Eagledad

I started doing a Webelos/Troops acquaintance coffee gathering each Fall just to get the troops to themselves to the Webelos leaders. We gave everyone calling sheets so the Webelos leaders had number for when they were ready to visit. But, the visit was really intended to get the lesser experienced mostly female Webelos leaders comfortable with the more experienced mostly male intimidating Troop leaders. It was very successful. Leave it to free cookies, donuts and coffee to get adults standing around for an hour to talk. Barry

Parkman is certain right, I was responding more to your philosophical discussion of advancement vs Patrol Method and fun. You are responding the same as we did, and I will say that you might loose a few scouts when the parents don't see their expectations happening fast enough. We had a parent pull their son when I wouldn't "Place" their son in the PL position. We lost a few scouts to Eagle hungry parents. I say parents, because the scouts were happy with the program. Ironically, our troop was 2nd with the average number of Eagles in the district per year. That was to a well known Eagle Factory Troop three times our size. But, we had more scouts 14 and older, which wasn't lost on Council. If a scout is having fun and hanging around in a fairly active program, they almost can't help walking away as an Eagle. But, that kind of program requires faith and trust. Parents want a written process that can be tracked. Character growth can't be controlled in a process or tracked. Barry

That was fairly typical even back in 1995. We stuck to our guns with our program and eventually the reputation was our marketing tool. But in the leaner days before the reputation, the Webelos watching our scouts in action was the sell. For some reason, most troops change their troop program to a Webelos recruiting visit program, while we just keep doing our troop program with the Webelos in tow. The Webelos liked what they saw and took the risk. We went from roughly 20 scouts to 100 scouts in about 7 years. And that was loosing at least that many from rocky starts. Boys like adventure, adults like Eagle. If the scouts have any vote in where they go, than adventure will win. That doesn't mean the adults need to have a good response to the adults questions. There is a plan to developing character from adventure and the adults need to be able to explain that plan. Barry

Our Webelos Den of 13 scouts took over a dying troop of 7 scouts. The SM took us on his last camp out as a scoutmaster to kind of give us an easy start. Sunday morning at 8:00am, the SM opens the flaps on the tent and tells us to start breaking camp so we can get back to the church parking before church service ended, thus preventing chaos in the church parking lot. I ask, "Breakfast?". He throws, THROWS I tell you, a box of Pop Tarts at us and said, snack on them as we pack. That was the first thing we were going to change. I'm shocked at how many troops don't ask their scouts to cook and how many troops do hurry-up breakfast on Sundays for expediency. It's like saying Saturday is Patrol Method, Sunday is adult method day. Ture, it's a boy run program, but the adults are also responsible for developing fitness. We adults started insisting the scouts cook all meals except lunch. We encourage cooking lunch also, but it wasn't required. Meal preparation is the most challenging activity of the average Patrol Method program. The more complex, the more challenging. How can scouts make bad decisions if they don't have choices? And, the troop has to make time for Patrol Method. An expert once told me that a group needs a minimum of 36 hours to even start to bond, so shutting down Sunday for Patrol Method risk loosing everything that we are trying to do in the first place. Our PLC had to plan around a 1:30 pm pickup time for parents after a campout. That gave the Patrols enough time to for breakfast, Scouts Own, Troop activities (usually some advancement time and capture the flag, lunch, break camp, drive home. One thing I really miss about the old days is cooking on a fire. A fire requires skills to start, maintain a temperature, and careful consideration to making it safe. Cooking on a fire is more complex, not only in cooking, but cleaning as well. Just as soon as the cooked food is taken off the fire, the scouts in charge of kp are putting the hot wash bucket on the fire. The process of preparing a meal from a fire efficiently truly requires a discipline team working together. Todays easy method of lighting processed fuel from a canister and switching it off when finishes makes our job of building men of character much harder. Barry

EAGLEDAD3 ?😎

Well said, that is exactly where I'm coming from. When I was a scout, the PL hung a duty roster on the patrol box so everyone knew their responsibilities for the weekend. Everyone had a responsibility and it was important for a successful camp out. I laugh a little because those where in the days that we lived by the fire and the firewood crew was a very important responsibility. Enough so that we usually had a least two. Water had to be hauled in by truck, so we needed a crew just to get our water jugs filled. Anyway, dkurtenbach is right, when we don't feel part of the group, we feel outside the group and that isn't fun. Seeing that the Citizenship Aim is not performing as expected, the adults have to push an adjustment on the PLC for the patrols to strive to become a team. There is a flaw in the process that needs changing. Humans by their nature want to be credited with being part of success, so they will willing seek to learn skills if they are appreciated for their effort. And, as scouts grow as a team, they will submit to a responsibility that helps produce success. As they mature farther, their experience and maturity will naturally advance them up to higher responsibilities. I found that time and inspections are great motivators of team development. Imagine, the scouts are expected to at the assembly area at 8:00 am. A camp inspection will be performed by the SPL and ASPL while the patrols are doing the activity. That means the patrols have to get up, cook, clean, prepare the camp, tents and be ready for the activity by roughly 7:50 a.m. So, lets see, 2 cooks, 2 kp, 2 camp clean up, 1 tent inspector, 1 to get the activities gear ready, we have 7 scout right there making sure the Patrol and camp is ready for inspection by 7:50. I know, I know, but that is just an example of how Time and Performance Expectation and drive a bunch of scouts to organize to be a team. We can go on and on, but I find adults look for excuses to take responsibilities away. Scout don't like campfire, so no need for Cheermaster. They don't like to be told to do anything, so they don't make a roster. No roster, no public accountibiity of expectation. Bobby doesn't like supper, so he doesn't feel he needs to do kp. Scouts argue and drift farther apart, not closer because they don't feel motivated to be a team member. At some point, the adults need to find the combination of ideas to inspire the scouts, and be ridged enough to expect performance. What is the Goal. Oh yah, community. In the end, I think the adults will realize that they are encouraging the scouts to make their methods more fun and more rewarding. Barry

It's outside activities in general. Golfing, fishing, camping and boating are down. And I agree, the BSA program has been sliding for awhile. I believe because Cub Scouts became a very top heavy program that burned out adults. It was predictable while I was on district 20 years ago. I'm kind of wondering if this generation of adults are burning out in general. We are a very active society with lots of hobbies and organizations to grab our interest. I have been noticing my kids giving up activities to stay with their family. Maybe our culture is balancing, I don't know. But, I don't think parents have the trust today to let their kids camp with a couple adults in the woods for a weekend like they used to. Maybe that is why the BSA is moving toward a family program. Barry

True, but there is an expectation that victims understand the difference of intention and react accordingly. Reacting otherwise is just as much un-scout like as if the harm was intentional. Sure, but there shouldn't be an expectation to ask for permission to communicate with cultural norms. Let's face it, everyone has something that makes them uncomfortable that most other people would consider normal, like Singing happy birthday. I'm sure followers of all religions are offended everyday because they follow a basic moral set of rules for behavior. But, most learn to discern the intention, not the action. There is as much responsibility to practice discernment of intent as there is discipline of using good intent. If authority only reacts to victims cries, the victims will never learn to judge intent and react accordingly. Barry

Yep, but 100 yards (300 feet) is really a philosophical term meaning a safe environment where scouts can make decisions without adult intimidation. 100 yards could be done in a room if the philosophy is part of the troop culture. And remember, these suggestions aren't made without experience to support it. There is always a risk when inexperienced decision makers making wrong decisions, but there is a difference between giving space with a blind eye and keeping a finger on the tone of the patrols. When scouts feel the freedom to make any decision, they will make bad decisions anywhere, even in front of the adults. Scouts know their limitations because they test them all the time. A couple of stories; I once saw a troop with blind adults at summer camp. The camp was having a volleyball tournament and one troops was told to leave the tournament as a result of their scouts' language and aggressive unscout like behavior. What struck me was the SM standing in the middle of his troop without flinching. The other story is an accidental discussion with an adult I didn't know personally. We met in a store somewhere and once we learned that we were both scouters, the discussion took off toward scouting. The ASM worked his way into bragging ( I still can't believe it) about how the older scouts bully the new they don't like to keep the patrol numbers in check. Back ground is that this troop invites all the Webelos in the district to a Fall weekend campout every year. It is a weekend of fun and Native American Folklore intended to impress the scouts to join. They always get at least 75 or more scouts joining. As the District Membership Chairman, I always wondered why 80% of their scouts dropped out their first year. He answered my question. I took it to the District Commissioner and the SM retired inside a year. Our Troop had 100 scouts when I retired as a SM. There is no way adults can continually monitor scout behavior even if they wanted to. Believe it or not, most scouts don't like bad behavior. They just haven't gain enough self-confidence to confront it. That is what the troop experience gives them. Scouts are a lot safer when everyone is expected to hold everyone accountable, including tent mates. I once got to see this in action when I snuck down to watch the troop play capture the flag. I was in a position where the scouts couldn't know I was there. A new scout transfer on his first campout that weekend started cussing during play. One of the Scouts in passing said, "hey, we don't use that language here". The transfer responded, "that's cool". And all went as normal. Set cultural expectations and the scouts will take care of themselves in most cases. Barry

Building a disciplined culture is exactly correct, but what is zero tolerance? There are adults who believe selfless act of singing happy birthday is a type of bullying. Ductape's post shows bullying aS multiple acts of hurting someone purposefully. So, how do we draw the line of zero tolerance between innocent unintentional actions and real hurt? Let's also keep the patrol method in perspective, it's a program where scouts learn about themselves from their good and bad (mostly bad) decisions. Humans aren't born giving respect, our nature is to learn the boundaries of respect and disrespect by observation and practice of social actions. That is what the troop experience is all about. The Scout Oath and Law are self-less guidelines where disrespect doesn't exist. Barry

I certainly believe this is a big part, but funding is driving Nationals actions (reactions) today. I believe the movement values debate is irrelevant now because the law suit is the game changer. National is in survival mode and all the changes we see going forward are for saving the organization. The BSA was rich in funding before National started in the progressive direction. I believe alumni would have come to the rescue if the law suit happened 25 years ago. Barry

I don't think picking a few personal examples justifies a trend. Teasing, horseplay, and bulling have been going on since the beginning time. Bulling does happen and the severity of it depends on the environment. I know of a troop that got in trouble because one of their scouts was very disrespectful to a Den of visiting Webelos. It wasn't anything more than an immature 11 year old scout showing off to Webelos. It certainly wasn't bulling, but the parents reported it to the troop. The story came to me at the distirct level because the Troop adults went on the defense and they didn't even see it. It was so stupid. We inherited a Den of Webelos that had a bulling reputation. We weren't worried, disrespecting others isn't tolerated in our troop and we knew how to handle it. But what we found was their Den Leader (one of the moms), encouraged the behavior. The solution was asking mom to stay away from scout activities. She quit and took her scouts with her. Sadly her brats...LOL.. I mean kids, didn't get a real scouting experience. Two of my kids are high school teachers who get plenty of training in this area. They say the problem today is smart phone technology. Kids don't hang out together like they used, so they identify their self-image by the responses of other people they have never met from their phone. That is a much bigger issue and suicide is just a symptom. At the troop level, it's not hard to teach the scouts to nip disrespect in the bud. My experience is If there are continued instances in a unit, then there is an adult, or adults, knowingly allowing it. Barry

I wonder what the committee understands about the program that they can even review. I'm big in the CC being the boss, and the gatekeeper of program vision, but I've never seen it. Not that I haven't tried, at the district level, I pushed all 21 troops to send their CC to my Scoutmaster Specific course. Only one ever showed up and he was from a different council. I do a biannual review after each SPL election to explain to the PLC and all our registered adults as to how our program is dictated by the BSA Mission, Vision, Aims and Methods. I learned to do it inside a minute, because to many people were getting hurt falling out of their chairs asleep. You want to hear it. In the beginning, there was Badon Powel,..............................................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Barry

That's because you finished your optimism with the organization will have integrity because of the great ethical decision making part of the program. Nothing about what National has done gives me confidence that they will even try to maintain that quality. In fact, everything they have done hints they will do just the opposite. I'm curious, if I'm correct and you aren't, that ethical discision making part gets lost in the qualities, what do you value out of the new program? Barry

We have to teach troops the difference and the trust that it works. But, lets start with a brand new troop; how do the new adults insure the new scouts learn how to set up tents for the first camp out. That has the appearance of a conflict right at the beginning. But in reality, using adults as resources for teaching when there are no other resources is just fine. The challenge for new adults of a new troop is learning how to step away from teaching methods as the scouts master the skills. That is where adults typically develop bad habits of controlling the methods as well as the Aims. Barry

Well yes, by the adults looking at the problem at the Aims perspective and working from there, the scouts make changes at the Methods level. We had a situation where the scouts were bringing too much soda to the camp outs. It was leading to unhealthy diets and trashy campsites. So, I approach the SPL and told him that we adults were observing unhealthy changes to the Fitness Aim. So, the SPL and I came up with a compromising solution of only one 2 liter bottle of soda per campout. He presented it to the PLC and got it approved. Not only did that solve the observed problems, the patrols pretty much stopped bringing pop all together because 2 liter bottles are a hassle for back packing style patrols. Which is were we really wanted the scouts to go in the first place. I just wanted it to be their decision. We stayed out of their responsiblities of running the program and they respected our expectations of character, fitness and citizenship. Barry

Hmm, that is a complex question because their are so many dynamics of setting goals and developing skills, toward, or as a result of those goals. It might be easier to define the differences as a result of scout choices. And many of these things come by accident. For example we had to take a scout to the emergency room during summer camp because the he subbed his toes while running through camp. The adults camp at a separate campsite across the road from the scouts, so I have to walk over to talk the SPL. And in short, the SPL saw the whole thing happen. He knew the rules of shoes being required and no running in camp and even confessed that he didn't try to stop the scout. In fact, at least 20 scouts witness the scout running through camp without shoes and didn't try to stop him. Being a little frustrated, I had a SM Conference with all the scouts at once and pointed out that they were all as much at fault with the accident as the scout himself. When comparing their choices to the law, they all failed and someone got hurt. That was a red flag to emphasis that taking care of each other often means telling your brother scout that they are doing it wrong. I coached the PLC to watch and help each other. I started having conferences with all the scout involved with a scout's bad decisions. If a PL is having trouble with one scout, don't wait for the call of help, wander over and offer your help. Don't yell across the room as a distraction, just quietly wander over. What I didn't know at the time of summer camp but came to learn was the scouts needed permission to call their friends on some of their bad decisions. They didn't want to be a bad guy acting like police on their friends bad decisions. I gave them reason and an excuse to be that bad guy. I turned the bad guy image into being a good guy. It was like letting air out of a balloon, all of a sudden calling each other on their bad decision was a good character action. The result at the troop level was that incidences of bad decisions brought to the SM dropped to almost zero in 6 months. If an incidence did get to the SM, it was usually a new scout that wasn't respecting the youth leadership. The scouts starting being proactive in dealing with the discipline of bad decisions. Simply telling your tent mate to put on shoes nips something worse down the road. That has nothing to do with the Methods, but very much to do with Character and fitness at the Aims level. And probably citizenship if we discussed the subject in details. That is one example of many. I just have to think of them. Barry

Apologies? You have a very fine troop, no apologies required. I don't mean any disrespect, I just personally feel that giving the scouts the responsibilities of their activities and just taking responsibilities for their decisions is the next step in adult leadership maturity. But, I admit, that is my big picture of developing Citizens of Character and Leaders of Integrity. Vision keeps us going strait, which isn't always easy. I commend anyone that stays in the lane away from the gutters. Barry

The program is changing enough that ethical decision making will fad into a myth because the method of challenging a scout to make ethical decisions requires a moral reference. The YMCA was created for moral and ethical development of boys. Does our culture today respect the Young Men's Christian Association as an organization built on the foundation of morality? Or even ethical development? Oh, some will say the oath and Law doesn't require religious reference to be valid, but once a consistent moral reference (god) is taken from the ethical decision making process, character is left to be defined by the strongest adult in the group and the mood they are in at the moment. The reference of ethics will just depend. One only needs to look our schools to see how that will go with kids who make a moral decision only to find the adult doesn't agree. Like the YMCA, Scouting will only be a family weekend program. The Eagle will only mean that they stuck it out for more than year. I'm waiting for the day that the ty-die t-shirt and purple neckerchief are the official uniform. Then, the alumni of the traditional program can define the difference between the Boy Scouts that died in 20??, and the Scout Family Weekend Fun Program. Barry

This is pretty good, you are way ahead of most troops. May I ask if your committee discusses how the troop is doing in the 3 Aims, Character, fitness and citizenship (I'm old school, so I don't include the new aim of leadership)? In my philosophy of a boy run program, the scouts are responsible for the Methods, and the adults are responsible for the Aims. If the scouts aren't doing the Methods correctly, the adults will likely see the problem in the Aims. Then the SM can identify a change or changes to influence more progress. Judging troop performance from Methods to Aims is a difficult shift of accountability. But ideally the separation of responsibilities pushes the program more towards the objective of preparing young people to make ethical and moral choices. The adults shift their focus from Methods (or scouts actions) in making decisions, and more to the bigger picture results of decisions based from the character actions of the Scout Law. Everything in the Aims is based from the integrity of scouts decisions in their activities. As I said, shifting from asking the question of, if the troop is spending enough time (or to much) on advancement, to letting the scouts control their advancement and asking the question of, do the adults see a measurable change of better character, is a challenge for adults. But, the adults will see a remarkable rise in the maturity of the troop culture if they work toward that focus. Just a thought. Barry

Well, I said Stand Back, and my point was the problem of adults not letting scouts run the show. I think you find that the adults of successful patrol method troops somehow someway set the example of successful leadership while giving them room to make decisions. I remember asking a new ASM what he thought about our troop. This was after 3 campouts, he said “I’m surprised that the scouts side of camp mimics the adults side.”. He was surprised because the adults camp was typically out of sight 100 yards away. Just what kind of example should adults set 100 yards away, and out of sight? I’m not sure, but if the adults are truly giving the scouts authority to run the program, and still holding them accountable for their decisions, something in that process must work. I always told everyone that the adults weren’t scouts and not to expect them to be a patrol. Not in the troop sense anyway. We always stood behind scouts during assembly, and never where we would be a distraction to the youth leaders. Adults never put up the scouts sign first, but instead modeled a reaction to the youth leaders putting their signs up. Maybe that in a way was a model of leadership, I don’t know. Maybe adults, in their maturity, already set the example of helping each other. But as I said, I have found that when a group needs to help each other to be successful, someone is going to step up and help. And that will likely be a more mature scout who has been around long enough to learn from his mentors. Barry

Good question. My initial response is yes, because all the other scouting programs a declining as well. But then I started thinking about the GSUSA. Are they declining? Ironically, at least for me, the GSUSA is the one scouting organization left that hasn't been in the spotlight of changing it's program to the will of a progressive agenda. Now I agree, the GSUSA sold out to the progressives a long time ago, but they seem to have stayed out of the spotlight of radical change in the last few years. Will they eventually be the flag ship of scouting? Barry

I believe the romance of Scoutings idealism was beaten out of the population with political correctness. I remember listening to a young couple, during the gay scouting debates, when asked about their opinion of putting their kids into scouts, they didn't want to add more political drama in their life. Scouting used to be a refuge from real life. It then became one of the headlines. It was then I heard the big donor supporters, I mean the really big ones, where stepping back. Up until then, scouting had an idealistic image of developing the perfect citizen. So, maybe, the BSA is about to go through a change where the grassroots of tradition will drive more of the local program. Who knows, the Canadian Scouts went the opposite direction of turning into a progressive example of a global youth social association. Barry

The adults have a different agenda, or they are supposed to have a different agenda. I taught that adults are responsible for Character, Fitness, and Citizenship. Scouts are responsible for Patrols, camping, advancement, relationship with adults, growth in making decisions, decisions base from Oath and Law, leadership and uniform. Scouts don't have much of a problem with their responsibilities, it's the adults that can't seem to stay in their lane. So, to your point of the SPL driving a fun program; scouts know what fun is, so the scout should be driving the fun. You are right to question how we teach leadership. But I'm not sure about teaching the psychology or attitude of leadership is the starting place, even for adults. After experiencing life of working with youth, good leadership is best learned by watching good leaders. Of course the question is what are the qualities of a leader? I've come to realize that each SM has their own ideals of leadership, and most try to teach that those qualities to their scouts verbally. Ironically, what the scouts take away from their leadership mentors are the actions of their mentors, not the words. Scouts need less teaching, and more actions of application. The only adult course I believe that taught leadership specifically was the old Woodbadge, which ended in 1999. And that course was designed to teach advanced teaching skills, not leadership skills. BSA doesn't have a real leadership course today. And maybe that is a good thing. I used to believe that all people have some leadership abilities, but I've come to realize that only a small percentage of the population have good leadership abilities. The rest just have a few learned skills that they can apply in specific situations that they happen upon. So, maybe courses should focus on how to let the scouts work the program where leadership decisions are forced so the scouts can reach high goals and maintain an orderly culture by making decisions based on the oath and law. Where the adults fail today, as compared to my troop as a youth, is that they don't allow the scouts to work toward high goals that forces them to organize for success. I've use the example of Laser Tag a lot; I watched a group of boys who didn't know each other come together as a team in just a few minutes because they were highly motivated to be successful. The goals of success and motivation for success was so clear to each person in the group, that some members were willingly submissive to the stronger leaders, just so they could succeed. That is amazing to me. Imagine a goal so strong that each member of the group wants so bad that they go against their pride and humbly find their spot on the team just to so they could share in the team success. That is the instinctive description of a wolf pack. And how does each member learn the skills of leadership, by simply watching the leaders of their group. I've seen it, when the time forces it, even the submissive person will step up to lead because they have the knowledge. If the adults could get the scouts to that point, then the scouts would be ready for the next step of polishing their leadership, which then would be learning the psychology and attitude of leadership. That is where styles of leadership would come into play, and where the SM could show the advantages of servant leadership. But, in the real world most adults are a long ways from that point of leadership development. Pragmatically, I would happy to just see most SMs stand back and let the SPLs and PLs run the program. Barry

Great great post. I couldn’t say it better. We turned into a backpacking troop just for the example DuctTape gave. When we discuss the idea of giving up the patrol camp boxes, we thought the patrols might resist. But the opposite was true, the scouts loved it because they hated those boxes. To add, our PLs are responsible for finding transportation to their activities. The camping ASM assisted them at first because they are responsible for signing up drivers, but the PLs eventually learned how to call the usual drivers. And, the patrols didn’t have to drive together, they could set their own schedule, although I never saw them do it. Ducttape is right on with adult resistance. But that is just human nature, I deal with the same thing at work. The best way to get by-in quicker is give them ownership and seek suggestions idea for making it a success. Barry