Stosh

I didn't want to hijack another thread, so I'll start another one. This is a spin off of the HA activity planning thread. How much leading by the boys does it take to be a good boy-led program? There's always that thin red line between boy-led and adult-led. In the middle that can be a close call. But the case can be made that if the boys take leadership on 55% of the decisions is it really boy-led? I do know that the more the boys invest their time, talents and finances the more they gain from the experience. Yes the adults do coach and suggest options, but even then when one suggests solutions, they take away an opportunity to problem solve on the part of the boys. Once they learn that they can work through issues, there's a real breakthrough for the boys. As a SM, it is my job to work myself out of a job. Yes, there will always be times when they bump up against a wall and will need to be coached, but at that point are solutions offered or is it more, what do you think we should do? kinda coaching? Giving solutions is not the same as having the boys struggle with the problems. The newbie that's lining up summer camp comes and says, "We need a $50 deposit on the campsite." Okay, my response is, "Where's the money going to be coming from?" It is up to the boy to decide if it's the troop treasury or the boys themselves. It's too easy to bail out the boys and direct them to a conclusion. As SM every directive, every solution, every decision, every rule, takes away an opportunity for the boys to either lead or learn to lead. As with most troops, I as SM I often spent too much time keeping other adults from stepping in and "taking over". Every parent watching their child struggle has a strong tendency to do just exactly that. Boys will learn nothing if adults do all the thinking for them. On activities, my only job was keep asking how it was going, not do it for them. It is far more easy to just do it for them. I have been part of and witnessed as UC troops that bragged about being boy-led when it was very obvious they weren't. Just yesterday I had a Webelos II DL come to me and ask about a certain troop his boys were interested in and had just visited. He gave me all the pros and cons and asked me what I thought. My only question to him was, "How many of the boys did you talk to when you were there?" He said the boys were busy with doing activities with the Webelos scouts that they didn't have time to talk to anyone other than adults. I said he had totally wasted his time because he had not talked to even one boy. If one wants to know who runs the show, just ask the boys, they'll tell you. If the SPL or one of the older boys didn't have time to talk to the adults about recruiting the Webelos boys, then he was avoiding the tough part of the process. As UC I spent 90% of my time talking with the boys and 10% talking with adults. I always find it remarkable in the "boy-led" programs that I often hear, "We can't do that..." and the tag line was "...because ___________....". Fill in the blank with a name of one of the adults in the troop. The rest of the sentence is not important. If I were to guess a boy-led program, I would think that 90-95% of the directives for the troop coming from the boys would be a minimum start. What say ye? Stosh

Or a specific scout looking for POR could be the contact point so that the troop can move more towards a boy-led troop. There is enough track record for this troop to start putting some of that boy leadership to some useful purpose. There's a ton of sub-leadership opportunities, gear retention - Quartermaster, etc. My apologies but when I read about such programs, the half-hearted need to be weeded out because they really aren't invested in the idea. Sounds good, but when the rubber hits the road, they are history. Why is that? If all the boys were rolling up their sleeves to make it happen, there wouldn't be any half-hearted boys involved and one would not need a $100 deposit to figure that out. Stosh

I have also come to the same conclusion. Everyone goes. If that means a bunch of rookie are running the show, I'm assuming it can't be any worse than the people there now. Any name with (Inc) next to it will not get my vote.

I'll check my calendar to see if I'm available. Would I have to stand up in the canoe? Stosh

Boy-led! Eagle Scout - proven leadership - this is your day you can plan it out anyway you want! Kinda like a wedding, you make up the rules as to what's important for you for that day. Held in the woods with all Dutch oven food for the reception? That would work! While dating my wife, we had a bench we would sit on in the woods every day for lunch. When it came time to get married, that's were we were sitting. Our kids thought we were nuts, so what, we got to pick! Wedding anniversary is January 7, and the Mrs. was disappointed it wasn't snowing on our wedding day! Our kids know us really well. Stosh

I always went where the boys wanted to go. The first year we attended council camp. They found another camp that fit their needs a lot better and went there after that. It's a vote at the end of each summer camp as to where they want to go the next year. They have a whole year to find a different camp and so far as I know, they liked the camp they were in. There are not many non-mess hall patrol-method camps out there and that's the #1 consideration in their choice. By the way, when local council people question the troop going elsewhere, I simply ask them if the patrol-method considerations can be met at the camp, when they say no, it answers their question and brings the conversation to a quick halt. Stosh

I have three of them, even the one I had as a scout in the 1960's. I even used it as a book bag throughout college. Why? It holds very comfortably everything one would need for a weekend outing. With plastic bag packed items, it is virtually indestructible. The last time I used it was on my vacation last month. It holds 9 days of change of clothes easily. The outer loops allow for a blanket bedroll as well. If the unpadded straps and lack of waist belt bothers you, a tump line thru the flap makes it an easy carry because it does to get overloaded on occasion. And as far as durability goes? the canvas wears like iron. I don't know how many times I have worn out nylon packs over the years, but they come and go, but the Yuccas are still there on the shelf, kinda like an old friend you can count on. On an extensive trek, I take two and like duffles wear one on my back and another on the front to distribute weight. Neither are as large as duffles, combined probably carry as much as one duffle, but the weight is distributed front and back. No frame makes it easy to simply drop in the bottom of the canoe, run a rope through the straps and off you go. If you don't have a piece of rope, just unclip the strap, wrap a thwart and reclip. Couldn't be easier. Stosh

I don't know who coined that phrase, but it is sooooo true!

Totally agree, but if one has a great boy-led program, This rule-making attitude could be a slippery slope that could wreck a great program. Stosh

High School as basically done for them by the time they started. She sent them to public school for all the extra curricular activities, team sports, etc. They were taking AP classes as freshmen. It wasn't an issue of her limitations, it was an issue of home-schooling college was a waste of time. Public schools were footing the bill for a step up on college for the kids as I mentioned in another thread. Two of the girls were all-state cross-country runners, the boy won awards for math and physics starting his sophomore year. There are some things out there that do benefit the kids that home-schooling can't do. The academic classes they took were their choice as to whether or not they wanted to. Otherwise they took AP classes and even those were optional. Basically they were starting college while still in high school. Stosh

I always get a bit nervous once people start making up rules for the boys.... It's a totally obvious "flashing red" sign "with warning bell/alarm" of an adult-led program. Stosh

It's called take responsibility for one's own thriftiness. Each scout has a bank account in the bank of their own choice in his own name. They earn and save money and spend it anyway they wish. It's also called taking responsibilities for one's own finances. Money collected by the troop is donated to the troop and no matter how hard one does or doesn't work on the fundraising activity, all the money goes where people expect it go, to the troop. People do not give money to little Johnny, they give it to the troop. If they want to give to little Johnny, they can hand him cash and it goes into his personal account in his bank. If the troop so wishes to offer camperships to boys having economic problems or is to lazy to go out and earn money, they might want to consider that as a committee decision on behalf of the troop. People who donate to a civic or non-profit organization, never expect individuals within that program to be lining their pockets with that money. As far as I know, no mainline churches have fundraisers and pay the members out of that money, it goes to the cause/ministry/mission to which it was raised for. Only in Scouts do I see members eyeing up $$$$'s on their behalf out of charity donations. Something I really don't want to be teaching my boys as a life lesson. Stosh

Yuuuuuuup. Leadership development, maturity and character development are a threat to most parents. No parent want's their dear little boy to actually grow up until the day after their 18th birthday. Stosh

Yucca pack, goes on most every trip. Stosh

Sounds a bit like Salvation Army soup kitchen requiring the people to serve 5 meals in order to participate in 10 free meals. If you have eaten ten and only served four, you need to pay for the soup. In the early BSA program each scout was expected (by advancement requirement) to have a personal savings account separate from any troop funds. It might not be such a bad idea to go back to the way the program was originally set up, far less hassles. Stosh

99.999999% of what comes out of Washington is crap anyway. It doesn't make a whole lot of difference who's at fault, ALL of Washington is at fault. Once people figure this out, either they will be replaced by competent people or everything will go down the drain. The US is not exempt from what befalls every "empire" this world has ever experienced. The handwriting is on the wall. Time to pay attention and read it carefully. Everyone is pointing out the problems, no one is fixing them. Stosh

Mom - Forestry major, worked for the US Forestry Service, quit and stayed home with the kids Daughter #1 - International Financial Consultant - New York, NY Daughter #2 - Medical Doctor MD and OD, Residency, Houston, TX Daughter #3 - Bio-medical Research doctorate candidate, U. of Penn. Son #1 - Electrical Engineer, Boulder CO All home schooled through middle school, all had 4.0 gpa in high school, all graduated highest honors from top colleges around the country. Daughter #2 was salutatorian of her medical class. Of course there are always exceptions to the general rules. My daughter seeing what her step-mom accomplished, will home-school her kids as well. It's not always motivated students, but also motivated parents (helicopter parents excluded). One does not need a teaching degree to home-school their kids, all they need is a desire to make every opportunity for learning available to them. If parents believe education is important, it will become important to their children as well. Parents who farm out their kids to day-care, then farm them out to schools, and farm them out to such places as BSA, will have successful careers of their own. The jury is still out whether that will ever apply to their children. Forgot to mention, Mom was the only one of her siblings to even graduate college, two of her brothers settled for GED's. Stosh

Whereas this is not in undeveloped area, a certain amount of pre-education is necessary. A boy well versed in FC should be able to do map/compass and basic first aid without having to do a full blown MB on it. When I went to BWCA canoeing, I expected, swimming MB and canoeing MB, but both applied directly to the trek. I'm thinking the shakedown treks are good, but nowhere near important is the DAILY personal treking necessary to build the conditioning of muscle and weight endurance. Going out on treks 4 Saturdays in a row is not the same as 10 miles a day, 4 days in a row. How you get the boys to do daily, on their own condition is vital and virtually impossible to measure. By the way, did you know Central Wyoming Council has a BSA summer camp 6 miles outside the east entrance of Yellowstone? The whole troop could go, do summer camp there and the older boys could go on into the park for HA. Just a thought. Stosh

Age is such an arbitrary measurement. There are some 12 year-olds out there that are more mature than some 45 year-olds. There are some 14 year olds that can handle the rigors of a hike better than MOST 50 year olds. There are some sofa scouts that can't handle a thing as well. Each boy needs to be evaluate according to a set a criteria that is set to help the boy, not hinder him. Okay, he's 14, active in sports. Works his butt off on fundraising and attends all the shakedown hikes, but his Body Mass Index puts him into the Overweight category. Oops, sorry, you can't go. Of course the BMI is a bad indicator because the kid is a football player and it is heavy muscle mass, not fat. Be careful in what rules get made up for the event, they may come back and bite you. So the 14 year-old mentioned, can't go and so his 3 buddies figure that without him they might as well hang out at home with him. So now you're down by 4 scouts. Oh, by the way two of them are your PL's. So you can domino yourself into abandoning the trip. While this scenerio may not seem plausible in its entirety, maybe some of it might. My suggestion would be a few guidelines and a review board of 3 boys, 3 adults. Is the boy physically able and mature enough to handle the trip? What kind of financial assistance will he need to get the costs covered? Then have a SM conference with the boy and then to "keep it honest" have the boy review the issues with the board. The general rules can be set up to guide the board, but nothing locked into stone that because he has all the requirements except one for FC he can't go, and that one requirement may have nothing to do with hiking or HA trips. And because Joe can't go because of something, but Pete's parents are putting the pressure on and he's woefully short on everything, and but he's allowed to go because the parents threaten to quit. Whatever you do, don't fall prey to the possibility of "painting oneself into a corner". Notice none of this advice locks into stone, just some things to think about. Stosh

And of course the home-school kids always do better, either because of the one-on-one with the parent or the parent cares enough to do it themselves instead of waiting for some inefficient bureaucracy to do it for them. In the state where I live, it his possible for home-schooled students to get a free education through college. They progress at their own pace and if they get ahead far enough and their local school doesn't offer classes at their level, they can continue to go to school (college) until they are 18. For some kids, 2, 3, and even 4 years of college can be gotten at local school district expense. Once they turn 18, they have to start paying for the college courses. Don't think for a moment that parents who take an avid interest in their kids don't know this. Stosh

First of all my sincerest apologies for any toes that got stepped on, not my intention. But as you point out, lack of information leads to false assumptions. There is nothing wrong with due diligence and having an adult near the tail end, but if a boy is given responsibility and designated safety officer, he needs to be supported, not usurped in that responsibility. Not all adults adhere to that. To a certain extent, it sounds as if you do. If a canoe or scout got behind, and the "safety officer" had to look back to check, how often was that. Accidents don't take long to develop. If the safety officer is last, he's the first to see trouble. I had an experience where I took novice scouts down a whitewater river (first time for them and 2 adults) and asked an experienced kayaker to accompany as safety officer. She had 40+ years experience on whitewater trips, I had 20+ on that river alone. I figured we were covered. After a long series of rapids we gathered up and she was missing. No signal. As SM it was my responsibility to check it out. I told the group to wait and I went back. She had dumped and lost the whistle. Just bad luck all around. Fortunately, she wasn't hurt, just a kayak full of water that needed to be attended to. However, when we got caught up to the waiting point, the group had decided to continue on. The two most experienced watercraft people had now become disconnected with the group. Fortunately our luck had changed to good, but it still left the situation far from ideal. Whereas your #1 rule is having fun, my #1 rule is safety first. The adults were the one's that decided the group should continue, they overruled the SPL. The SPL wanted to wait but he was overruled by his dad who was one of the other adults. That process was corrected at the end of the trip. If safety first wasn't going to be part of the decision making process, my attendance wasn't going to be available in the future and they would have to make arrangements with other adults if they were going to participate in risky situations. On the Philmont trek, I was ASM, the SM decided I was to be left behind every day and dictated the Trek Leader to ignore me and my situation. No, I was not safety officer because it only took the boys about 15 minutes to get out of sight of me. Philmont rules? Don't apply with an iron-fisted SM who is used to making up his own rules on the fly. It was never a consideration to place me #3 where I belonged. Safety was never considered when adventure trumped everything else. Even when one knows what is right and safe, it gets out-voted rather quickly by politics. As far as pot calling kettle black, NO, I was not the safety officer, nor was any assigned, and the SM never knew 75% of the time where I was, whether I was having difficulty and he really didn't care. Needless to say, my tenure with that group was ended soon after the trip. I no longer had a boy in the troop, so that wasn't a consideration I needed to address. BSA and me personally do not have enough insurance to cover gross negligence and I had no intention of testing the system. This is the same SM who criticized me in front of the boys for driving the speed limit to and from events. We're talking a 25 year veteran WoodBadge SM with Silver Beaver and every other bauble available and even though I had more years with scouting and working with youth in general, it doesn't count for anything. To give you an idea of how boy-led this group is, the SPL and PL's are assigned by the SM according to POR needs. It really didn't make any difference, everyone had to do what the SM said anyway. At summer camp all the older boys (SPL and PL's etc.) are sent off on the HA program leaving the SM in charge of the younger boys. After 13 years it was time to move on. Now you know the real reason why I'm such a pro-BOY-LED program. Stosh

Shoe laces???? I was teaching my new scout about knots. I asked him if he was Prepared with a piece of rope/string. Nope, I thought I saw him wearing the thick soled canvas gym shoes that are popular. I offered up, "Why not use a shoe lace?" Much to my surprise, no laces! How do kids today keep 1) their shoes on, or 2) avoid blisters caused by loose rubbing shoes? Stosh

Respect is contagious. As SM I never refer to a scout by his first name. If I expect them to address me as Mr. B__, then I start the process by addressing them by Mr. X___. I also never use "sign's up" when I'm with the boys. I just stand there and wait patiently for their conversations to subside and then begin. Why should I interrupt them because they are interrupting me? It is very clear that it is THEIR troop. I am there to support them. If they ask me to address the troop, with training or some other issue. I am invited to speak and when I go to the front, by the time I get there, it is totally quiet. I never "tell" the boys anything. I ask a lot of questions and offer opportunities for them to consider. I gave the flyers I get at Roundtable to the SPL and then my work is done. Eventually it got to the point where the SPL attended RT to get the flyer AND the rundown on the activity. If one treats the boys as developing adults, it doesn't take long for them to learn the advantages of respect. It's kinda the philosophy I use where if one were to treat others like adults, they tend to act like adults and vice versa, and it always confuses kids when adults treat them like adults, it's not something they are used to and generally don't know how to react. Stosh

And that leads to the question of what is the % chances of an assailant being shot by an armed victim vs. un-armed victim? I'm not a statistician, but I'm going to take a wild guess here and say the odds of an assailant being shot by an armed victim is a lot higher than being shot by a victim with no gun. Stosh

Looks like that Troop has an excellent SPL. Adults not needed. However, if witnessed by the SM he may want to remember the incident at the next SM conference and review it with the boy in private. No blood, no foul. Stosh