Eagledad

In my way of thinking this is the whole story. The scout came in BOR hostel, angry and seeking revenge. Worse, he planned it out and ambushed the board. No where in the Oath and Law does it say that a scout is only friendly, courteous and kind when he chooses or when he is in a good mood. Character defines itself in difficult situations, not the best. How much more significant would the scout's approach had been if he had taken and shown the BSA documents that support him to the board. The scout failed because he lost his dignity and integrity with the board members. Even if they are wrong, the scout could have approached them as an adult and carried a mature discussion. My bride of 36 years is a CPA and I am astonished to how she deals with very difficult clients each day. She disarms them with kindness and respect. She listens quietly while they have their say, then she talks with them with a smile. She speaks in a tone that makes them feel safe to just relax. These are the skills we need to teach our youth so that they can make a positive difference in other peoples life simply by have a civil discussion. The scout isn't ready for the Eagle because he lacks maturity to act scout like when his pride is challenged. It's just me and I'm not proposing anything to qwazse because he is one of the finest leaders on this forum, but I personally would ask the scout to reconsider how to reapproach the members of board to discuss his unlike scout attitude in trying to make his point. It seems that getting in someones face to make a point is the acceptable means of presenting one's opinion today. We don't teach courtesy and manners as the standard method of dialogue. Teaching scouts the values of the Oath and Law aren't easy, but they are noble. Barry

Putting on my human behavior hat here; Blw2 and NJ are exactly right, teenagers learn what the want to learn. The way the human brain works, at least the male human brain, is that it absorbs everything it observes until puberty. In fact my child psychologist Professor friend (also a SM) says that we males learn almost 90% of our behavior by age 13 simply by who we watched. And that is why Scouting is a wonderful teaching program when the unit bases growth from watching role models in action. To this discussion, when the brain passes through puberty, the natural learning from just observing dramatically decreases and the brain starts to act proactively from what it learned. In other words, learning by observing is no longer the primary means of growth. The primary means of growth after puberty comes from active rational analyzing of situations. Basically that means we learn by our experiences or by proactively planning a change to the environment for our ambitions. In other words, the post pubescent brain only learns what it wants to learn, as apposed to the pubescent brain learns simply by watching. A post pubescent brain in nature grows when it wants to change the present status. The reason so many troops struggle with older scouts is the adults set the vision of how older scouts should behave. Part of the problem is adults think of themselves a the main teachers and providers of the scouts; babysitters. So they project that on to the older scouts. Which is fine if the adults handed the responsibility of growth over to the older scouts. But growth of behavior and learning scouts skills is not the same thing. The adults push the older scout to just teach the First Class skills basics without consideration of how scouts actually grow in the troop program. So the older scouts are just repeating their first two or three years of boring skills lectures, which doesn't require any stimulation by creative rational analyzing of the situation. It doesn't stimulate growth. And the young scouts sit in a boring class watching boring instructor that less desire to be there than the young scouts. Because their older scouts are bored and leaving the program, many troops try to build the program so the scouts is basically finished by age 14 with the Eagle. But in the human psychology world, that is about the age when the scout has become a man and is ready to take on real responsibility. His brain wants that responsibility because it desires more stimulus of growth. Most here who still read my posts have heard me say that the quality of a unit is best measured by the quality of the older scouts. That is because the younger scouts (prepubescent) by nature learn their behavior in the troop by watching the older scouts (post pubescent). Considering that older scouts learn only by their experiences or drive to change the current situation, Scouts at all ages in the troop are measurably more mature when the troop gives older scouts the freedom to be proactively creative with the managing the troop. So to blw2 and NJ's point, the more independence we adults give the older scouts to be creative and make decisions on managing the troop program, the more all the scouts will grow from the experience. And the more they will enjoy the troop experience. Barry

Wow, great discussion. It's the balance of managing the "Game with a Purpose". Barry

Yes, this is in my mind the basis for growth in the troop program. I think I spent a great deal of my SM time guiding the adults that scouts struggling in their responsibilities is ok because they are learning and hopefully growing from the experience. Adults by nature are impatient with slow performance because they measure performance at an adult perspective. But scouting is the real world scaled down to a scouts size. We are in no hurry, so we give the scouts the spce to grow. Someone of the forum said the other day that the troop program is a safe place because it is where failing is considered a good experience for learning. I always gave the same basic pep talk before elections which said that each individual should seek out a responsibility to grow, not to be perfect. Making a good effort toward their responsibilities is all that we ask because we know that whatever the results, they will have learned from the experience. Sometimes they learn that they aren't very good in those particular responsibilities. Barry

Yep, we were the same way. We eventually started asking the committee members to have their own sub meetings and then just brief the main committee of their conclusions.. The CC would monitor the committee members to make sure they were on track with the program and know what they were going to say before the meeting. That way the CC could control the meeting by minimizing the chit-chat to stay on focus of the main points. By the way, the adults learned this from the PLC, which meets once a week 30 minutes before the troop meeting. The PLC had to learn how to keep on point so they wouldn't be late for the troop meeting. That wasn't intentional, it just worked out that way. The key to short meetings is a CC (or SPL) who communicates with all the members before the meeting and knows how the meeting will go before it even starts. Barry

It's pretty common. Some troops elect the ASPL every six month, but keep the SPL for a year. In most cases, those SPLs are 16 and older. Seems to work well also. Barry

Good post, very informative. Barry

Well your experience as a Cub leader is very much like mine. While I was involved with the pack, our Webelos crossover rate went from something like 20% to over 90%. The problem with you and me is that we were experienced scouts when we joined as adults, so we had a bit of a clue of what the families needed to see. When I worked at the District and Council level, I saw and felt the problem of units without any adults who had a scouting youth experience. I created some programs in our district that resemble a lot of your camporee programs and they worked very well. But, the integrity was only there as long as the district person responsible understood the value and purpose of the programs. Some district leaders just find warm bodies to replace previous administrators and the result is failure. The best way to maintain integrity of a program is for it to come from National in a written format that anyone can follow. Of course we get into the problem of National then, but that is a different story. Barry

Part of the concern of research data is the reaction to that data. New Scout Patrols and First Class in the First Year are a reaction to data that showed new scouts who earned first class in their first year were more likely stay with the program until at least 14 years of age. Nationals reaction was to encourage troops to push new scouts to first class in the first year. That unintentionally led an interpretation of driving the program to be more advancement based. It is likely that the data should have been interpreted to mean that troops that provide a quality advancement program where scouts aren't held back from their personal goals are the kinds of programs where boys like to experience scouting. I can give several examples of National's reaction to data that hasn't met with good performance. I just don't have a lot of faith in National's ability to respond correctly to their data. As others have suggested in this thread, I'm very much in favor of National first focusing on other problem areas like the huge bureaucracy of running the pack program. I think the number of cubs leaving the program before crossover is near or even above 75%. That is an adult problem that needs attention. Barry

We do the same thing after each SPL election cycle. Barry

Our CCs understood our program very well, which is why they were selected. And typically committees were about 50/50 male female. The thing I learned about moms in general is that you can sell them all you want on boy run and patrol method, but they aren't convinced until they see it in action. Once they see it, they are not only believers, they are the troops biggest cheer leaders. I have a lot of stories about moms all of a sudden seeing the light. I don't understand it, but I saw it happen with several moms. I can't recall a single dad making the same dramatic conversion. Barry

The only suggestion I give to units as far as committee sizes is that it should be no bigger than what the CC can manage. Interestingly, my experience is that females can manage larger committees than men. Barry

I have said many times on this forum that Cub Scouts is all about the adults, not the boys. I know that sound wrong, but in reality if the adults are happy, they will bring their sons and their sons will stay in the program well into their teens. I've done it over and over. So, with that in mind, I also feel that if the Cub program is supposed to build a boys maturity for moving up into the Troop outdoors lifestyle, its' just as important (if not more important) for the adults to grow and mature into that lifestyle. As a Scoutmaster, I have taken many young boys without any outdoors experience and developed their confidence to enjoy the outdoor experience. At the same time, I lost a whole Webelos den because they were so bored that they quit before summer camp. Their Den Leader took them camping every month for two years before joining the troop and taught them all the first class skills. There was nothing they hadn't done that most of our 2nd years scouts still hadn't even experienced yet. Getting back to the adults; our culture today is at place where 3/4 of the new adult leaders joining the program have little or no outdoors experience. Is it really so hard to imagine parents concerns for sending their son out into the wilderness with just a couple of adults? In my opinion, the BSA has to step up educating the parents during their son's cub years of the wilderness experience to help them feel more comfortable about joining the Troop. I'm not sure how they should do that, but we are dealing with a whole new demographic of parents today. Barry

I kind of sounds like your concern originated with your son. Do you feel like he is stuck or his ambitions are being held back? I'm not saying I agree with one way or another because I don't have both sides of the story. But I will say that I have had many many conversations with parents who felt their son wasn't getting what he deserved. My vision for their son was different from their vision for their son and I just had to get better at explaining my vision. I will also say I can think of two families I know of who quit our troop because they (parents) didn't agree with my vision. I am not assuming you are that parent, but only showing you often Scoutmasters have these discussions. I also admit that it is difficult to understand a process that isn't explained well. I assume you have already talked to your son about it; have you talked to the manager of the process? I am assuming that's either the SPL or the SM. But be careful in how you ask the question because your question might come off as being more personal and less inquisitive of the process as a whole. And stosh is right about that a process that isn't working well is as much a teacher, if not more, than a process that functions efficiently. Barry

First let me just say that a lot of adults get really wound up about elections when they are just a smiple leadership selection process. There are some Scoutmasters who claim the difference between a success and failure of their program starts with the elections. I believe that if the youth leader selection process is a make or break in any troop program, the adults need additional training in youth leadership development. Selecting leaders is such a small part of the leadership development part of program that it has almost NO impact to the performance of growth scouts gain from their leadership experience. It really doesn't matter how your scouts select each other so long as they are truly selecting the leaders instead of the adults. THE REAL WORK of developing boys into real leaders starts after the selection process, so just get it over with. Whether little Bobby got elected ASPL or appointed by the SPL won't matter two weeks later if he doesn't take the responsibility seriously. Every troop has a different process for selecting leaders and in the end the real meat of what the scouts get out of the leadership depends on the approach and guidance of the developing part of the program. I believe the adults should not waste their time or energy in the scouts' leadership selection process. I instead suggest to the scouts that they refer to their SPL and PL Handbooks for guidance. Honestly boys have been electing leaders for one thing or another since the first grade. They can handle it pretty easily when the adults stay out of it. For some reason adults make the process much harder. As I said, the real work for adults is developing growth in those scouts, so save your energy for that part of their program. Barry

No, you weren't lucky. You work long and hard giving a consistent message and eventually the scouts takes a giant step forward in maturity. I love this scouting stuff. Barry

We didn't have an adult patrol per se, but we did have a fun group. To control the adults somewhat and keep them out of the patrols way, we had an older scout work kind of as their patrol leader. Since adults don't attend PLC meetings, the adult patrol older scout attended the meetings and then reported the information to the adults. The scout was also their trainer in whatever skills the SM felt the adults needed at that time. I don't think the present SM uses a scout for the adults now because his personality is a little more hands on, but it worked very well for me and really brought home the boy run aspect of the program to the adults. Barry

"My side of the mountain". 1960s movie about a teenager surviving a long northern US winter in a hollowed out tree. I haven't seen it in years, but it was a Boy Scout favorite in the 70s. Barry

This is the best advice in the thread. The great Scoutmasters have a vision and are very humble. The vision keeps them going on the same course in the midst of chaos. And humility prevents them from changing course just to save their pride. Don't sway on your vision and freely admit your mistakes. Barry

one thing I found in common with the better Scoutmasters is they read a lot from the founders of scouting. Powell, Hillcourt and so forth. Barry

Ah, I see. So the regulations are different for adults than kids. Barry

I don't have a memory of any situations of young ASMs who were scouts in our troop, but I found young adults who were not scouts in or troop tended to struggle defining their role as an ASM. Either they fell in to being too much of a scout, or they over reacted in being an adult. They feel more at ease with the scouts, but know it's the adults they have to please. I left them alone as much as I could for the first six months so they could get a feel for the troop and how the adults worked with the program, then I started pulling them into the adult side; more to develop maturity than anything. Also, my teacher son who is a new father reminded me the other day that working with kids takes on a whole different perspective after becoming a parent. He reminded my of one of our Eagle scouts who found himself to be a father at 19. He was a completely different person the year before. We parent leaders need to understand and respect that paradigm. Barry

This topic reminded me of a something that happened at our son's middle school. In celebration of the school year coming to an end, a few students broke into the school to vandalize the hallways with trash, paint, and animal urine and feces. The boys were identified and expelled for the last three days of the year. Feeling that the boys were actually rewarded instead of given a chance to confront and reconcile for their actions, I called the principle and suggested she "make" the boys clean up the mess. Her short response was that it wasn't safe for children to be in that environment. I was so dumbstruck that I didn't think to ask her of these childrens' health as they distributed the foulness through the hallways. We reap what we sew. The same exact thing happened again at the nearby high school two years later. Those student were caught in the act and the police were called. Personally I feel that personal involvement of cleaning up their mess would have a more intense impact on their reaction to their misdeed than a scolding by the local authority. But I didn't waste my time offering the opinion. Barry

As I said, for me zero tolerance is action based without empathy. That being said, for growth to take place, the perpetrator at some point has to initiate actions of acceptance for the misdeed and repentance for the harm caused. MattR never shut the door, the scout in his pride chose not to respect the harm he caused. I supposed we could beg and plead for some hint of regret or guilt in front of the victims, but what's the point if he doesn't mean it? We can only hope that time wears him down to see the light somewhere in his future. Barry

I will take that bet. I'm reminded of the 15 or so years of posters coming and going on this forum who proclaimed that allowing gay scouts into the program would boost membership numbers significantly, even though evidence of other North American Scouting programs making the same membership changed showed otherwise. After the beating the BSA took that led to the homosexual policy changes, National has no stomach at the moment to push for further major membership policy changes. They would not only be fighting an uphill battle against traditionalist (donations), the GSUSA would bring out the big guns against the BSA as well. Barry