Eagledad

I guess I saw the tags as a camp gadget. Something to get extra inspection points and/or set the patrol apart from the other patrols. I don't see a practical need for tags, but then many camp gadgets push the line of being practical. Barry

Really! That is interesting. My primary challenge for recruiting cub leaders is time and training. Even the Webelos leaders were backing out when they heard of the overnight training. The hoops I went through to get leaders trained, now the Wolf leaders also have to sleep over? National has completely lost touch we the program. Barry

Just out of curiosity, why do you want to know who is in what tent? Barry

I am told by my child psychology friends that youth are much more influenced by role models of the same gender, which is one reason I am against going coed at the troop age. But, what really bothers me about Fred's statement is that the Troop is where scouts are supposed to grow in character through the practice of making decisions. Fred is basically saying that the program doesn't work as advertised. I contend that gender only programs (because girls do it also) are only enabled to what their role models view as acceptable. I've told this story before, but I'm reminded of the time I walked over to watch the troop play capture the flag. They didn't know I was watching because stood out of view. A new 14 year old transfer started swearing a few four letter words was stopped by another scout who said, "Hey, we don't do that here". The new scout responded with, "Gotcha". And that was that. I have watched discussions on this forum debating the language we should allow scouts. We son't allow some of the language that some adults here think is acceptable. Our scouts know their limits expected by the role models. Barry

Everyone has a bad day. I used to prepare the adults at summer camp that they might likely feel grumpy by mid week and resist the temptation to react irritably. And, scouts have their bad days as well, so parents shouldn't get to wrapped up in these things unless the behavior is consistent and causing problems. Some adults just struggle to deal with scout behavior, which is why many troops require all adult frustrations go through the SM. The Scoutmaster is a filter to issues of real concern and venting by adults. Not that some adults can't control themselves appropriately around scouts, we have restricted several adults from scout activities just for that reason. One note about how adults respond to situations in front of scouts, they are role modeling the behavior the scouts will mimic in the patrols. It's not a maybe, scouts learn by observing and they react in the only way that have seen others act in the same type of situations. Next time you are at summer camp, watch the SPL and see how close his actions resemble the adults. Kind of scary really. While I was SM, I had two rules for the adults to lessen the urge of being reactionary to the actions of scouts: First, the adults were never allowed to yell for any reason other than trying to communicate a distance that requires a loud voice. Second, adults never put their sign up until after a scout puts his up first. Have you ever watch adults herding the behavior of scouts by using their sign. It becomes so automatic that they don't even realize they do it. If the adult needs the attention of the group, he walks over to the youth leader of the group and ask him to get the groups attention. It shows respect to the leader of the group and it gives the adult time to breath and relax. Those two rules worked pretty well to keep adults calm in chaotic stressful situations. Barry

When our crew stopped at the Canadian Ranger Station to enter the Canadian Quetico Park in the Boundary Waters, the Ranger lectured us for 30 minutes on the limitations of camping in the Canadian parks. She also showed a book of pictures that showed extensive damage caused by Boy Scouts in the past. The damage and trash was shocking, but I never saw anything that even hinted that it was done by scouts. Still, a very poor reputation preceded our visit that I'm sure is somewhat deserved. Barry

Is this not an adult fear? I gave the example of helping one leader with the idea of letting his scouts go on a five mile hike without adults. His fear of strangers with bad intentions was his number one concern. So he trained them to stick together as a group (buddy system) and not get distracted from their task by inquiring strangers. That was my discussion. I don't know what else he taught them, but he approached me 6 months later at another adult training course to brag about the scouts hike. Barry

The SM is running the show. The BSA POR hierarchy is already the shape of the ice-cream cone format because the program is using servant leadership as the process to meet the Vision of developing ethical and moral decision makers. I don’t understand how the SPL is separated (or the SM for that matter) from the servant leadership part of the program. If the SPL is a servant leader, he serves the patrols just as much as the PL. The confusion for many here is thinking that the BSA leadership hierarchy as a linear structure of directors and subordinates like military organizations. But the BSA leadership structure is more of defined levels of experiences and mastery of skills. That is why we call it Positions of Responsibility (PORs). The SPL is generally the scout with high level of experience and mastery of skills. Not the scout who has the highest level of directive authority. The reason many troops struggle with the BSA leadership structure is they don’t understand, or even know the BSA Vision. They instead are stuck in the weeds of advancement and leadership. And troops that focus on the methods of the program without understanding the Vision generally do not use servant leadership because advancement and leadership are a lot easier than making moral and ethical decision makers.. Servant leadership is the equalizer of program because everyone’s actions are to serve everyone. That is how the SPL is as much a servant to the patrol member as the PL. And why the SM is also as much a servant to the patrol members as the PL. Each have their defined responsibilities within the program structure for the intention of working toward the Vision by way of managing an efficient program. But if they don’t see themselves serving the patrol members, then the SM is doing it wrong. If the SM is doing it wrong, can anyone make it right? The SM has the responsibility to direct the program to use (or not) servant leadership. The SM is the gatekeeper to the Vision. That is why the SM is running the show. I can’t imagine a mature troop running any other way. Barry

This is exactly what I meant by the adults training the scouts around the adult fears. And I hinted at it, but qwazse said directly that it's not just the adult leaders that have to be convinced, the parents have to feel comfortable about the scouts independence as well. This is a good thing, as the parents watch how the adult leaders get the scouts up to a comfortable level of skills, they also learn about how the program works and develop a trust for it. They develop a lot of respect for the program and adult leaders. However, let me add, each experience is a step forward in giving the scouts more independence. Generally the process to get scouts up to a level of skills that gets the adults comfortable doesn't usually have to be repeated. At least not to the full original process. So the adults can just keep pushing their fear boundary out farther at each step. As has been said, it takes a while, but you will find that as the scouts gain confidence in the adults and the adults gain more trust in the scouts, the maturity of the program will grow faster and faster. The hardest part of the process is just getting the adults to take the first step of wanting to give the scouts this kind of independence. Barry

cchoat said it best in another discussion, "It doesn't happen overnight, but I believe in the saying, "Train em right, trust (but verify) that they do it right, then get out of the way!" You have to prove to the scouts that you are willing to "trust" them, so that they value the freedom of you getting out of the way. If they don't value it, they will abuse it. But you have to start somewhere. The limitations of all troops are based from the fears of the adults. I used to teach adults to train the scouts around the adult fears. It may be as simple of feeling comfortable enough to let the scouts go on a five mile hike without adults. I would ask the adults what they fear about that, and then we would develop a plan for easing their fear so they would let the scouts do the hike. What is it that you fear with this outing, taking risks that they should not take? As cchoat says, all this doesn't happen over night. You know your scouts better than us. What freedom can you give them that shows you are giving them some trust that will develop the goal of eventually giving scouts full independence. Is there some instruction or training that would help ease your (and your parents!) fears. I like to tell adults to push their fear limits. It's a hard question to give a simple answer. But whatever you plan, it will likely be as much of a growing experience for the adults as the scouts. Barry

I think it is a great way for him to build confidence. Little steps is how I worked with scouts like your son as well. One introverted scout eventually became an SPL. Another severely introverted scout became a PL. The key is how the scouts accept your son in the group and it sounds like your SPL is there. It depends how your troop uses them, but he might consider Quartermaster as the next step. It has a lot of responsibility with a medium requirement for communication with the patrols. It was another favorite for our shyer scouts. It's all about building confidence. Sounds like you have a good troop there. Barry

I should not be blamed for your lack of sense of humor. Barry

Please, explain the insult part. At best, it's a disagreement and there is nothing personal in the response. I'm confident stosh will start a new discussion of how patrol styles influence adventure and advancement. Barry

Oh for Pete's sakes Stosh, whether the focus of program is adventure or advancement has nothing to do with patrol styles. That would be like saying you use patrol method because your favorite color is red. Makes no sense. If you want ANOTHER debate on patrol styles, please start another discussion. Barry

I read nothing into your post. You focused on training and then asked me about the slippery slope. You are making this discussion to personal to your more specific interest of applying one of the eight methods. I was speaking more about using a specific method to drive the program. My point, once again, is use adventure to drive the program. Not advancement. Barry

The slippery slope is using advancement to drive the the program instead of outdoor activities for adventure. Advancement tends to limit the troop program to activities themed toward getting requirements signed off for rank. Adventure instead encompasses all the eight method for the purpose of a fun hands on outdoor experience. It's all to easy to let skills requirements drive the theme of the troop activities. I consider instructional teaching a red flag indicating that our program isn't doing enough outdoor activities to pass the skill along by simple observation. Of course there are times when instruction is required to pass along a skill. But, the program should be driven so that desire to learn a skill is motivated for participating in program activities, not for advancement. Funny story. Our troop spent a month getting ready for a weekend of search and rescue activities. The troop meeting activities also included first aid instructional activities to prepare for the victims of the search and rescue. What the scouts didn't know is the older scouts set up a car wreck simulation near the camp. They had a blast spending learning how to apply makeup for simulating blood and broken bones. We hiked the troop about mile into camp so that we would walk on the road of the simulated wreck. I will never forget how slowly those scouts approached the accident scene when they realized that they happened on to a bad wreck. Of course as they got closer, they recognized the older scouts and what they were doing. The older scout did an excellent job the next hour quizing the scouts of the injuries and first aid that should be applied. Everyone enjoyed the experience and learned a lot. Even the adults. Fast forward six months as our Troop Convoy driving to summer camp witness a car overturn on a wet road. Several adults trained in these things attended to the people in the vehicle while the rest of us (about 100 total) stood safely on the side of the road out of harms way. Our concern was another car loosing control into the scouts. I will never forget the first year scout who walked up to me and said in all seriousness, " we get trained for this exact situation and you won't let us help." I don't remember what I said to him, but I took his frustration as a compliment to the program. Barry

I fully agree. Ninety percent of the SPLs who attended our Council Youth Leadership Development Course (NYLT) had no training toward planning and leading PLC meetings, much less the annual planning meeting. Most who attend troop monthly PLC meetings led by a untrained SPL would likely rather watch paint dry. By the time the participants finished our four day course, they had planned at least eight PLC meetings (which include annual planning) and led at least two. The SPL handbook also gives basic direction toward planning a PLC meeting. Our troop is a little different in that our PLC meetings are held 30 minutes before each troop meeting. Our SPL becomes so efficient that most meetings run only 20 minutes. Barry

This, is not the same as this. While your focused on teaching, I was speaking more in context of using the method of advancement as the main program objective. I'm tempted to repeat my thoughts on advancement vs adventure. But I will rely on my previous posts to support my point that a program of advancement will never have the foundation for building character, nor will the program develop a maturity that is attractive for older scouts. Advancement is limited to the finite skills in the program. Listen to this scout leader: Barry

Do it in steps. Have a troop send a couple of Scouts over to teach the Webs totin chip and see where that goes. Let them prove if they are mature enough for sheath knives. Barry

Adults are just as bad with creativity as Scouts. That is why most troops rely on a Scouts skills advancement program. Even when new ideas are presented, many units nixed them because they don't fit in with the advancement theme. Education of understanding that advancement is a byproduct of adventure would be one way to encourage creativity of activities. And if the only way to get adults on board with an adventure program is compromising with some instructive advancement, then add a couple hours of free time before loading the cars for home. Barry

False narrative? I'm confident that most parents with kids in sports have at least one horror story of over the top coaches. I have some scary stories of coaches physically fighting and a couple of stories of police getting involved. TheYMCA here requires ALL parents take a morning course of controlling their behavior and then signing a contract before their kids can participate in any sport. I imagine the coaches have more extensive training. I have one funny story of a very concerned scout parent. I was one of several parents who reported him for his behavior when several of us pulled our 6 years old son's from his team. He was asked to take the assistant coach role but he instead withdrew from the team because most of the parents attended his (our) church. Short story is he was very uncomfortable how I would treat his son as his SM. Of course that's not my style and both his son's earned their Eagle and aged out in the troop. But little of that really contributes to how sports compares to scouting in developing character. During my years as a scout leader, I also coached for 12 years. Since I was obsessed with character development in scouting, I also tried to carry that goal to my coaching and found it very challenging. I Used to tell our scouting parents that the troop is the real world experience scaled down to a boys size. That is because the Scouts makes hundreds of decisions that have direct consequences on the will of the group. I found that while we can apply specific experiences of sports to real world, on the whole the outcome of character growth is very controlled and fragile. Of coarse we could argue that team members also make choices for the good of the team. But the difference, at least for me is that errors are not welcome in a sporting event because it can cause a bad outcome for the whole team. The scout program, if done correctly, is a safe place for wrong decisions because they are opportunities for growth. Same result happens in sports, errors can encourage changes in habits. But errors can have have such a dramatic result to the team that they are not welcome and many times brutal to the player. I personally believe that sports give our youth positive experience of character growth that prepares them better in their adult life. But I don't believe any parent or player joins a team to develop character. And result of that is that very few, if any, adults become coaches in little league to develop their players character. Barry

Focusing on teaching scout skills is truly a slippery slope. i think the word that concerns me here is "teaching". Boys of the scout age learn far more by observing the skills being used in action than by instructor directing. Of course Scouts need some instruction to learn specific skills, but a troop that builds on learning skills as the highest priority typically misses the point of scouting. The main purpose of the program is developing moral and ethical decision makers. The practice of making decisions occurs best in the woods, not the classroom. A troop that focuses on adventure where Scouts see scout skills used is far more successful than a troop that focuses on first class in the first year. Instead of making all the boys scout skills experts, make the program adventurous enough that if drives the boys to want more skills. Barry

Yah, it's difficult problem. Back Pack is right that Patrol Method IS the scouting program. Or at least the troop program. But the problem is "what is Patrol Method"? Adults by human instinct are ambitious and seek gratification of personal performance. With that in mind, the actions in the "advancement" process are strait forward and produces fast results. Did the scout learn a knot? Yes! Bang. Done. Sign and move to the Next Requirement. The process of Patrol Method, on the other hand, is vague compared to a first class signoff list. Even worse, the patrol method process of changing habits by responding to previous bad decisions is slow and cumbersome. It requires a great deal of patience AND trust. And in reality, performance of a scouts growth in character may not be seen for several years. Is it no wonder adults steer toward advancement activities? But let's understand, adults are not being purposely malicious in how the direct their scouting program. They honestly believe they are nobly doing exactly the program that builds character. As Back Pack points out, the BSA should do a better job training patrol method. But after 25 years of teaching different training courses, I'm not sure quality patrol method can be taught in the limited time today's adults are willing to give. Patrol method has to be experienced or observed over time to understand it's advantages. I've said many times that a new adult leader with a youth scouting experience is three years a head of most new adults without without a youth scout experience. I don't blame the adults. I blame the process that drives inexperienced adults to intuitively steer the program to be advancement driven. Because I have the youth scouting experience, I know that fishing is a lot more fun than tying knots. Barry

One of the problems the BSA caused with the first year first class program is that it unintentionally steered inexperienced adult leaders to focus on advancement. I can't count how many Wood Badge Scouters I had to counsel who wrote a Wood Badge Ticket Item intending to get 100% of their new scouts to first class in one year. And the continued domino effect of FCFY led to several other problems, one of them being the adventure part of troop programs. Troops over the last 25 years have developed an expectation that high adventure doesn't start until age 14. So, they have let the adventure of the troop program degrade to just camping out once a month. The majority of troops today don't know how to add adventure to a typical campout. Water sports, biking, canoeing, back packing and so on are activities waiting for older scouts. The result of this has also led to the loss of older scouts. When adults limit troop programs to basically first class advancement, older scouts are bored and move on. Without older scout role models, the adults have to step in. Younger scout age boys by nature don't relate to adult role models the same as brotherly older scout role models, so the growth benefits of patrol method are stunted. Troops need to get back to the simple idea of adventure in their campouts. It doesn't have to be mountain top experiences, just outdoor activities that provide growth through independent learning of new skills and practicing their association with the buddies. Our pack had a tradition of taking new Tigers and their parents fishing on their first meeting. We provided everything including breakfast. I can't describe the dozens of faces from these scouts and their parents after catching their first fish. That event alone would be a great commercial to the outdoor program of scouting. Barry

Yes, but you seem to be going around in circles to me. Scouting is about character. Adventure and leadership are how the scouting program shapes character. But go read the article again. Is it not talking about character? As a grandfather and youth leader, I think parents today are very much concerned about raising their children into mature adults of character. But the culture (pop culture) has very much defined everything that can harm their kids. AND, a parent could even get arrested from the fears of your community. Our house painter had a long night recently when the neighbor called the police because he spanked one of his kids. Another friend was visited by the policed because his kid didn't wear a bicycle helmet. Schools are terrified of food allergies. I can go on and on, but no wonder parents feel more at calm with their kids in their bedroom playing on the computer on a beautiful sunny day. Parents are looking for a safe outlet where their kids can experience life without fear of harm. Scouting is that outlet. But, if we scouters don't understand the program, how can the parents? Anyone who monitors this forum would come away feeling that patrol method is very complex because we all have opinions of how to use it differently. In reality, developing character is simply learning by the results of choices. My course participants laugh when I tell them that I want my scouts to make wrong choices because that is where they learn to change. The more wrong choices they make, the more they learn and grow. Eventually they will make fewer and fewer wrong choices. BUT, that kind of leadership goes against the natural adult instinct of protecting our youth, so the result is fewer and fewer adults who willingly allow their scouts to make wrong choices. And in this day and age of neighbors calling the police on their neighbors because their kid rode of on his bicycle without s a helmet, we start to understand the challenge of building character in an outdoor program. The challenge for the BSA today is resist going away from a character developing program and morphing into an afterschool daycare program for young adults. Personally, I don't think they are doing a very good job. Barry