TIME BETWEEN RANKS

[Bob White 20]

"The only leeway locals have is not to sign off on certain requirements that have not been done up to standard."

 

There is no stantard other than meeting the requirement as stated in the handbook.

 

A scout does not have to do it as good as the leader, as good as a nother scout, as good as the tester wants it done. He just has to fulfill the requirement. If the handbook says make a list, the scout must make a list. if he has to demeondtarte then he has to demonstrate, As long as he does the skill as described by the handbook in the method described in the handbook he has met the scouting standard.

 

No other standard is appropriate or allowed.

 

Bob White

[SM406 10]

I think we all desire for the boys to slow down and smell the roses or its the journey not the destination. But I am still not in the camp for tenure yet. In response to the Scout that leaves for camp and comes back first class, I am assuming you meant he came back with all of the requirements for FC, because somewhere in the process should be Scout Spirit and a SMC for three ranks. Our Council Summer Camp offers a Trail to First Class course which is offered for any Scout not FC yet. It is possible to come away with exposure to almost all of the requirements. However our Camp also stresses that they are not testifying that the Scout has successfully passed that skill, they leave that up to the leadership of the Scouts unit to evaluate and sign off.

 

Thinking about this some more. Our Summer Camp has patrol cooking, so that if the SM attends Camp theoretically a Scout could come home a FC Scout. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I think it depends on the boy.

 

SM406

 

[Eamonn 61]

While I'm aware that I'm not in the best of moods, the end of the month does this to me.

I do ask that you forgive me if I come off , as sounding a little out of sorts.

I go along with SM406.

If we start with the premise, that Advancement belongs to the Scout or better still each individual Scout, and add to this that each Scout is an individual.

How can we even dare to use terms like "We need to hold them back." Who do WE think WE are?

A Scout who belongs to an active troop that presents a well rounded program, will be "Seasoned" enough as he grows and spends time in and with the troop.

We ask each Scout to have his own copy of the Scout Handbook, this book clearly lays out what the requirements are for each rank. This book is can be looked upon as a fact list. When people choose to ignore it, by adding or taking away from it. - What message are they passing on?

Why are we trying to reinvent the wheel?

There are also Handbooks and Training's for adults. I have yet to see anything or hear it said that if you don't like something that you can go ahead and change or alter it.

What would happen if we all followed the program. Treated each and every Scout as the individual that he is? And maybe gave some thought to the idea of Servant Leadership, - Where we serve the needs of the Scout. Not put obstacles in his way.

 

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"What would happen if we all followed the program."

 

There'd be little to discuss here. :-)

 

While it would be nice if everyone followed the program, those who expand the requirements are probably doing more good than those stick to the letter but still find the shortcuts.

 

Like what? The guys who do knots by showing once, and then making the Scout tie it once, often while watching the instructor tie the knot and then signing off. How about the guys who sign off on First Aid requirements after just lecturing about first aid?

 

Neither is a good way to do things but given a choice, I'd rather my son be in a troop that required knots to be tied in a certain time than a troop where you don't have to learn anything.

 

 

[RuddBaron 10]

Who do WE think WE are? WE are the adults in an education program to turn boys into men. Just like parents who are in charge of what the boys do when at home, and the teachers who decide what they do when at school, we are in charge at the troop. We're only talking about a few months to a year here. I realize that is a long time to a youngster, but really...they need to learn to deal with it.

 

Another way to demonstrate this is that, when I teach certain merit badges, they must be done over time for me to be convinced they know what they are doing. When it comes to Sailing and Horsemanship, my two specialties, I have my students do things beyond the requirements, but I DO NOT require this to earn the badge. Also, they have to do these things over time so what they learned sinks in. If they learn to canter a horse one week, it's usually at least a week before I will let them do their final riding test. Why? Because one cannot REALLY learn to ride in a week...unless you're David O'Connor the Olympic Equestrian Gold Medalist, and even he didn't learn in a week.

 

Is this holding them back? Maybe so. However, they come out as top-grade beginning sailors or horsemen. Both are dangerous. I need to feel they know how to handle themselves. More importantly, THEY need to know this themselves.

 

Hey, call me old fashioned on this stuff, but I even like the old Skill Award system!

[Eamonn 61]

Much as I hate to disagree. I fail to see how anyone can make the decision to make up their own rules.

I have never thought of myself as being in chagre, when it comes to advancement.(Of course when it comes to matters of safety, we are in a new ballpark.)However if one must use the term "In Charge." What are you in charge of?

I would hope that you are in charge of delivering the program of the Boy Scouts Of America.

As an adult leader, I serve the youth. Ok, at this time I'm not lucky enough to be in a program area. However I still do what I can, never losing sight of the end user, - Our Youth.

When it comes to advancement, we all do well to follow the BSA's "Four Steps to Advancement."

1. A youth learns.

2. A youth is tested.

3. A youth is reviewed.

4. A youth is recognized.

If as adult leaders we can provide hands on situations for the youth in which they are actively involved in doing what ever the skill is, that is being passed on.

If the youth can see the end goal that they are learning to achieve.

If we the adults or some other experianced person (Patrol Leader, SPL,or Crew member.) Can provide all the information that is needed. Maybe using a range of different presentation techniques.( Remembering that each youth is an individual and may learn in different ways. Some Scouts may be able to learn out of the book, while others may want or need to hear and see what is being passed on. The youth today are used to being taught with a multimedia approach.)

If we provide a demonstration, and have the youth follow along.

We can then allow the youth to work through the steps. Allowing them to make mistakes and to figure out corrections.

With a leader on hand to gently bring them back in to the correct method if they go far afield.

All the time we the adults or presenters need to be generous with support and praise.

The end result will be that the youth will have met the goal.

If the goal was a skill that we can use in the program, we can reinforce this skill, by allowing the youth opportunites to use the skill.

This is not a new idea, so please don't try and hide behind the fact that you are old or old fashioned. Baden Powell laid this out in "Aids to Scoutmastership"

(This message has been edited by Eamonn)

[RuddBaron 10]

Not "in charge?" I'm not suggesting Scouters be despots or tyrants, but ultimately someone must be "in charge" of the troop." That certainly isn't going to be a teen. How is that teen going to learn to be a leader himself in adulthood without adults to set an example of leadership.

 

Patton, McArthur, JL Chamberlain, etc. are excellent leadership models. Very effective. Tried by fire.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Oh boy, here I go again,

 

The person "in charge" of the troop is the Senior Patrol Leader, not the scoutmaster, not the committee chair, not the Charter Organization Representative or the Institutional Head. The Scoutmaster makes sure the Senior Patrol Leader and the Patrol Leader Council knows how to lead by training them, but in the end, its the Senior Patrol Leader who is in charge.

 

Teens, by being in charge of the troop, learn to lead the troop.

 

The list of heroes you mention, Patton, McArthur, and Chamberlain are fine examples of MILITARY leaders who used DIRECTING as their main form of leadership style, which is what military leaders do, they have to. Scouting, not being the military, should not be lead by the directing style when coaching, supporting and delegating is far more effective.

 

 

[RuddBaron 10]

First, I'm moderately impressed if you know who Joshua L. Chamberlain was. Second, their leadership skills were applied to MILITARY purposes out of necessity, but were easily applied to anything else. To use Chamberlain, he applied his leadership skills as Governor of Maine and as President of Bowdoin College.

 

And yes, here we go again with this nonsense about not having anything "military" because of Scouting being non-military. Of course a youth program is non-military. Aside from the 17 year olds, they're too young. BUT...one MAJOR reason B-P founded Scouting was the lack of preparedness among British youth for military service. The founders of BSA shared the same opinion of American youth then, and we are in a similar state now. BSA trains boys to be leaders and good citizens, ready to serve their country in any way needed, whether it is military, industry, family, etc.

 

Now, do you honestly believe the SPL, a MINOR, is truly in charge of the troop? Ultimately the Troop Committee Chairman has the final word. It is a fine thing to allow the boy leadership to run the troop, but there must be oversight. Ultimately an adult with real legal standing and responsibility must have final authority.

 

To use a military example, The Scoutmaster is like a Captain of a Cavalry Troop. The SPL is like, say, the Sergeant-Major. The Scouters are the officers, while the Scouts are the enlistees. Both SM and SPL can use a directing style of leadership to get things done while DELEGATING the authority of leading the Scouts mostly to the SPL. The two are not mutually exclusive. I cannot recall EVER witnessing a troop in which the adults NEVER directed the Scouts to do anything.

 

I don't know how much high adventure stuff you've done, but in that area a directing style is, as in the military, much more essential, whether it comes from SPL or SM. Boys going dangerously close to a cliff need to be TOLD to get away, not gently supported in their delegated responsibility of learning on their own that they should not be near the cliff. Scouts are still children.

[Fat Old Guy 11]

Rudd, good military leaders use all four forms of leadership as described in another thread. As discussed there, the style depends on the situation at hand. The effective leader knows when to delegate, when to direct, when to coach and when to provide support.

 

 

 

 

 

[RuddBaron 10]

I am faint with shock, for we finally agree. YES, good leadership does indeed entail all of that and knowing when to employ what method. Part of Patton's effectiveness was his study of many different military leaders and their styles of leading. This is why, whether we're a military group or not, we can learn from the examples of the people I mentioned.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

http://www.swcivilwar.com/ChamberlainReportGettysburg.html

 

Dont congratulate me to much, when I saw Patton and McArthurs name I was thinking WWII figures and then I saw Chamberlain and thought, what? The PM Of England, the Grand Appeaser?

 

So I thought I better look it up, yeah, I remember him, the Kevin Costner charactor in the movie Gettysburg, no bullets? no problem, just charge. BTW, are you from Maine? Have an Uncle in Skowhegan

[RuddBaron 10]

Close...Jeff Daniels. Yes, Jeff Daniels of *Dumb and Dumber* played (and very well) the role of Chamberlain in both Gettysburg and Gods and Generals. Chamberlain makes a good role model for Scouts because he was first and foremost an educator. He only was soldier because of circumstances.

 

I am not from Maine, though I have a lot of friends there and am very fond of it. I believe Maine was voted the number one place to raise children in the country. One person I know in a relatively large (for Maine) city has never locked his door.

 

Now...this is a much more pleasant discourse!

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"I cannot recall EVER witnessing a troop in which the adults NEVER directed the Scouts to do anything."

 

If we do direct, we are in error because very little is learned during "directed" activities. Rather than say, "police the campground," we should say, "Mr.SPL, have you noticed the trash on the ground? What can be done about that?"

 

When you want someone to learn, you need to provide them with the tools to find the answers on their own.

[RuddBaron 10]

"Mr.SPL, have you noticed the trash on the ground? What can be done about that?"

 

That is a fine way to handle it in some circumstances. But, to use my cliff example, "Mr. SPL, get those Scouts away from the edge of the cliff now" is much more appropriate.

 

The example you gave above, though, is still a means of directing. It's a not-so-subtle hint to the SPL that there is trash on the ground and the area needs to be policed.