Stosh

When I was a WDL I took Web I boys and worked with them for "2" years. By the end of the first year, they had received their AOL at various times and received their patch and recognition within the den "COH" we held for each boy as he received the AOL. At B/G they got pack recognition, but for some, they had already been wearing their AOL patch for some time. As we entered the second year, we began working on TF requirements so "they would be ready for Boy Scouts." When each of them turned 10 1/2, they were eligible to "cross over" to boy scouts and the Boy Scouts did the bridging/welcoming the boys at a troop meeting with a mini-COH. Because they were well versed in TF requirements, it was recognized by the SM as such and presented the new boys with a necker, book, Scout patch AND TF badge. I don't know if the SM was breaking/bending any rules at that point, but I believe at that point, it was acceptable according to council feedback. Anyway, 6 of the 7 boys in that Webelos den went on to Eagle. The 7th scout moved from the area so I don't know if he ever finished Boy Scouts. His dad was a DE, so I'm assuming he did. While this "approach" is different than anything expressed in the thread thus far, it was extremely effective on Cub -> Boy transition/retention.

@jblake47: I feel really sorry for you. Apparently, you've never had a good mentor in your life. Have I had bosses who showed me something, and then threw me to the wolves? Sure, and most of the time the company paid dearly for my hard-won experience. The good ones I've had took the time to explain why each step was important, and let me prove I knew things on a smaller project before going full scale. Don't need pity, and I've had plenty of good mentors in my life. I have a boss right now who considers what I have to say because I have had 40 years of business management from Peter F. Drucker to Lean Mfg. Just recently I let him borrow my Greenleaf book on Servant Leadership which he totally appreciated. Once one is in on the Value Stream Analysis team of a billion dollar industry, one really doesn't worry too much about small projects unless one is a RIE leader. As for some of your other comments, you don't seem to understand that Scouting is about functioning as a group. If a team of Scouts has the responsibility to load the trailer, and they fail, then they should be accountable to the boy they failed. I can't imagine how one could conclude I am not understanding group dynamics. I promote the patrol method more than most. I know it's potential and teach to it with the BOYS leading the process. This is why we have trained PL's so this kind of thing doesn't happen, but each scout is responsible for his own actions within the team. If the leadership team failed because they gave that assignment without properly supervising or training the individual, then they should be held accountable too. Leadership team (? I am assuming you mean the adults here) that supervises is just that THE leadership team. That means the scouts are nothing more than followers. The "assignments" here are patrol method training. The boys pick their best leader in each patrol and they work from there to work out their problems. If all one wishes to identify in these situations is blame, then one is not even following proper modern managerial practices. Identify the problems and correct them. That always gains better traction than finding the culprit and punishing them. There comes a time in the program where the boys are expected to lead and that means the adult leadership team shuts up and moves aside. Assuming of course they were properly trained, which is the student's responsibility to learn. If they didn't learn, they need to take to initiative to make sure they get their questions answered. If the Scout incorrectly assumed someone else would take care of their stuff for them, then yes, that's his own problem, and he needs to deal with it. Yes, Scouting is a boy-led program. However, Scouts are minors, so as the adults on the trip, we are morally and legally responsible for their well-being. That doesn't mean we have to take over for them, nor do we have to keep them from having fun, but an occasional prod to make sure they are making the right choices is warranted and welcome. If one trains the boys correctly and completely, then they have fulfilled any and all moral and legal responsibilities. If every time something goes awry, and the legal people get involved, the question will always be asked, "Would a prudent adult make the same decision and do the same thing?" If the answer is always yes, it makes no difference the age of the respondent. If one is going to expect these boys to always be boys, then they will stay that way. However, if one expects them to act and function as adults, you'd be surprised on how many will step up and surprise you. And if someone gets hurt, as the adult in charge, I'm going to be held accountable, so yes, I'd better know about it as soon as it happens. And herein lies the problem, "adult in charge", means the program is adult-led. I inadvertently deleted part of my original comment that after a scout gets hurt, the others shouldn't be allowed to run off and play. They need to attend to their friend's injuries -- if appropriate -- or stay with him until the professionals arrive. If a boy gets hurt and his buddies raise the alarm, get's the EMS involved, stabilize the boy, and attend to him until help arrives, the SM could be notified well after the boy is on the way to the hospital and still be within his legal responsibilities because he trained his boys correctly! Seriously, in an emergency situation, does one really want their resources going for EMS support or off looking for the SM? I have had many years experience with both the adult-led, troop-method programs as well as the boy-led, patrol-method programs. Hands down, boy-led, patrol-method is by far the most effective in developing excellent Eagle scouts. I have seen way too many paper/Parlor scouts coming through the adult-led, troop-method program.

Scientific theories are what people believe, Scientific knowledge on the other hand is what people think (know). "Says every expert on the topic ever." which is bogus and disingenuous. If one wishes to convince anyone in a debate or argument, it isn't wise to speak in absolutes and for sure not twice in the same sentence. One's credibility pretty much tanks at that point.

@jblake: I agree with you 100% that pencil whipping is worthless. If you want Scouts to really learn to think on their feet you've got to put them in situations where they can fail -- miserably -- and not get hurt. If you're allowing a patrol of FC Scouts to hike alone in the mountains without them first proving they can think on their feet, then you're an irresponsible teacher. I don't think so. It's the responsibility of the teacher to teach, but it's the student's responsibility to learn. A student doesn't need to prove anything if he's learned the material. This isn't school, there's no final test and then you graduate. Except this is how the world of management works. You do the work, get the certificate and you're good to go. Might even have passed the test. But that's the end of the process. Your trained, now go do your job. You want them to prove they can use that map and compass? Enter them in am orienteering competition through your local IOF chapter. Let them make as many mistakes as they want. It's controlled, so they won't get too lost, but they might score lower than some little old ladies and a den of Tigers. I don't care if they can prove anything, I don't care if they make mistakes, but if they learned well in the first place those mistakes would be minimal. Leadership isn't about proving anything. Management evaluates skills and applies the best based on proven talent based solely on getting the job done. Embarrassing the boys in front of little old ladies and Tiger cubs really doesn't accomplish anything either. Do that often enough as your example of leadership and you will soon find no one following, your trust and credibility is gone! Your other examples are all attempts to blame the failures of teaching and leadership. Again, the failure comes in the boys not learning. You are assuming that the boys are not responsible for having to learn. it's the teacher's fault if the student doesn't learn. Nope, not going to buy that assumption. If your troop is trusting any one person to pack the trailer alone, then everyone -- including you -- should forgo their sleeping bags in camaraderie with the boy whose was forgotten. And taking responsibilities for one's own irresponsibility is somebody else's fault? Sorry, don't buy that conclusion one bit. Everyone of your issues always comes back to it's someone else's fault! Maturity and responsibility is based on taking one's OWN responsibility for their actions. If they didn't learn, that's their own fault. its just a few boys and they're not using the checklist, then the Scout responsible for the final check should give their gear to the boy whose was left behind. No the boy should have taken care of his own gear and not dumped that responsibility onto someone else. He should suffer the consequences of his own actions or in this care failure of action. And if Jimmy gets hurt, the correct response is to run and get the SM. The SM is the one who is in ultimately in charge of the boys safety. However, the Scouts shouldn't just be allowed to go run and play. In an ADULT-LED program you would be correct, but the BSA, (theoretically) promotes a BOY-LED program. Your assumption is valid in schools where the teacher is notified of a problem, in church where the youth director is notified, or at home where the parent is notified. Well, BSA teaches boys to lead, not just follow, it's the only program that does. If a boy always has to run off to the SM when someone gets hurt, why bother to teach the scouts first aid??????? And the scouts shouldn't just be allowed to go run and play? Where did that come from. In my book that's called having fun. I thought that was what scouting was all about!!!!!

If you were to read carefully your comment, you use the words "personally, I don't think...", "I definitely think..", "I think it's there..." Well, how do you feel about all that? Why can't you get in touch with your feelings on the subject. And thus there's the rub. Guys think, gals feel. Look at their comments. Guys are curious and adventuresome, gals more cautious, reserved and as protector of the young, more safety conscious. One might as well call it scouting, because for the most part it has been neutered.... Meaning neither sex, (not what you first thought, Guys!

Basically there is nothing wrong with the business theory you are proposing. I would contend that every boy must master T-FC before they can functionally operate in the field, so to speak. However, when it comes to advancement through the training of this standard word, it is basically demonstration and pencil whipping. No the boys are not prepared. They are more interested in getting the certification rather than actually learning the job. You know these people. They have the 6-sigma certificate posted proudly in their cubicle and have shown proficiency in doing one project for class. Since class they have done nothing to put it into their everyday operation of standard work improvement. One can expound theory to the boys until one is blue in the face, but until they take what they learned, (all of it) into the field, they will never be prepared for what may lie ahead. Do they think on their feet and actually apply first aid when needed, or do they go running off to the SM to let him know that Jimmy got hurt and he's needed to clean up the mess. They know how to apply LOA, so there's no need for really knowing it oneself. A spreadsheet checklist is fantastic as long as the ADHD boy picks up and tosses in all the duffles, backpacks and tote bins into the back of the trailer for an overnight campout. But if he misses one. He's a hopeless cause. He can't think on his feet, it wasn't part of his standard work and it wasn't one of the T-FC requirements. The boys are lost in the mountains. One boy says, no problem, I have a compass. Do you know how to use it? No, but it was part of my checklist of things to bring. Gonna follow him? The second boy says I have a map. Do you know where on the map we are? No, I was told we needed a map so I brought one. Gonna follow him? The third boy says, we're going to sit here until help comes and finds us. We're supposed to have 4 more days on this trip, no one's going to come looking for us until then. Gonna wait until the water's gone? The fourth boy says, we have been walking uphill for three days, we're lost, I'm going to walk downhill for three days and see where it leads to, after all most people live in the valleys than they do on the mountain tops. Gonna follow him? Yep, he's got a good idea/plan that makes sense and he's not relying on his tools, he's thinking on his feet and formulating a plan. It's called leadership. Management relies on tools and knowledge of those tools to "manage" the situation. It neither expects or requires anyone to follow. A leader will inspire in spite of the situation and others will follow because they trust he is going to do his best to make it better for those who follow. How do you put that into standard work or find a line on a checklist for that?

The requirement does not say ORGANIZED team sports. What they want the boys doing is playing as a team vs. tennis, golf, skiing, etc.

There still are places where one can "get away with it." Since my reprieve from Scouting, my wife and I get to do all those things that we can't do with scouts. It's a heck of a lot more fun. One doesn't have to worry about fire pits when the sandbar camp, it costs nothing and no one else in the area. My wife is a former forester for the US Forestry Service and I asked her once, what would happen if we're out there and a serious situation occurs that endangers us. She looked me square in the eyes and said, "When then, we're going to die doing what we enjoy." End of discussion. While I won't endanger someone else's child, the prissy part of BSA surely has restricted the options out there for adventure. I guess I'm a firm believer that with all the PC, legal and BSA policies out there, there really isn't any real adventures out there for the boys. Of course if someone were to bend the rules a bit, maybe the boys could get a glimpse of what a real adventure was all about. It kind of reminds me of last summer's trip to Yellowstone. We were in a public campground, but when we woke up in the morning we couldn't get to the car to make breakfast. A buffalo decided to check out the campsite. It was the same trip where a group of people had gathered to look at a yearling black bear and when my wife said, "Your looking in the wrong direction, the bear is over there." I answered, "Yeah, but the grizzly over to the left is a lot more interesting to watch." Once I said that, the crowd looked over to the left and within 15 seconds were were the only ones standing there looking at the bears. Prissy tourists!

Yeah, but if the boys ever have twine on the menu, they'll have it made!

All of this "crap" can be remedied by changing the words of the requirement from, "Demonstrate you know how to tie the square knot," to "Master the skill of tying a square knot under any and all circumstances." Or "Master the skill of tying a sheet-bend, double half-hitch and taunt-line hitch, outside, in the rain, in the dark. Repeat for all four corners of a tarp that doesn't have grommets." For those who think this is over-kill, I've done it many times in my outdoor career. Poles? Lash two 6' walking sticks together for a center and use the other four on the corners, That's six staves, the minimum number of boys in a patrol. Of course the boys would have to know what a straight lash is to pull it off. Nothing, including MB's are ever complete until the boys can actually use the skills. Of course, being practical with such knowledge is not a prerequisite for advancement, just go through the motions and hope for the patch.

I am currently reading a book I found in the bargain bin of a local store. "HOW TO SURVIVE IN THE WOODS." I find it very interesting that much of the scoutcraft skills I have are all in there, but then, because it is not published by BSA, it goes on to say in many of the topics. "This is illegal in all states, but if you really want to survive this is what you do." He says all birds in North America are edible. I'm assuming that includes the spotted owl. Scouting should be for the practicalist, not the current politically correct. I love his suggestion for stealing a bear's recent kill. Make sure you have sufficient firewood for 24 hours to insure he/she doesn't come back to discuss it further.

I don't have to imagine it. On my first outing with my new troop as SM I asked my "Eagle" scout to start the morning campfire so I could start showing the boys about dutch oven cooking. He told me he had never done it before and didn't know how. His dad was also an Eagle scout with palms and so he went and started the fire. 3 years later I was removed as SM because I expected too much from the boys and the troop was taken over by this dad. Now he can teach all four of his sons in the troop how to start fires.

If this issue was legitimate, ethical, on the up-and-up, none of this discussion would be happening. The original thread should read, "How far can we abuse troop funds of our chartering organization before someone notices and we get into trouble?" A little honesty in the BSA program/troops is a refreshing thing. Manipulating, shuffling accounts, staying under the radar, if marching bands do it, we can, too, etc. are not activities we need to be teaching our boys.

Like POR's the tickets take a hit from the abuse of their usage. In the old program there were a number of goals and one had 2 years to finish them all. With that being said, one of my ticket items did take 2 years to finish and I worked on it every week for those two years. I was ASM responsible for the NSP at that time and I went back and worked with Webelos boys and crossed them over to the troop. Unfortunately they had no Web II's and so I worked for 2 years with the Web I's. It was a great experience and I would not have done it without WB pushing it. On the other hand today's WB "tickets" can get knocked out in a weekend or two. Just not the same. Like the watered down Eagle program, WB isn't far behind.

Religion has always been a part of the Scouting Movement, but I have never observed what you are describing in my 50 years of scouting. Your local situation might be an anomaly that way, but it's not indicative of the BSA program.

Early BSA literature (i.e. books for boys) always referred to scouts that weren't out in the out-of-doors doing scouting kinds of things on a regular basis, Parlor Scouts. I'm thinking the vast majority of scouts today fit this category, especially the Eagle Scouts I have known that can't even start a campfire. I have also heard people refer to today's scouts as being Paper Scouts. One this is for sure, the scout of today is not like the early boys of scouting. I would doubt whether any of them could successfully fulfill the requirements up to First Class. After all that's all they had at that point. And if anyone were to check out those requirements they would find that BSA policy forbids many of the requirements. The requirements would need to be fulfilled outside the BSA program.

I concur with all you say, and when the dust settles, why do we go through the sham motions to give the appearance of some sort of boy leadership at a Jambo contingent when in reality there really isn't any? The boys aren't stupid, the adults aren't fooling them one bit. It's a process by which adults can delegate responsibility duties on boys who have no authority to follow through. They're set up to take the fall right from the get-go. Yeah, right, I can see me in the back row waving my hand and yelling, "Pick me! Pick me!"

I'm in no way promoting Lord of the Flies approach to the program. There requires a ton of mentoring, suggesting, assisting, and training in making sure the boys have a chance to be successful, but be successful on their own terms, not mine, not the SM's, not the SPL, and not the parents. While I spend very little, if any, time directing youth, I do spend 99.9% of my time offering suggestions for them, kinda guiding them along, and also setting a good example. I am a debt-free freak in my personal life. My youngest son just graduated Carnegie-Mellon College and has no student loans. He's starting this summer at his first job, $80,000+/yr. and no debt. Some people listen to the wisdom of their elders, others don't. One doesn't have much control over the choices they make, but one can lay down a good foundation for them and then hope for the best.

The first time I went to Boy Scout Summer camp, the cost was $29.50 for the week.

While I'm not familiar with the curriculum of NYLT, I do know that most of the boys I have talked to say it wasn't very helpful and all of them said it wasn't worth the money. With that kind of track record, I have become suspicious of the program. While many adults think it's great and promote it, why then aren't the kids who have taken it promoting it as well. Instead you have a bunch of graduates that won't step up and apply their training. There's a root cause of the problem that no one is addressing or even seeking. We can banter around management styles, servant leadership, and all kinds of neatsy cool phrases, but how many of them have actual track records in troops or other scouting activities? From my perspective, little if none. I can take hundreds of kids out of an adult led program, run them through the best boy-led leadership program in the world only to send them back to their adult led program to witness absolutely no change in how the program is run. Why? Because you trained the wrong people! If I was a Jambo contingent scout and they wanted leaders to step up? Not me, unless I have a ton more information on how this contingent is going to be run by the adults. If it's only "same-old, same-old" then forget it, it's not worth the effort. As a boy-led, patrol-method, old program WB, they asked me to be 2nd ASM of the centennial Jambo contingent. I was responsible for the gear. Big deal. I made sure all the boys had their tents, their duffles, etc. etc. etc. and then sat back and watched what I call the troop-method, run by 21st Century WB'ers run the show. There was no boy-leadership evident from the time we left until the time we came back. I had a nice trip out of the exercise. Did any of the boys learn, experience or do leadership? Nope. Why would any intelligent, dedicated scout ever sign on for that? The cynical ASM may find it comforting to blame NYLT for doing a lousy job, but then again, I don't think it's the program that is to blame, nor on the other hand, do I think the boys stupid enough to sign on to a losing proposition.

I would think that "troop method" is dependent on one's definition of what that means. 1) the SPL runs the troop and the PL's fall into line on what the "higher ups" decide. That means all the patrols go to the same summer camp if that's what the SPL and the PLC decide. 2) each patrol is autonomous from the rest and it is run by the PL who is SUPPORTED in those efforts by the SPL. This means that the NSP's all go to summer camp, but the older boy patrols go on HA and whatever activity they feel is more important than "yet another wasted year at the council's summer camp." If one has 3 patrols, two NSP's and an older boy patrol, then the NSP's always outvote the older boys who will eventually quit out of boredom. If mixed patrols, only the older boys who have "been there, done that" will quit leaving patrol remnants to pick up the pieces and/or merge. Assume for a moment patrol #1 (NSP) wants to go to camp for the first time; patrol #2 (2nd/3rd year scouts) want to try out a new camp across the state, and patrol #3 wants to do high adventure (BWCA, Philmont, or whatever). Is the SPL prepared to assist each patrol accomplish their goals or out of a sense of troop expediency boil it down to all three patrols getting one choice? To me that is what the troop-method is all about. Or does the SPL go to the SM and ASM's and say, we're going to need 6 adults for this summer's program because each patrol wants to do something different. That's what the patrol-method means to me. From what I hear from the boys, maybe the "troop-method" is not taught, but neither is the "patrol-method."

I couldn't get a paper-route until I was 14. Before that, I shoveled walks, mowed lawns and tilled gardens with a shovel, just to mention a few things. I had all the money I needed even before I was old enough to "work". When one has earned the money, they also have earned the right to determine how it was spent. A buddy of mine got the idea to raise rabbits and earned enough money to have plenty while in high school and then completely pay for college through the masters degree level. Keep it in mind, rabbit meat in the stores is more expensive than beef. He did the math, it was a lot of work, but it gained him a lot of money. He did this all out of his folk's garage. One of the original requirements for a scout was to open a bank account and start putting money aside. I have no idea when that went away, but it's a lot easier to just reach into mom/dad's pockets than it is to actually earn money these days. Until parents put their foot down and teach their children about the importance of money, not much is going to change. One last thing... when did TRIFTY turn into me earning my way to camp to having everyone in the neighborhood donate to me going to camp?

Yep, my kids have run the full scale of life's decisions. First of all none of them is in anyway incapable of doing great things: I have 7 kids 1) Daughter (single)- International Business Consultant - New York, NY 2) Daughter - (single) - Studying for her Doctorate in Bio-research - Philadelphia, PA 3) Daughter - (married) - Starting her medical residency - Houston, TX 4) Daughter - (married) - College grad - Works at Target department store, part time, locally 5) Daughter - (married) - College dropout - Works for food distribution company, full-time Chicago, IL 6) Son - (single) - Electrical/Computer engineer, Boulder, CO 7) Son - (single) - no post high school education - resident of the computer game vortex, hasn't held a job for more than 3 months in the past 10 years. Once they turned 18, they made their own choices in life. Yep, and the only grandchild is from child #7.... Parent may think they can control the success of their children, but that's a total myth and once they realize that things run a lot smoother. Same for any SM. One does their best, but the ultimate decision is the scouts, not their parents, not the SM.

KDD kudu's program isn't about giving everyone a chance to try leadership......It is about the natural leaders taking over and running the outings.... Your son wouldn't get an opportunity to give it a try.... Why not? If all the Librarians sat around looking at books gaining valuable credit for advancement, and all of a sudden one of the boys said, "Hey, I'm bored of this and I want to go camping, who's with me?" you'll have your natural leader identified immediately. The reason this doesn't happen in today's troops is because everyone one sitting around waiting for someone to lead. They don't think they have the authority and even a responsibility to do such. ANY boy that shows initiative on anything shows more leadership than all the POR's sitting around gaining advancement and not doing their jobs. This forum is full of threads that reflect this problem. My credibility goes out the window when I supported the idea that toss out the advancement program and put in it's place a program of letting the boys learn life skills and putting them to use in a controlled environment, like camping and outdoor skills. Very few life skills can be taught inside in a classroom.

King, Yes, your points are all valid, especially the emphasis we as parents and society as a whole spend on accomplishment/success. There are a lot of accomplished people out there that do fantastic things, but acquire such knowledge at a cost. For example, the medical doctor that spends 99% of his time in his education and 1% developing social skills. Sure he might come up with the cure for cancer, but his bedside manner would totally stink. Parents today want their kids to be able to do everything, but what they often miss is asking their child what they want to do! If a kid says he wants to play baseball, he's automatically expected to make the majors by the time he's 20. No parent is going to invest $$'s into their children unless there is a sufficient rate of return on the investment. Why can't he just play for fun? What's wrong with all C's on a report card? So he's not good at a POR, so what? Try another one. If that doesn't work out, try yet another. Keep working with him until he find's his niche. There are parents out there that just aren't going to be satisfied unless Johnny has a SPL patch for his scrapbook. While we dump tons of self-esteem praise on these kids, how many actually sit down and find out what would enhance their self-respect? Sometimes it's better to let our children learn their own lessons in life instead of trying to dictate their course of life to avoid the mistakes we made. I'd rather have my children happy rather than successful. My mother graduated high school valedictorian as well as did my daughter. Neither of them have college degrees, but they wouldn't trade their lives for anything other than what they have made of them. I'm happy for the successes of my kids because I didn't set them up for failure because of my expectations for them.