that all I have to do is take out of the box and plug in. However, I don't think the world of Scouting has such a thing. To me training and experience are the two key ingredients that allow a dynamic program that fits the needs and expectations of differing locations and situations.

 

Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

[Bob White 20]

I am pretty sure you will find in the Scoutmaster Handbook, and in the Scoutmaster Leader Specific Training, that the BSA shows and teaches two unit operation models, one for a larger unit, one for a smmaller unit. There is reason for each unit to reinvent a perfectly good and usable wheel that has been provided for them.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Stosh 3452]

Do those resources indicate at what number of members the unit goes from small to large? or is that just a matter of interpretation? I have 5 experienced boys and 18 new scouts in 3 patrols. How does that differ from a 3 patrol unit of 1 NSP 1 experienced patrol and 1 venture patrol? Are they to be treated the same? If one has a troop that for some reason takes in no new scouts do they use the same program as they did last year when they did have a NSP? Surely the BSA program allows for some leadership problem-solving to answer specific situations that aren't covered by BSA literature. I wonder why the council selected me to salvage an almost defunct troop if they knew I was going to break every rule in the book?

[Eamonn 61]

Have given this some thought.

In theory it does sound good.

I'm still not sure we have the man-power to pull it off?

My big problem I think is that I have yet to see Venturing Patrols work in the "Real World"

While I agree that Venturing and Sea Scouts are not supposed to exist as any kind of what I might call a Troop Extension Plan??

I do kinda think this is what is happening.

Sure as I have posted many times I'm not a great lover of the Venturing Program as it stands right now. Most if not all the Crews in our area are "Spin offs" from a Troop and have Troop trained adults as Advisors.

While I know I'm going to get jumped on for posting it!! In our area Venturing is a program for older Scouts, the better Crews do manage to recruit some females and non-Scouts.

Please Bob, don't think I'm over stepping the mark. But some time back you started a thread, I think if I remember correctly (And I'm to lazy to look it up!!) It was titled something like "Now The Fun Starts" or something like that.

Again,I might be totally wrong and off base, but I seem to remember how you posted that you and your son were looking forward with great anticipation to having a Venture Patrol.

Not long after it seemed to me that your son and his Dad!! Had joined Sea Scouts because the Venturing Patrol hadn't met the expectations.

 

Last week someone posted that the Troop that had been doing OK with about 40 Scouts was expecting or was getting 20 new Scouts from Packs in the area.

33% of the Troop will now be new Scouts aged about 11.

I don't know the age of the other Scouts in the Troop?

From what I see (Again in the area I'm in.) Is that we do a good job of having Webelos Scouts cross over into the Troops.

The District I serve as a rule sees about 75% of the Second Year Webelos Scouts cross over.

A year later we seem to lose about half of these Scouts. Two years later we lose a few more!! By the time these Lads are 14 or 15 years old there are only a few left.

This year I'm tracking the number of Third and Forth year campers we have at Summer Camp.

Most of the older Scouts I talk with do not want to work with the "Little Kids" (Their words)

Most Troops seem to have a hard time managing the big number of Webelos Scouts who all arrive at the same time. At times these Lads who cross over make up more than 50% of the Troop membership.

Troop Adult Leadership Teams do seem to focus more on catering to these younger Scouts.

A lot of the older Scouts get involved in activities that make attending Troop Meetings and Troop Activities hard or next to impossible!! So that at an average Troop Meeting or Troop Activity these younger Scouts are the majority. So of course the adults spend more time meeting their needs and wants, sadly at times forgetting the needs of the older Scouts. But I think this is just the way things are.

Eamonn.

 

[Stosh 3452]

I have found that providing functional troop level support leadership opportunities that the boys tend to stay active longer.

 

As I have stated in other posts I do not use the top-down directive approach to leadership but instead the bottom up support approach. This means that boys wanting to do troop level leadership step down to a support level position. This emphasizes to them that once they step out of the PL and APL positions they no longer run the show. Our highest ranking officers are the PL's.

 

On the other hand all the boys that have stepped down to the functional support staff in fact form a "virtual" patrol made up of all boys who hold troop PORs. As an adult supportive of these boys, I make sure their efforts are covered with sufficient perks along the way to make their choice to serve others something appreciated. Once the boys figure out that what they do is of real value, they find self-worth in the process. It is that kind of dynamic that my troop level boys figure out and stick with the program.

 

Self-gratification can be gotten in just about any youth program being offered out there, but the recognition of making a valuable contribution to others is what motivates the functionality in the troop offices. I have seen it work many times for a variety of different boys. Once the boy begins working on getting "his" eagle, one knows they've basically lost him. Why is it one never hears anyone say "I need to get Eagle so I can better serve others"? Maybe it's because of how we generally design and tend to emphasize the program.

 

How many troop POR's are sought after for the recognition and prestige rather than functionality and service. Functionality and service tend to be longer lasting and of greater value in the long run for the boys than the 6 months or year they get to wear an SPL badge and "run the show".

 

The older boys need to feel valuable to the group, they do that by service to others and holding a position in the grand scheme of things that if they left it would leave a big hole. If the only reason they hang around the troop is to be entertained, it's only a matter of time before they're gone and the boy that then hangs around to get his Eagle is basically taking all he can get from Scouting without ever making an investment in true leadership of others.

 

Stosh