Stosh

With all the adult fingers in the pot stirring things around, I don't see much options out there for the boys. Sure the April deadline for the boys input is nothing but a vague line in the sand begging to be crossed. But my prediction will be the boys will drag their feet, do a few umms, and huhs, and such but will simply wait out the time period for the adults to do something. Dancing around the issue and heading it straight on are the only two options going on here, and I don't see anyone really lining up to take it straight on. @@Eagle94-A1, you by yourself don't make a line, need at least one other to start a line. I don't see many warm bodies in your corner.

Can't read the fine print. Does this mean BSA is going to splinter once more to accommodate the Cub/Boy/Venturing people from the Learning for Life people, from the S.T.E.M. people and now the Sea Scout people?

Your SPL isn't going to like my recommendations, but then a lot of people don't so I'm not worried about it. I haven't much experience in how to keep it fun for sixth graders and seniors in high school at the same time. I try to avoid that situation as much as possible. Troop service projects and fund raisers work well as a troop, but not so much for programming. With that being said, I would focus on the bigger projects, camporees, fund raisers, service projects as a troop and let the programming fall to the PL's who know what's going on with the interests in their smaller groups.

"On behalf of my liberal muslim friends, I must object to @Stosh's use of "jihad" for his Conflict Level 6. Perhaps "Carpet Bombing" would be more suitable and typical of an American conflict response. {rant over}" @@qwazse My sincere apology if the wording offended anyone, it was in no way intended as such. Back in the late '70's the Conflict Management seminar by Speed Leas, used both the terms "Jihad" and "Holy War" interchangeably to define the 6th level of conflict. So, no, it is not MY use of the term for this Conflict Level 6. This would indicate that the conflict had gotten to the "I will destroy you even if it means I will be destroyed in the process, too" level. I guess I'm a bit behind the times when keeping up with all the new re-definitions out there that are being created on a daily basis or some political connotations connected to them. Obviously "Carpet Bombing" wouldn't be appropriate either because the crew of the bomber would not be affected by the process. I'm thinking "suicide bombing" or "kamikaze" would be more appropriate because both parties would be destroyed, i.e. Level 6 Conflict. I'm thinking the only truly American description of such a level of conflict might be the Hatfields and McCoys. Since taking the seminar many 40 years ago, Mr. Leas has modified his Conflict Levels down to 5 levels but modern Level 5 and historical Level 6 are the same. I do note that he has also dropped the term Holy War and Jihad from updated verbiage as well. As will I. http://www.nwswi.org/webfiles/fnitools/documents/levels_of_conflict_speed_lea.pdf

One also has to remember a POR is not necessarily spelled out as a leadership position in as much as it is a functional management position. Taking care of the equipment (QM) can be done functionally with inventory records and check in/out processes and maintenance records, etc. which can be seen a success by measuring the effectiveness of completing each task. But the leadership is not always part of the model. It can be, but it is "measured" differently than simply doing the work necessary, i.e. taking an annual inventory of equipment, making sure all tents are repaired and ready for use, etc. Instead, leadership is determined by the human component of the model which may or may not be emphasized by the unit. Did the patrols get the equipment they needed, on time, in good condition to be used by the boys, and was the process of getting it easy and convenient to the patrols? It's not the functional work, it's the taking care of your people model that may or may not specified in the model job description. Every boy is different regardless of the job description and the modelling of one boy may confuse or put undue expectations on another boy that has great potential, but not with that model to follow. If I had job descriptions to 2 different boys, they may in fact accomplish the same task using two entirely different "models" So when the new boys come in, which do they follow? This is why I always balk when using simple management techniques and calling them leadership. I want my boys to all see each POR as taking care of other people, not just doing a job.

@@Eagle94-A1

@@Eagle94-A1 A couple of insights might help, otherwise just ignore me. You don't want the job so that's a point in their favor. You don't want to be a CS leader, that's another point in their favor. They are pushing the envelop which is normal for any new group. Yet another point. No one's listening to anyone. The score is rapidly going against the adults/leaders here. Tag teaming with the SPL isn't working, TG isn't leading (no one listens to him) Out of all the people involved, the new scouts of multiple factions (totally out of control) , the PL (has given up) , the TG (totally inept) the SPL (respite provider but not really his direct job) and the ASM advisor (who doesn't want the job in the first place) , who's leading? If this is a servant leadership situation, who's taking care of whom? I don't see anyone taking care of anyone else. So what's the next step? This situation has progressed to a Level 4 conflict which means it has turned into a game of brinkmanship on everyone's part. Who's going to quit first, who's gonna outlast whom? Level 1 conflict - Duty roster didn't get done. Simple enough to solve, just make one up. Level 2 conflict - NOBODY listens to ANYBODY ELSE. So who's NOBODY? and who's ANYBODY? confusion is introduced. Level 3 conflict - PL isn't doing his job, the boys won't listen to the AG. Someone has to take the blame for this. Which doesn't make any difference who started what. Level 4 conflict - There's someone in the process who's keeping this fiasco going because it's kinda fun and that someone's in the game to win. Level 5 conflict - Divorce.... Game over, it isn't fun anymore someone's gotta go! You have designs set on leaving as ASM Advisor...right? Level 6 conflict - Jihad - I'll destroy you even if it means I'm destroyed in the process You will go on record to tearing apart this NSP even if it jeopardizes your position as ASM.. While I can see your situation progressing up to Level 4 teetering on Level 5, one has to keep it in mind the only conflict that can be resolved is Level 1 conflict. Most authorities on conflict management will emphasize that once the situation gets to Level 4 it's pretty hard to resolve it. The first step in conflict management is self-control. One can't do much about "the other guy" but one has full control of self. That's where one needs to start. So are you a leader? What people is one expected to take care of and is it being done? So are you a manager? What tasks have to be done, how does one measure a success in this situation. Me? I'm kind of a leadership kind of guy and would focus on who the people are that one is being asked to take care of, and start from there. Once one gets their head wrapped around that, things will look a lot differently.

What seems to be the hassle with the Crews shutting down? The boys in the crew I started have lasted almost 17 years now.

Eagle94-A1 One of the things that one must remember with NSP is that they need time to work out the trust issues with their leadership. Being the "Boss" and yelling only delays that development. Keep it in mind that coercive leadership of an established PL will curtail a lot of that initial chaos and will divide and conquer the younger boys in the various patrols where they don't have the majority of numbers. I had the Webelos II boys in our scout meeting tonight so as to assist them with the AOL requirements and acclimate them to the troop hopefully to recruit them. It was a "den" meeting of boys from 3 different packs. I as an adult had trouble handling them, an inexperienced PL and a semi-experienced TG would still have been eaten alive. It was frustrating but I never did a "signs up", called on boys that raised their hands, and basically talked softly enough that if their buddies were jaw-jacking I wouldn't be heard. About half way through they began to police the disruptions themselves and settled down. No, we didn't get as much accomplished as I would have liked, but told the boys upfront the more they waste time the harder it's going to be to remember all this stuff. When it was over, I lied through my teeth about how well they paid attention and thanked them for paying attention so well. We are putting up with this Cub Scout "stuff" so the boys get their AOL and we might gain a few new scouts to cross over. Well, when all was said and done, two boys came up and said they wanted to join our troop. So in spite of all the chaos, not paying attention, goofing off, and disruptions, we doubled the troops size and we're only just starting . There were about a dozen boys in attendance and another dozen boys that couldn't make it because of other commitments. So as frustrating as it was, I count it as a tremendous success! It was just last weekend a lot of the boys (including the two that expressed interest in our troop) had been on a visit outing with another troop in the area. Do I expect next week to be just as chaotic? Probably, but Rome wasn't built in a day. NSP's require finesse and patience, not brute force. Not many boys (and even adults) can pull it off gracefully.

In theory that works fairly well, but if one boy along the way deviates a tad from the ideal model, then every boy after that will have learned the bad habits of the one. That works for both the good and the bad. Of course it also doesn't encourage improvements along the way, just the way we've always done it model is promoted. And worst of all if the model isn't attainable by all scouts equally, the less talented may never get a chance to show what they can do. Models make me nervous, so I rely on developing whatever talent the boy has rather than trying to mold him to the model. Some of my best leaders have tended to be quite a bit off plumb.

I don't know if that has been the case in my part of the country. The older boys wanted autonomy, a chance to participate in a program that isn't so much youth oriented as adult oriented. Boys by the time they are 14/15 have spent half their scouting career doing the knot tying, the compass orienting, the hurry cases of first aid. If they stay that means the second half is going to be just like the first, I'm thinking that ANYTHING is better than a continual repeat of the first 4 years. I survived 4 years in scouting and had had enough, It was going to be just more of the same until I turned 18. Where's the adventure in all of that? Instead I see a "midlife crisis" for the boys at this point. They are faced with having to "lead" the show for a bunch of 6th, 7th and 8th graders. Wow, does that ever sound like a root canal! They have developed skills in camping, cooking, they like hiking, canoeing, and doing all the kinds of things most adults only dream about but these kids have the energy and drive to accomplish it. I went to Philmont at the age of 50. I would have enjoyed it more if I had been 16 or 17. So what do we see happening? Boy mentally checking out of the program. They lay back, maybe let attendence drop off, maybe put some time into their Eagle requirements, but at this point they are no longer focused on anything but getting through to the end with or without the Eagle. Parents play a major role at this point with the guilt tripping, withholding driver's licenses, and other forms of coercion to get the boys through what they started. But the boy's hearts aren't in it. We are in a program that helps young boys become men. We do good at getting them started but we are terrible in following through to the end. Seriously! How many boys really want to go to council summer camp 7 times in a row? After about 3, they want something more and if BSA doesn't provide it, something else will and so with the lack of programming for these boys, they leave and I don't blame them one bit. The adult led troops produce about 2-3% Eagles from the hundreds that start. But boy led troops are no better. Out of the 97%-98% of the boys that have left the program, now many exit interview have been held so as to learn to improve the program? 30+ years of BSA and I haven't heard of any in my area. As far as the Eagle thing goes, either one gets it at a young age and then quits, or they simply take a calculated hiatus and come back for the last minute project. Either way the older half of the program is basically sidestepped. Yes the older boys may not want all HA in the second half of their scouting career, but what are the alternatives? Just what is it that BSA offers for these kids? Does anyone ever ask them what they want?

In our area there are a number of hiking trails of various difficulty. There's no need to head out out to some big name hiking area to get some enjoyment out of it. We have Isle Royale, Porcupine Mountains, the Ice Age Trail, all within an easy day's drive. BWCA is a day's drive as is major canoeing on any one of a number of rivers in our area. Add to that the hundreds of bike trails in the area as well. One can easily run a major HA program in my area and never spend much on travel expenses at all. Sometimes the Madison Avenue hype is easily succumbed to.

I don't know if it robs anyone of anything. The leader who is asked to step down usually knows he's in over his head and a bit more time watching another boy lead can be of benefit. Remember I place a heavy emphasis on boy-selected patrol method. When a boy steps down, he's among friends and it's not as traumatic as one would think. I have seen cases where a PL will step up for 6 months to get his POR and his buddies basically carry him through. Whether or not he actually earned that requirement is questionable, but his buddies saw to it he was successful even when he really wasn't. He was PL for 6 months, the patrol members were okay with it, he just wore the patch, no problem, it gets checked off. What did he learn? Probably that the caring leadership of his buddies is something he needs more of and may come back in time and make a better QM or Scribe. The issue of an SPL in a larger troop is something I have only experienced in an adult led unit. It was basically in name only, paper position and pencil whipping. After all the adults ran the show. As a matter of fact MULTIPLE adults were needed to run the show, which would lead me to believe that a single inexperienced scout would or could be set up for failure rather easily. On the other hand, I can see a corps of ASPL's to help with the larger troops of +8 patrols. No one in the unit should be responsible for more than 8 other people. PL = 8 patrol members, SPL = 8 PL's, or in a larger troop ASPL = 8 Pl's and SPL = 8 ASPL's. Conceivably there could be hundreds of boys in the troop and no one has more than 8 people to care for, a number any youth should be able to handle at that age and small enough to learn quality leadership dynamics., Large troops today are rare because it's difficult for adults to control large troops.

In my Venturing Crew we "poached" boys from troops but expected them to stay registered in their troops and Eagle. Most did, a couple didn't. I see no difference between Venturing skimming off the top boys of a troop, it's what happens in a age based unit all the time. This is a result of the older boys not getting autonomy to do high adventure and must always answer to the troop as a whole. This way they can cut ties with the troop and establish a program they would like. If one has a SM who understands how this works, he/she can retain the boys in many cases. Having been a CA and SM both, I can see how this works.

Totally understand. I have had PL's like that as well. But with my system of no election terms, the boys quietly have the ineffective PL step down and replace him with someone else who wants to do the job.. Yeah, the boys get fooled some of the time, but they quickly remedy their poor judgment. Because the patrols tend to be quite cohesive, even if the boy does step down, it doesn't preclude him from ever being the PL in the future when he gets a bit more maturity under his belt. It just means the patrol doesn't have to suffer in the meantime. It's not that the boy failed, he just isn't ready and mature enough yet. The paper leaders do well with management tasks and can show grand accomplishments, but that measurement is not what is good for leadership qualities. Put a carrying SPL with a highly organized ASPL and you have a dynamite team!

I can see only one reason why an SPL would be removed from that position. He isn't taking care of his PL's. As far as running the troop, I would never expect a boy to do that, it runs counter to the Patrol Method and there are a lot of SM's that can't even pull that off. The only time I had an SPL was when there was 4 patrols and the SPL focused only on making sure the PL's were successful. It worked out very well and had no issues to contend with. The boy did very well (natural leader) that the contact with SM was information passing only. To have a scout of any rank or talent consistently say to his PL's, "What can I do to help you be a good PL for your patrol?" will NEVER garner an impeachment movement in the troop! The SPL that doesn't say that to his PL's opens the door to drama. From Krampus' comments, it's a total waste of time and money to send a non-caring boy to NYLT, district training and multiple JLT sessions. I concur. And I would also insert, that a caring scout intent on helping other people at all time, focused on his PL's success will not need NYLT, district training and multiple JLT sessions to be successful. The boys will cut a ton of slack for the scout who tries his best, and won't give the time of day to the one who doesn't care about anyone other than himself. I have seen this work for just about every POR in the troop and even the non-POR positions like APL, GrubMaster, etc. Give me a boy who cares and he can make a difference in the world. Give a boy a book, send him to school and you take your chances.

Maybe it's not enough...

Minimum requirements seem to be an adult derived determination. Philmont sets them down, BWCA does as well and I'm sure Sea Base has their requirements as well. I never used them. I have been in troops as ASM were they were imposed and being adult-led, troop-method it didn't make any difference. Unless one has FC, First Aid, Swimming, and Canoeing MB, you weren't going to go to the BWCA. Being adult led, they couldn't afford to keep their eye on everyone and so these requirements made up for adult shortcomings. Now, the boys are given those opportunities and they tend to police themselves on the requirements. If the PL doesn't feel he can take care of under-skilled boys on an outing, they as a group don't go. They operate not as individuals, but as a cohesive group. It's one of those Patrol Method dynamics we tend to emphasize in the troops were I'm SM. I have witnessed boys who didn't do their prep work for Philmont and suffer the whole time there to the point of tears when they reached the end. Boys that took their boots off at the end of the day so they could replace their bloody socks because they weren't knowledgeable hikers. So yes, removing minimum requirements might sound pretty good and beneficial to the boys' opportunities, but one also have to take into consideration the downside to such decisions.

My point being.... If one is having difficulty fitting in all these cooking requirements into the camping routine, maybe one ought to increase the camping opportunities as well. The comment was made, everything was there but the tents. My point was, why not have the tents and sleeping bags too! There's no such thing as too much camping and no such thing as too much camp food. One can always camp twice a month or maybe instead of retreating from Moscow on Sunday morning, stay Sunday and give another boy a chance to cook. I'm sure that if there were things to do on Saturday, one could also do them again on Sunday. That might be too out of the box to accommodate some troops.

One other thing, the new Webeols/AOL program seems to emphasize the same requirements as Scout and TF. If one is working on the AOL program with adult-led learning Feb-June, the things simply are a walk through for Scout and TF after June. But the second time around they do it as self-led...

Knowing this occurs every year should be an indicator that this process is not the best. I my troops the 10 newbies would be put into two patrols with a TG and a couple experienced boys who step up to help. This isn't all that difficult because it usually is an APL who isn't getting POR credit and would like a chance to PL a patrol. It also means that whoever steps up to PL the new patrols assumes one of the top positions in the troop. This of course is the case if that's what the boys want, but this way the impact of new people affects just the new patrols and not everyone in the troop. Boys tend t like things to stay pretty much the same. One or two boys moving around doesn't really disrupt much. Then we aslo don't do elections either so that "learning curve" is never a problem, especially at the transition time of cross-overs. Is this cycle of new boys and learning curve elections something that is etched in stone for the unit? or can the boys go with something less disruptive? I kinda prefer the less dramatic approach.

Oh, I feel better. "Happy Scout Sabbath!"

And one also has to take into consideration that while the MB requirements are being met, the opportunity for a weekend of camping is lost. I guess I think a weekend of camping is probably better for the boys than meeting the requirements of a MB. I'm thinking that hiking around my house 900 times might make a dent in the Hiking MB, but there's gotta be a better way of doing things than just meeting the requirements.

Yep, and the best and best and brightest would would have the most to offer seek alternative programs than Scouting.

Isn't that the definition of "dumbing down"?