Stosh

It'll give them that much more time to find other things out there in the world besides scouting. My youngest daughter graduated valedictorian of her 800+ member high school class..... never got beyond Daisy. With the ever increasing number of parents home-schooling, this might cull out the best and brightest from scouting.

in my Child Development studies back in college it was noted even back then that there are going to be some 14 year old adults and 45 year old children in this world. I have always found that to be true. Parent dies at a young age, the child has to step up earlier in life. Others with overly indulgent parents have been known to dwell in basements for quite some time. Can't really make a blanket rule for all 11 year olds only want adventure. There are those who are seriously looking to grow up and every opportunity should be afforded to them and not held back by preconceived adult theories on child development.

@@blw2 It's not pie in the sky theory. My Webelos I boys had been together since Tigers. I kept them together in Web I and II. They moved into the troop with 6 boys, just enough to be a patrol. They stayed together and all of them Eagled while still in the same patrol. After they began aging out, the patrol "fell apart" and the flag was eventually retired. The last couple of boys were doing POR's on the troop level so they really didn't have a patrol to speak of anyway. They just camped with the other LC boys.

there are good examples and there are...well, lets just say "other" examples. Older boys don't lead the same as younger boys would because the requirements would be different. Older boys are more mature and they will interact differently for the PL, help out more, think ahead, etc. whereas the younger boys will rely heavier on the PL for leadership and guidance. A mixed patrol would require a higher degree of heavy lifting for the PL than one of their own peers who are picking up more slack in the patrol. The TG would be the backup person for the younger patrols and participate a bit more as the younger PL's develop. Also if the SPL were functioning in a PL support role, they too, would have a greater impact working with the PL of the less skilled PL's. Older patrols would be able to take care of themselves more. If all are mixed patrols, the SPL would be either equally very busy or nothing to do. I'm thinking that with the combo of TG and SPL the younger patrols would have plenty of older boy experience to glean from. I don't use SPL's very often, but my TG is always a great help to the younger patrols. One also has to remember that the TG isn't just for the young patrols, he is the TROOP Guide. My TG functions in the SPL role of supporting the PL's in their leadership of the patrols. Maybe this is why I have gotten away all these years without having to worry about SPL's "running the show". My boys don't get training wheels. I never had them as a kid, my kids never had them either. After a few bumps and scrapes, we were ready to go. And surprisingly, I learned to ride a bike on a regular 24" bike so I rode a year or so before I could sit on the seat. Maybe this is why I have learned to think outside the box.

This brings up another interesting twist to the whole issue. 11 years old or finished 5th grade. What about the home-schooled kids who advance and get 5th grade completed earlier than those of their age? My daughter could read at a 3rd grade level in kindergarten. She also home schools her child. The child has yet to develop well enough to speak, but she's quite fluent in sign language and has been able to communicate at least 4 months earlier than her first spoken words. What kind of wrench is this going to do to the age requirements vs. school grade completion requirements? There are real life Duggie Howsers out there.

this is one of the "problems" I find with mixed aged patrols. The younger boys don't get a chance right from the beginning to experience leadership. It also identifies at an earlier age who those boys are that will be "taking" over the unit at a later date, and it also means one knows that those boys have more actual experience too, they started at a younger age!

I was on yesterday and was going to post a "Happy Scout Sunday" but then I realized I had missed Scout Sabbath. and then I noticed there was no forum category for it except I&P. My apologies to my Sabbath scouting friends.

I can never figure out why it is so difficult to understand the blending of ideas in scouting and how it is often segmented out into it's many parts. TRAIN 'EM, trust 'em, let them lead! Adult-led program that moves to boy-led.... this doesn't mean one flips a switch and now by some miraculous action, the boys are up and humming like a well-oiled machine. No, it means the adults associating with the boys, not directing, not guiding, not mentoring, but simply associating with them, train them in the duties the adults are doing so the boys can take over. It's the Train 'em part of the formula. Once the boys have been trained, then get out of the way and Trust 'em. Yeah, one still associates with them, but the training is done, no more guiding, mentoring, etc. unless a boy comes to an adult for a more specific training needed to do the job. So where's the switch flipping? Shouldn't be any. Where's the training? heavy duty in the beginning, tapering off to nothing within a short period of time. Most of the jobs the adults get in an mess with aren't that difficult, lining up potlucks? making phone calls? signing up for summer camp? we aren't talking rocket science here! Keep that for the Rocketry MB.

The game is: hold out as long as possible and whoever loses their nerve first gets stuck with the job. "Due to the fact that we have too many Bears this year and we are short a DL, next pack meeting we will be holding a drawing to see which boys at the Bear level will need to find a different pack for the year." Then hold the drawing. What are the odds that one of the parents from the pool will step up and be DL so his/her son can stay with the pack? Unfair? No, it's unfair to have the one Bear DL take on too many boys and burn out. Now you are down 2 DL"s for the following year. The downward decline of the pack takes another step. If one does not have the resources to run the program for the year, at least be honest with them so they can make arrangements elsewhere for their boys. The reason one has burnout is because one is trying to run a program with no where near enough people. If there are no resources, then quit misleading people into thinking there even is a program for their boy. Better to shut down the failing pack and get the boys involved in other healthier packs..... or start recruiting volunteers differently than what is being down now, it's ain't working, do something else, it just might work! It can't make it any worse.

I showed up at my church in full uniform. A lot of people thought I had just gotten off of a scout activity and was going to church on the way home. Nope, I told them it was Scout Sunday and at coffee fellowship we jaw-jacked for about an hour about church members who had been to Philmont, what they did in scouts "back in the day", etc. It was a fun Sunday.

@@Hedgehog I wasn't trying to be judgmental, just point out areas that are obviously noticed and need work on. In another thread I took heat for suggesting that the Scribe work with the Committee Treasurer so as to involve the POR more closely to a boy-led operation. Finances should not be the exclusive domain of the adults. So here one has a boy and an adult associating together on a common task. The committee treasurer is doing more than just keeping the books, but is also involved in teaching the boys how to keep the books. Everyone of the highlighted areas I pointed out seemed to imply an adult was currently doing these tasks, and my highlights were there to simply ask the question WHY? Why aren't each of these currently adult tasks not being introduced and worked with a corresponding youth component so that the boys get a chance to see how these often back ground tasks get done in a troop. Then after the training is done, then turn it over to the boys completely. This fits very well into your "change comes slowly" emphasis that has been occurring in units moving towards boy-led. It is totally unfair to all of a sudden wake up and without any idea of what is expected, get a job out of the blue. As an adult, I wouldn't like it, as a youth, it's a recipe for failure. It's rather ironic that we spend a lot of time in Emergency Prep MB setting up lines of communication in case of an emergency when it is only simple logic that that same system can be used to set up a COH pot luck! Instead we have adults doing their own thing and the boy designing systems that will never be used. Seems kinda strange from where I sit. Your mileage may vary.

I never got the Cooking MB, but I could cook on an open fire even before I got into Boy Scouts. It comes from having a progressive mother. When I went off to college, I knew how to cook, do laundry, iron, clean house and sew. Hardly a day goes by I don't thank her for such a blessing. My wife does too.

The commercial I like is the Cub Scout references in the Toyota commercial. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ivq10T3WR_c

@@Krampus I don't disagree one bit, there are basically two kinds of people in the world those that give and those that take. The description of the parents fits right into that definition. But what happens when one has nothing but takers, the drop-off-and-run parents? Those parents are not displaying and teaching their children the importance of servant leadership, i.e. taking care of someone else. The description clearly shows that the giver parents have better scouts, like that should be of any surprise to anyone! I have dealt with this issue my entire life of working with youth and other adult volunteer organizations. I learned even while back in school that 10% of the people do 90% of the work in any organization. But there are ways of getting around that and "brinkmanship" often draws a different outcome than from sitting back and letting "George" do it because he's always first to help anyway. One always has to remember that "George" can often be the source of the problem! The 10% that are always there first to volunteer get the plum jobs. Those marginally involved pretty much don't get a chance and when they do it's the jobs that "George" doesn't want to do anyway. People aren't dumb, they figure this out, so do kids of scouting age. My Ex ran a program for the woman's group at a church once that had everyone sign up for all the activities the ladies were going to put on for the year and then some. When everyone in the congregation had a chance to sign up, she collected up all the papers and if they didn't have enough people to do the work, not enough money to fund it or didn't have someone to take the lead on it, it was tossed in the garbage. (BRINKMANSHIP!) Within a week, somehow the sheets reappeared completely filled out and funded. She put the booklet of all the information for every activity and sent it to every lady in the congregation. Then she did nothing but remind people who was doing what and to read their little activity book, everything there. Along about June the activity for the group was a Father/Daughter Dinner for Father's Day. The ladies had everything all set to go and 30 minutes before the start they were all in a tizzy that none of the tables were decorated. My Ex and I get a call. We go over there and sure enough the place was nothing but tables and chairs. At 20 minutes before the event, a pickup truck pulls up, the lady, her husband and her two sons, one middle school, one high school. rolled in and within 10 minutes the place was unbelievable. She and her family must have been working on getting that ready for 6 months and pulled it off in 10 minutes. The ladies of the church didn't like that process and "went back to the way they had always done it." So they went back to "George" begging for help every month all year long. It was of interest to note, that that lady never had done anything with the church ladies before she and her family decorated tables..... and never did anything after either. She knew what she needed to do for the whole year, had time to get ready for it, do it well, and know that no one was going to hound her all year long to come in at the last minute to help. Sometimes the art of brinkmanship is a valuable skill to have in one's arsenal. I don't see it as a negative, but as a gentle persuader of allowing the marginal people an opportunity to come forward and provide real help, valuable help, not just doing the grunt work that "George" doesn't want to do.

So how does one adjust for dates of the T-FC requirements that were signed off prior to turning 10 1/2 with AOL? If the TF rank is attained prior to joining age, does it count? If it doesn't then the Star Life and Eagle are invalid because the after earning FC, serve for 4 months, etc. It kinda has a domino affect that one has to resolve as far as honestly signing off on the requirements. I'm not advocating anything, but if the boy didn't "earn" TF or maybe 2C, before he turned age eligible, what does that do to the validation of the other ranks. It makes for an interesting situational ethics issue.

The question really is what do you see that provides the boys with real opportunities for leadership. And yet the question for me is are the items marked in red providing opportunities for the boys or taking them away? I could have used blue, but we are talking about red flags here. You identified a large factor -- leadership buy-in. You need the SM, CC and ASMs on the same page. Next, you need parent buy-in. And where's the boy-buy in? The factors that are then listed are not as much factors as adult rationale for maintaining the adult status quo. As long as the adults keep doing what they are doing, there's absolutely no incentive for the boys to change.

That must make him about 35 years old by now. If the troop is large enough to warrant an SPL, that's not a problem. With running troops where 2-3 patrols are the norm, it hasn't been necessary. When we got up to 4 patrols, then the PL's selected an SPL to help them.

From the description given, Krampus, it is obvious the SPL was interested only in himself. At best a mediocre tyrant, at best a patch wearing, card carrying narcissist. Take care of your boys was not part of his plans for anyone. Might have been excellent in organizational management skills, but that's where it ended. No leadership. I guess it all boils down to: is everyone going to have to suffer for the sake of one who doesn't want to learn? The boy learned failure, the troop learned failure, but one didn't need 5 months time to rub everyone's nose in it. Yes, the troop can sit out the 6 months of stagnation and reduced effectiveness (I wouldn't blame the boys for just staying home until the next election). However, if the boys are running the troop, why are the adults telling them they have to wait 6 months to correct their problem. Sounds like the boys wanted to take care of it right then and there. They gave the boys the opportunity to square up and he didn't take it. Time to problem solve and the best solution was get a functional SPL in place to get the troop moving again. All of life is optional, people can vote with their feet anytime they so wish. When a group knows it is empowered to steer their own destiny, it's not going to bode well for those who interfere. If push came to shove, I'd back the PL's who stood up to this SPL because they were indeed taking care of and looking out for their boys.

Hmmmm, why do the adults have to always be the keepers of the vision, goal, aim of scouting? Shouldn't the boys have it. Why is it always assumed that the boys are going to run off on some irrelevant tangent? Mine never have. I've never had a patrol decide it would be fun to do sky-diving or even go paint-balling for the afternoon. If one trains them in the principles and policies of the BSA in the first place, then one doesn't have to worry about it after that. I don't have to be the keeper of the vision, the boys do well all by themselves. Of course if I'm going to always be the keeper of the vision and goals of scouting, then I'm going to always be the one in control.

Scouts do not serve at the pleasure of the SM. And once again we are discussing the POR that causes the most problems in the troops. SPL's who are given the right to run the troop. They get elected on popularity and the troop suffers for the next 6 months, the adults fall all over themselves trying to get this kid to do something, he doesn't, he doesn't get signed off, complains to mommy and daddy, who step in with their 2-cents worth, everyone gets made, half the troop quits. It's the same old story with different names inserted to protect the not-so-innocent. And then people wonder why I don't recommend SPL's?.... I don't. There's no reason an SPL can't iron-fist bully just like a controlling adult SM or an interfering ASM. And so how do I avoid such hassles? Don't force an SPL on the troop. If the PL's want one, they can pick one. If they don't want one leave the issue alone. There seems to be some kind of unwritten rule that there HAS to be an SPL! I have gone without an SPL more often than having one and the times I do have SPL's they were well trained BEFORE they took the office. A lousy SPL can cause a lot of damage in 6 months and it'll take a lot longer than that to get things back to "normal".

I would think that it is important that if Little Johnny is having financial difficulty in the troop, can't afford summer camp, doesn't go on activities for lack of funds, etc. and the PL doesn't know about it because of privacy issues, how can he take care of his boys? Or is this a case where the adults jump in and take over the options for Little Johnny? I guess it all depends on how much trust one puts in their youth leadership. My PL's are fully aware of what boys are on meds, which ones wet the bed, and which ones have medical allergies. These boys when they take on POR's in my troop are real leaders, not paper, in-theory, leaders. My boys learn discretion and confidentiality as part of their leadership training. If a boy is having financial difficulty, no big deal, some have it tougher than the rest, but that must means everyone might need to pull more than just their weight so that their buddies get to go along on these trips. I've never had a problem with this, the boys tend to step up and are less concerned about these things than the knee-jerk adults. After all what's the sense in a boy carrying an epi pen and HIPAA rules won't allow anyone else to know? I want my PL's to know this because the odds of the PL being with the boy is better than me being with him. Confidentiality is just a cover-up for adult control. After all if the boys are responsible (POR) for running the patrols, they had better know what's going on with their boys. Otherwise, if they can't take care of them, I'd say just go back to adult-led troop-method and keep all the boys in the dark and don't worry about excuses.

In my troops the boys select their patrols without any adult intervention other than the patrols should be 6-8 boys. There are no elections, the boys decide anyway they want who's going to be PL, APL, patrol scribe, QM, etc. I stay out of it. Whoever gets selected to lead stays there as long or as short as the boys decide and the leader decides. Because of this I do not have any popularity contests, no whining about someone not dong their jobs, no questions ask as to whether or not they fulfilled their POR, etc. At first there was a bit of movement from one patrol to the next until buddies settled in. The good leaders got PL and after that it settled down. As long as the patrol members were happy with whom they selected, I as SM really don't care. Only had one incident in all the years of SM, and only one boy stepped down willingly at my insistence. I have mentioned the details on that incident on the thread in the past. As it turned out, the boy found a better position in the troop he liked better anyway and things worked out nicely. Can a Webelos cross over be selected PL and stay until he ages out in that patrol? In my troop... yes.

One would think that a simple error check routine in the registration software would have caught this easily.

It all depends on whether the goal is to be a Scout or an Eagle. For those that say a boy can be both. Fine, but that doesn't hold true for a lot of boys today.

We don't want any renegades or heretics out there coloring outside the lines!