Beavah

I think if you've hurt someone, your first duty is to be sorry for hurting them. Then your second duty is to apologize to them. Leastways, if yeh want 'em to forgive you, welcome you back, and treat you as a friend again. Just apologizing isn't enough, either. Yeh also have to make them whole. If yeh "borrowed" their tools without asking and broke one, yeh apologize and you replace the broken tool. If yeh got Mrs. Beavah angry by being a doofus, yeh apologize and yeh also buy her flowers or take her out for a night on the town. I think it's just fine to teach kids that. To teach 'em to be sorry for hurting other people, even if they didn't intend it. To teach 'em to apologize to other people when they are in the wrong... and even sometimes when they're just sorry that they've harmed a relationship. And to teach 'em to work to "make it up to" the other person for their mistake. In fact, I can't see doin' anything else. Yah, yah, in criminal law our objective is just to punish, eh? We really don't care much about apologies. But raisin' kids is not about criminal law. It's about values and other things. Of course a lad is free to not apologize, and he shouldn't apologize if he isn't in the least sorry. The Great Scoutmaster gave us all free will. But in that case, I can't see there's any reason why the volunteers who he hurt need to have him around. The consequences for not being sorry for hurtin' others are that you lose friends and access to opportunities. Or other things, at their parents' discretion Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yep, LNT is a new ethic. It's different than what us old farts used to do when dug trench latrines through the cryptogam. And it is hard for old dogs to learn new tricks. Of course, when we were growin' up there were a lot fewer people in da country, it took a long time to get to places so yeh didn't get out as much or as far, and yeh had far fewer people visiting both da frontcountry and the backcountry. Times change. Conditions change. Ethics change. When I was growin' up, no one wore their seatbelts either. LNT is not connected to any environmentalist group or lobby. If someone tells yeh it is, they're not well informed. Their major sponsors are the outdoor industry: L.L. Bean, REI, Coleman, Eureka, etc. It's affiliated with the National Park and Forest Service, and groups like NOLS and Outward Bound that do the kinds of things scouting does for adults instead of kids. It's a group made up of our fellow outdoor enthusiasts. Now let's talk turkey (with stuffing, yummm...) I don't go into the backcountry for an "improved" campsite. I go into the backcountry to get away from civilization and its improvements. When some tom-fool goes and "improves" a backcountry campsite with a fire ring and a stack of logs (now rotting) it means they went and trashed a place I had been fond of. Doesn't matter that they were well-meaning. If I don't take down all their "improvements" and remove da evidence of their discourtesy, I know by the next year there will be more damage and two more fire rings nearby. Some beautiful areas I remember as a kid are now pretty close to charred earth. "Loved to death". Back in the day when we paddled river corridors, there weren't many of us. Yeh could do the cathole crapper routine along the narrow stretches of shoreline in the canyon. Nowadays, there are a half-dozen full time commercial outfitters on many rivers, and the land can't take that kind of load. Try havin' 50,000 people take a dump in your yard. So we have to use groovers and carry out the waste. One of my favorite trails not too far away has been overrun by mountain bikers, eh? They take only pictures and leave only tire prints. But they've left so many of 'em that it's become a real erosion problem. Yeh see that on lots of foot paths, eh? People leavin' footprints that cut the switchbacks, or widen the trail because they can't possibly get their boots muddy. Da frontcountry camps are even worse sometimes. Hard to find ones that aren't denuded by lots of bonfires. And then when folks can't find downed wood they start hackin' at trees. A recent survey in da east of campgrounds used by youth groups (primarily scouts) showed extensive tree damage. And it seems like we're addicted to burnin' garbage in da fires, despite instruction (and in some cases, regulation) not to. LNT is meant to be a program that helps all wilderness users think differently, and more responsibly, about their wilderness use. It's not directed at scouts in particular, any more than "give a hoot, don't pollute!" and smoky da bear are. But just like those things, eh? It's somethin' that as responsible, ethical wilderness users we should be on the forefront of. Beavah

Yep, like I said, OGE, no institutional commitment. Yeh have to remember, LNT is its own educational program. If yeh wanted to really do somethin' meaningful you'd follow the program, eh? Instead of spending 20 minutes on it as a tack on to IOLS you'd have every scouter complete a LNT trainer course (or at least a regular LNT course). A bit like da difference between get certified in CPR and talk about how CPR is important for 20 minutes. Which would yeh feel shows commitment to safety? Similarly, it wouldn't be a tack-on to da outdoors skills in the handbook, eh? Instead each principle would be par to the other requirements. Cleaning up after meals? (dispose of waste properly). Selecting a campsite? (travel and camp on durable surfaces). Building s fire? Same thing. Yeh wouldn't get signed off on da skill unless you were able to do it in a LNT compliant way. Not another discuss/write/bookwork requirement, but a part of what we do in all of our outdoor practice. As for administration/tracking of other stuff, I think Oak Tree was referring to Eagledad's innovation rules from da other thread, eh? Anything that adds an additional time commitment or burden is suspect. And right now, very few troops or individuals are tracking outing participation in that way. I'm sure not. Are you? . Heck, most troops can't even give us their participation numbers for summer camp with any reliability or accuracy! We now return yeh to the innovation discussion. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

But just as likely he is a typical kid who says something to a little brother or friend, not realizing the implications others will place on it.. Yah, moose, I think yeh need to re-read da thread, eh? After four pages of drama, what came down was that the OP was stunned to find out at the meetin' with the troop's adult leaders what junior really said. Momma bear agreed that the son had been mouthy and inappropriate, and that he owed the adults an apology. But junior rules the roost, eh? He refused to apologize and da parents did nothing. Now, perhaps I'm too old fashioned for da modern era, but if I had discovered my kid had behaved like that and then lied to me about it for weeks gettin' kicked out of scouting would be da least of his worries . An apology would have been forthcoming if he planned to ever leave the house again . There's just way too much random emotion here to make sense of anything else. On one page the ASM is a friend, on the next they'll only return to da troop if he's thrown out, then it's back to dad wants his friend back. The lesson to me seems to be that if yeh want volunteers to give their time for your kid (when you can't or won't yourself), then yeh have to support those volunteers. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for those same volunteers who have been accused of a dozen misdeeds by this family to say, "fine, then you need to come on outings.". Or absent that, to decide dealin' with this sort of high maintenance thing isn't worth their time. Yeh may feel there's a different lesson for the OP, but that's what I see. I'd want da adult leaders to warn another troop they were coming, so that some firm ground rules could be set up. Now I see that some follow-ons to my post got harsher, and we should all watch the perceived harshness of posts. The whole "email has no voice inflection" bit. Da flip side is to try to read each others posts in da best light. That having been said, i confess I don't really understand those who get upset when someone offers criticism to a fellow poster ("to her face" if yeh will), but then encourage or join in as someone defames fellow scouters behind their backs. The things said about the adult leaders of this troop by posters who don't know 'em have been pretty bad, eh?. If theres anything to reflect about and change in our responses, I think it's that. It's also worth rememberin' that just because yeh have had a poor experience with someone in your troop, that doesn't mean the same thing is what's goin' on here. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, interestin' question. I had a slightly different perspective. LNT I'm a fan of LNT as I think it's da only rational way to prevent land management agencies from imposing burdensome restrictions on us. But I don't think it has had much real penetration into da BSA as yet. It hasn't been well-integrated with advancement or training; more a tack-on "oh by the way" sort of thing. So far on da BSA side it's a failure because of lack of real institutional commitment. Journey to Excellence Better than Centennial Quality Unit, but still is designed to serve da top (collect "numbers") rather than really assist the units. Da extra effort required to keep track of and compute various elements of the thing doesn't pass the "don't add to the burden" test. I'm particularly disappointed in da district/council versions; nuthin' but more numbers games. I reckon we'll see a lot of fudging. Outdoor Achievement I like that it's at least focused on gettin' outdoors, which is more than we can say for most of the advancement requirements these days. Again, the administrative / tracking burden is too high for most units. Dropping da Venturing Age FAIL. Honestly, this is part of a long-term pattern in da BSA. Boys find Webelos boring, so rather than beef up the webelos program we try to get 'em to cross over earlier, because Boy Scouting is more fun. Except then yeh have a bunch of 10 year old 5th graders in Boy Scouts, which means yeh weaken that program, which makes Boy Scouting boring. So then yeh lower da joining age for Venturing, because that's more fun. Except then yeh have a bunch of 13 year old little kids in a high school - college program, which means yeh weaken that program. Next we'll be introducin' Rovers, and lowering the joining age of that to 15. Da better answer is to improve the quality of the Webelos programs, and improve da quality of the troop programs, not lower da age of the next higher program. Now, Venturing itself I felt was a good innovation, despite da chaos in which it was born. It pulled da original exploring back into the fold and let da career-exploring stuff go its own way, and da Ranger/outdoor adventure stuff was a pretty nice fit for adults who were doin' that sort of work anyways. Yeh had an almost immediate group of "early adopters". I haven't been as convinced by the other venturing focus groups (ministry/sports/etc.). That seems to me to be weakening da focus of the program without really servin' those groups all that well. Youth ministry programs usually have their own, religiously-tailored materials and such. Beavah

Yah, shrubber, in da midwest yeh don't see the fire bans as much, eh? But they're becommin' more frequent. Big chunks of Wisconsin and Michigan were under burn bans last year. In da western and southern states, yeh can go for a good part of the year in the current droughts with a no-open-fires restriction in place over a wide area. A few years back we had a BSA camp in Utah lose control of a fire during wilderness survival MB. Unfortunately, it was during a burn ban. Da resulting forest fire caused about 17 million dollars in damage. The feds and the state settled with our insurers for about half. Sign of the times, eh? Less and less rainfall and snowpack in many areas. Beavah

Nah, da charter is an anachronism. Congress stopped issuing those things several decades ago. Really they should just unwind 'em all. They're an oddity under the law. And unfortunately in da BSA's case, the charter is used to defend a permanent monopoly of the scoutin' movement by one corporation. That's more old-style-Soviet than it is American. So I'm in favor of repealing the thing. We don't really abide by it, and it's a legal oddity that doesn't comport well with our values. Folks have brought up some other "old" innovations along the way, though. Cub Scouts. Tiger Cubs. Varsity. Venturing. Yeh might look at da history of the OA innovation. The 1970 revision materials. The 1980 ODLR uniform. The 1990 revision materials that did away with youth on BORs and added NSPs. The introduction of COPE. Yeh can also look at da G2SS additions / innovations over the years. Some other areas that merit potential new innovation: Integratin' LNT. Working with public schools that are no longer charter partners. Visible, effective fundraising that offers better value than popcorn. More kid-friendly uniforming. How to reach kids and adults with modern technology effectively. Beavah

I would venture to bet that the one with knots has a higher probability to be more in tune with the program to be better able to provide a better program to the boys Yah, it's a nice theory, pohsued. It's never been my experience. Da biggest knot-wearers are usually district or council folks in my experience, because that's where adults might not know each other as well and perhaps where they want to show off to other adults. And as anyone can tell yeh, more than half of da district and council folks really aren't that great at providin' program or workin' with youth at the unit level. Knots don't demonstrate your dedication to the boys at the unit level. The lads by and large don't know what any of 'em mean, eh? They know your dedication from experiencing your dedication first hand, and no number of knots yeh wear or don't wear will change the view they form from personal experience. Wearin' doodads for the boys is either superfluous (if yeh are dedicated) or hypocritical (if you're not). So there's little upside with da kids. Adults by and large wear knots for the benefit of other adults. How much value yeh place on such displays is a personal thing, eh? Some think it's an important statement of personal achievement, some say it's an OK feature that can become ostentatious, some say it's little more than misplaced ego. Those tend to be pretty deep-seated personality traits and personal values, eh? Even religious values. Yeh usually can't change 'em. So it's important to understand if yeh do wear a lot of knots that some scouters, adults, and kids are goin' to see that as ego-driven foolishness; if yeh don't wear knots, some are goin' to see it as not respectin' the uniform or achievement. Da BSA is flexible and splits the difference, eh? It allows full knot wear, and it allows no knot wear, but encourages folks to keep it clean and simple and limit it to awards relevant to your current status. As to "bling" and schoolyards, I don't quite get it. Da real awards a lad gets for achievement are the satisfaction of the achievement, eh? The ability to do stuff he couldn't do before. Personal Growth method... not to mention those other methods like Youth Leadership and Outdoors and such. Uniform is just one method, and wearin' achievements is just one small part of uniforming. Kids deeply value lots of things without wearin' 'em on their chest - everything from da high score in a video game to the state championship to being first chair in da orchestra to their high school diploma with honors. Because we don't wear clothing to reflect any of those things, are we really undervaluing achievement? I personally don't think so. And I reckon there's a risk of overemphasizing the clothing so da patch becomes the goal, rather than the achievement or da personal dedication to service. So me, I'm not much of a knot-wearer. But I do value achievement, and I do encourage the lads to keep workin' beyond Tenderfoot. For the fun, for da adventure, for the growth, for the challenge. Just not for da patch. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm... I get where Eagledad is comin' from, and I agree with a fair bit of it, eh? Certainly agree with #1, yeh can't create an innovation that requires more resources (human or physical) without also a way of providin' those resources. Lots of innovations fail in that way. I think some of the "urban scouting" stuff others are talkin' about failed in this way. The BSA had a lot of people who had the personal knowledge and resources to do outdoor program. They didn't have a large pool of people with da skills or interest to do urban non-outdoor program. And "one minute manager" type trainin' ain't near enough to give 'em that skill set, even if they wanted to go there. Also agree with #3, eh? I've often talked about how da first duty when evaluating a potential new program or policy is to examine the potential unintended consequences. Eight times out of ten, they're worse than the potential gains. I'm all in favor of program simplicity, too, eh? Da BSA program is properly just an outline or loose structure that allows folks to build their own program within it. But I'm less impressed by Eagledad's description of #2, and I think he may have learned da wrong lesson from his experiences. He's certainly right in that most programs rely on da unique personal skills of an individual leader "pulling the strings" so to speak. Anyone who's worked with a lot of troops sees that. It does have risks, and is never perfectly sustainable. But in his NYLT example, it seems he's advocatin' for more like generating da least-common-denominator program, just because it feels more sustainable. That to my mind is settlin' on mediocrity. I prefer innovations that push things to a high level, relying on the folks who have talent and enthusiasm for the work "pulling the strings." Yep, they're not sustainable without other folks with talent & enthusiasm steppin' in. But while they're in place, they have a bigger impact, both short & long term. They're better than da least-common-denominator program. And I've always been a Baden-Powell style fellow, eh? Yeh need to find people with talent, Scoutmasters of "the right sort". Yeh can't successfully "train" folks without da talent for youth & outdoors work to muddle through, even if yeh make it "simple." So I guess it's just that I think in terms of people, more than program. Let good artists paint, don't make 'em use a paint-by-numbers coloring book. And if your business is all about painting, don't settle for folks who can only succeed with coloring books. Yeh need to find, feed, and care for your Eagledads. Now, yeh can't always be innovating, eh? Personally, the best combination I find is often when a talented fellow innovates, and then a friend who has been supportin' for long enough to understand takes over as more of a manager. Yeh lose somethin' in that transition, but the innovator often tends to be a guy who steps on toes, eh? The manager settles things down and provides some space for da next leader to step forward. A new "baseline" if yeh will. Then yeh hope the next fellow is one of the best young people who came out of the innovator's system and is another talented innovator. Beavah

It's just not possible that they do it so that there are special things that can only be done at Day Camp or a district webelos camping trip which helps make these events something special Hopefully not. I'll hop on my soapbox and recite da Beavah's constant refrain to districts and councils: We exist to provide service to help the units with their program, eh? They don't exist to provide service to da district or council, and their program shouldn't be hamstrung so as to make da district or council program more attractive. Fact is, lots of units don't have great districts or councils that offer such events, so they get shortchanged. Lots of units also can't avail themselves of district or council events, because of scheduling, or religious obstacles, or distance, or cost. The scoutin' program that those boys experience should not be weaker just because they are part of a weak district, or are remote, or whatnot. Leastways, not if there are other, non-council resources which can provide the program for 'em safely. Plus, close as I can tell, da accident rate for council activities is just as bad as for units. Sometimes it seems worse. Yah, there's a lot we can do. But in da troops and teams and crews, the youth leadership gets to choose what it wants, eh? And if we tell 'em its youth led, then we shouldn't put up artificial roadblocks in their path without a really well thought out good cause. Yep, ATV usage has never been a traditional part of scouting. Neither has mountain biking. Both are fun, interestin' to kids, and yeh can do good scouting with 'em. Plus it'd be really nice to teach some ATVers a scout-like courtesy and conservation ethic. Beavah

I just hope they don't legislate things to look like the old posters you used to see of a cowboy designed by OSHA. LOL. Yah, I had to go Google that one up, eh? Thanks for my daily dose of humor to keep me young at heart! http://www.sam-hane.com/sass/oshacowb.htm B

Yah, I've been through Fayette County, eh? They are obnoxious. Here's another fun one that I picked up from another northern Midwest state. About the only tale I know of where the State Police are actively goin' around and changin' local speed limits to eliminate speed traps: http://detnews.com/article/20100427/METRO05/4270380/Many-speed-limits-set-too-low Traffic enforcement is quite a revenue generator. Pays for lots of cops, judges, insurance company revenues, and even puts a few bucks in attorneys' pockets defendin' the poor fellow who has to drive a lot for his job and accumulates too many points funding these localities. Beavah

Yah, they never did a very good job with that site, eh? I think it was put up when they were dealin' with da membership-related issues. Now that da high-profile legal cases have shifted to sexual abuse-related issues, puttin' stuff up is a less attractive PR move. B

(a) an example of an innovation in Scouting that has already occurred Yah, how about da changes to WB21C? Or the move from JLT to da current more abbreviated TLT? I bet yeh could get Kudu to comment (b) a current problem that could use an innovative solution. How about da lack of effectiveness of the Commissioner Corps in many (most?) areas? Decline in camp use and revenues? Beavah

Holy smokes! Still more adult drama. So what we seem to have is a mouthy kid who, like many teens, made a mountain out of a molehill and got into one of these "I refuse to respect this adult" snits and then stalked off and quit. He made a big stink, didn't grow up, couldn't acknowledge his own poor behavior and apologize, and left da troop adults with a bad taste in their mouth. Yah, sure, the adults aren't perfect, eh? Not every adult is good at dealin' with mouthy, spoiled teens. But I can see them not wanting a lad who has quit under such circumstances hangin' around at other troop-related events like projects. And while it's not entirely fair to da other siblings, I can see after a big hulabaloo a troop wantin' a parent to come along on trips for a bit to take responsibility for their kids after they didn't feel fully supported by the parents when they had an issue with the oldest. That's the nature of a volunteer organization, eh? People spend time with other people's kids out of the kindness of their hearts. Yeh can't "make" them if they decide it's too much of a hassle. And besides, scoutdad had already agreed to come on outings with the oldest if he had continued, eh? Bringin' up some nasty hearsay things about the ASMs son (and the ASM is supposedly a "friend"??), plus gossip about the man's wife, just ain't appropriate. And that's all we have here, a bunch of hearsay from upset teens. Who among us hasn't had a teenager who we "grounded" for somethin' go on and on about all our other faults and failings . But it is telling, eh? If it's 5scoutmom's approach to gossip and make accusations, I can see why da volunteer leaders of the troop may just want to wash their hands of da family, especially after da experience with all the drama with oldest son. It might be Kamelian's criticism above should be taken to heart and reflected on by 5scoutmom as much as by the troop volunteers. 5scoutmom, I think yeh have to make a decision, eh? I think yeh either decide that you want your sons in this troop or you don't. If you do, then you apologize for your oldest son's behavior and for your accusations based on hearsay and hurt feelings, and then yeh follow whatever expectations the troop sets up and agree to support da troop leaders even when they make judgment calls yeh disagree with from afar. They were there, eh? And you were not. That's also how yeh keep adult leaders as "friends". If yeh can't do that, because yeh don't trust the judgment of these volunteers or yeh can't bring yourself not to engage in gossip or yeh feel yeh must defend your mouthy lad who can't bring himself to apologize, then that's a decision to leave the troop with your whole family. Which yeh should do with quiet dignity. There's no middle ground, eh? Same with da ASM. He can't be someone yeh want back as a friend and someone who can't be trusted who yeh don't want around your kid. So make a decision. But enough with da drama. Teens get into da drama thing, but they need us to be adults. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I think it would make sense to focus on the activities that other providers _don't_ regularly offer or that otherwise aren't readily available to youth. Nah. There are outfitters and other providers that offer all of da same things we offer, and then some. Except maybe funny-lookin' uniforms (well, then again, there's band...) Where scoutin' contributes is that it 1) offers a wide range of activities. 2) actually teaches how to do/lead the activities, rather than just do a guided tourist-type experience. 3) focuses on young folks. 4) uses da activities to also address citizenship/values. 5) is less expensive because it's largely a (worldwide) volunteer movement. 6) is a long-term, year-round program rather than a one-shot outing/activity. But there are lots of other providers, from Christian Camps to outdoor leadership schools to school clubs that do provide a lot of those things, eh? Each time we prohibit an activity or tie it up in too much paperwork, we lose somethin' that can be the "hook" for some kids. And that hurts da program. It reduces our appeal, and our ability to reach the boys. What have we lost? Let's see... -- ATVs (part of many teen camp programs and youth and adult outdoor recreation) -- Karate/Martial Arts (very popular among parents/youth) -- Basic fireworks in states where they're legal (wouldn't yeh like to make sure kids learn to handle such things safely, since we know they're goin' to use 'em?) -- Tethered hot air balloons (feature open even to little kids at many county fairs) -- Experimental class aircraft (like old warbirds) -- Go-carts (feature open even to young kids in many areas) -- Paintball -- Laser Tag -- Squirt guns -- Hunting (for boy scouts, even though in many areas it's a common activity for teens) -- Jet-Skis -- Tree climbing with safety gear (never did understand this, eh? We prohibit climbing with safety gear, but allow it without?) -- Bungee cord stuff (now a feature at many resorts and amusement parks) That's just da Unauthorized Activity list, eh? Then yeh run into all da other things where rules, recommendations or paperwork become prohibitive, like -- Our council had several EAA clubs stop offerin' BSA units orientation flights in aircraft and Aviation MB because the paperwork became too onerous. -- Da climbing guidance essentially prohibits most sport bouldering. -- Other ropes course/monkey bridge guidance restricts stuff that's common in many programs. -- A farmer can't operate somethin' as simple as a hay-ride for scouts or cubs (because he's not allowed to operate his own tractor without a BSA certified ranger supervising). -- Direct over-21 supervision now required for most activities, where common practice (even in BSA camps) is to use under-21 adults as supervisors. Biking, skating, backcountry hiking, swimming, etc. -- No use of cannons by reenactment crews. -- No BB guns for cub scouts and webelos -- No slow-moving river canoeing for cubs and webelos (a common family activity throughout da midwest) -- No small-lake rowboating for cubs or webelos (again, a common activity) -- No rafting for cubs or webelos (again, a common activity) -- No Webelos campin' without a parent (a common school activity for 4th or 5th graders) -- No Jumpin' off a rock into safe water (from more than 5 feet up) -- No Swimmin' when the water is deeper than 12 feet (includin' most Triathalons) -- No Swimmin' in many locations/areas where swimmin' is common (because SSD restrictions make it too onerous or not allowed) -- Hard to navigate rules for dealin' with youth and adults and genders in common cabin sleeping arrangements. -- Recommended no climbing for cubs -- Helmet requirements that aren't industry norms (ex. skiing, indoor climbing, etc.) and of course all da paperwork! And that's just from me spendin' a few minutes flippin' through G2SS, eh? Beavah

What do you do when a 19-year old female crew member shows up pregnant? And is married . I think Horizon's post reflects my views pretty well (there I go, jumpin' into bed with da darn Catholics again ). Yeh balance things for da circumstances, but act with compassion toward those who recognize and are taking responsibility for the consequences of their choices. And when a young person is truly in need of help and support, yeh don't shun her or separate her from da community that can provide that support. Beavah

LOL. Yah, a third of a century is a long time, eh? I just tied a bowline on a coil after maybe 8 years without a problem. Haven't been fly fishing in even longer, and just did a blood knot fine. For that matter, I haven't done long division since I was a school boy and I just tried it out again. No problem. But you're right, eventually for us old folks enough brain cells die as our brains shrink with age that we lose skills, reaction time, and all da rest. My 20 year old self could pound my current self in tennis. I don't think any of that applies to scout aged lads, though. Their brains are still grownin', not shrinkin'. When they earn snow sports MB one winter, they can strap on da snowboard the following winter wnd do just fine... often even better than they did the previous year. Beavah

Yah, SP, good point, eh? In my experience, da scouts are universally "harder" than the adults, eh? When yeh put a scout on a BOR, they want it to be tough and to mean something. When yeh let a PL test, he's really goin' to expect the boy to be able to cook. Da youth tend to be the most critical of boys they feel earned "paper" advancement. That having been said, boys will almost always follow da "culture" of the troop which is set ultimately by the adults. So if a lad is workin' at a camp where the norm is to be very lax about things, they'll be very lax about things. They don't "like" that, IMO, in that it doesn't make 'em happy or proud, so they'll do other things for fun, hang out and goof off more,etc. But they will follow da adult lead. That's why in my experience da real youth led troops have higher expectations for proficiency. Yeh need it for da youth to be independent. In turn the kids recognize, value, and are proud of it, and then they expect it of each other. Problem in some high functioning youth run units is da boys just forget about testing, eh? They just get into the fun, independence, and gettin' good at stuff that they forget about testing or advancement ( especially the adult-style bookwork requirements). In a lot of ways, advancement itself is an adult run thing. Like uniforming. Kids don't think that way unless pushed to by adults. Beavah

The idea that every Scout who gets signed off on a requirement is going to have learned that skill perfectly and continue to be the master of it indefinitely is a pipe dream. I learned knots as part of a Seattle Mountaineers climbing course, and that was true there as well. Yah, SeattleP, I'm not sure I understand this, eh? Why do yeh think it's a pipe dream? If a boy has learned how to swim, so that he can swim 100 yards in a strong manner, with resting and floating and confidence, do yeh really think he's not going to be able to swim next summer? Maybe if he never swims again for 30 years and suffers a stroke, but not in da timeframes we're talkin' about for scouting advancement. Those Seattle Mountaineer fellows I bet were good teachers, eh? And I bet if yeh ran into any of 'em this afternoon, they'd still be able to tie their knots. B

Should I not sign off on the requirement because the work doesn't meet my definition of proficiency in cooking? Yes, of course you should not sign off. Because yeh want the lad to actually learn and be independent, able to be a full member of a patrol that can operate without you being around. So if the lad hasn't achieved that yet, yeh have to keep helping him and encouragin' him until he does. Da thing is, I think CalicoPenn is right overall, eh? Having seen a lot of troops, I think each troop really does have different notions of what constitutes proficiency. That's OK in my book, to a point. A troop that is focused on lightweight backpackin' and equipped with nuthin' but JetBoil stoves might consider what Calico describes as being perfectly proficient cooking, while a troop that does primarily car camping with lots of Dutch Oven meals would expect somethin' different. I do think what happens fairly often in troops, though, is that I see general program weakness. In an adult-run unit, it's easy to define "proficiency" for signoffs as being "what a kid needs to be able to do with a bunch of competent adults hovering about" - which means "nothing.". As Kudu keeps sayin' with his 300 feet bit, if you're goin' to trust boys to be on their own without direct adult supervision, then proficiency in outdoor skills is necessary. It's necessary for patrol members and especially for leaders, so that's where yeh have to set your proficiency. Now, a car-camping troop might set da expectations a bit differently than a backpacking troop, but both will be fairly solid. But if you're an adult-run or troop-method unit, then real proficiency in outdoor skills isn't necessary for the boys, eh? So you're free to sign off outdoor skills at indoor meetings, shortly after Explain and Demonstrate, but without much (or any) time for da Guide and Enable steps so that the lad actually develops real experience. Those are da cases where I think people aren't using da program well, eh? I'm sorta with OGE, there's a certain gestalt to proficiency, which is easy to recognize when yeh see it. I can tell when a lad is ready for Canoeing MB just by watchin' 'em paddle. It doesn't need a separate test, though sometimes I'll set that up for fun. But just like those snowboarder fellows, there is also a standard of proficiency, as judged by instructors and peers, eh? If yeh can't really ride da rail, or make da grab on the half-pipe, you're just a poser in everybody's eyes. Doesn't matter if somebody signed a piece of paper, everyone knows yeh can't keep up with your peers, and you do too. To avoid that, I think yeh need to have a lot of time for guiding and enabling, eh? A lot of time for the lad to practice the skill and use da skill in the real world, on his own. So if yeh put the testing/sign off on the same night, or same week, or even same month as when yeh taught him the very first time, it's probably too quick. Beavah

I also don't see anything that requires one to be proficient in a skill to get a sign off. Yeh should read da Rules & Regulations of the BSA then, eh?! I think we also want kids to be proficient because that's what allows us to let da kids run patrol outings safely. Yeh can't let a patrol go on a day hike unless they really are proficient at (2nd class) navigation. If a lad isn't proficient at what to do when lost and the buddy system (Tenderfoot), it's not goin' to be safe trusting 'em on their own. Yeh can't allow a boy who can't light da stove safely (2nd Class) camp unsupervised 300 feet away. And goodness knows First Aid skills are useless if they're not proficient. I'm with Eagledad on this, eh? If by First Class Scout or Eagle Scout or a sign off we don't mean that a boy is proficient at certain skills, what's the point? In that case a badge is just like one of those "participation awards" every kid has a deskful of. "I was there" rather than "I can do". Yep, in order to become proficient at somethin', yeh really have to use da skills in real circumstances. That's why we EDGE, eh? It takes a lot of time on that final "E" before a lad has learned. They have to use the knot, spend time on the stove burning pancakes and figurin' out Dutch ovens, really navigating on trails. That's part of EDGE - part of the "A Scout Learns" step to advancement which happens before testing or sign off, not after. It also makes sign offs lest test-like, eh? Because yeh just watch the lad cook or navigate or set up the patrol dining fly using da right knots well, and when he's proficient yeh sign off. No extra test required. Now, if he gets the sign off this week but can't perform down the road, yeh have to look both at why the program didn't give him enough practice during da Guide And Enable steps, and why he got a bogus sign off that told him he was proficient when he really wasn't. It wasn't fair to the lad to give him poor feedback like that, when he should have been coached and encouraged to practice more. Yeh have to fix both things. Beavah's

For a Scout who has had a particular scout skill based requirement signed-off but I don't feel he doesn't have a real mastery of that skill, there is a real simple solution that I use - I make him an instructor of that skill and have him teach it to less experienced Scouts. Yah, I hear this one a lot in talkin' to some scouters. I'm curious what others think about it. Personally, I discourage people from using that approach. It just doesn't make any sense to me. First, I think it does a real disservice to the scouts who are tryin' to learn. Why wouldn't yeh give them your best instructor, rather than a fellow who doesn't know what he's doing? Would you want your son being taught how to swim by a boy who couldn't swim himself? Would yeh take CPR from someone who not only wasn't certified as an instructor, but didn't have mastery of da basic technique? If a lad can't reliably explain safety for lighting a stove, do yeh want him teaching others? Seems like it would only lead to more problems. We see this with adult trainers a lot, eh? When they don't have mastery of the material themselves and are pushed into a training position as a warm body, they tend to make stuff up, or pass along their own misunderstanding. That's where a lot of scouting urban legends come from. I also don't see it as a particularly nice thing to do to a boy, eh? If he doesn't understand himself, putting him up in front of others is only going to be embarrassing for the lad. Why would yeh want to embarrass the scout? Even when a lad knows his stuff, he also has to learn how to teach (whether it's EDGE or somethin' more in depth). I know da first time I teach something I don't do a great job, usually. Not because I don't know the stuff but because I don't yet know what da learners will have difficulty with or how long it will take (I always seem to run over!). Teaching means yeh have to know something very well, so that you can adjust on the fly to the difficulties a student might be having. I think that's why we have positions for older scouts like TG and Instructor, eh? It's a privilege to teach, that comes when you have mastered the skill and have been through TLT/NYLT and developed da basic skills of teaching. Not something you assign a scout whose skills are weak as a type of punishment. MNSHO, anyways. What do the rest of yeh think? Beavah

Yah, SR540 my fellow Beaver brought up an interesting question in da parent thread that I didn't want to get lost. For advancement, Step 1: A Scout Learns Step 2: A Scout is Tested In your programs, how do yeh separate the two? Do different people test then do the instruction? Do yeh build in a delay so that the scout can practice and improve, or do yeh test immediately after he has been taught the skill? How much experience does a lad have with the skill at the point when he is tested? Does it vary for things that yeh feel are "less important" in your troop? Beavah

Kudos and congrats to dah Beavah for reading and now agreeing with the BSA references posted by OGE and Acco40 and moosetracker earlier in this thread. I was always just fine with da references, FScouter. Just as I'm sure you were fine with all of my references on all those pages. What I was suggesting was that yeh have to read all of da BSA materials, and understand 'em in context. In that way I disagreed with moosetracker and others in their interpretation of the complete scouting program, based on my experience. And in moose's case I wasn't disagreeing with her, as it turned out, just with what she remembered a bunch of other folks told her. Besides, it's a discussion, eh? It's OK to argue and disagree. But yeh haven't yet shared what you feel, eh? Surely yeh can tell us what your troop does and how it thinks about these things? What your personal experiences have been with da challenges of implementing these program features? Whether yeh feel da cooking examples I gave above reflect what you do in your troop or how you'd handle those differently in your program? Do you use BoRs as program audits/evaluations rather than Journey to Excellence? I thought SR540 had a great question: when do yeh choose to "test" in your troop? Right after the boy has been taught? Do yeh build in a delay for practice? Do yeh wait until a PL says the lad is ready? What do yeh think about Kudu's notion that the BoR is all an adult-run hijack of da traditional scouting program (the same point Eagledad made in the original thread)? Instead of talkin' about individual posters, why don't yeh take some time to share some scouting thoughts and ideas? This has been an interesting discussion. Yeh should join it. Beavah