Beavah

I'm amazed this thread is still goin'! I figured it had to be people arguing for or against Pluto. Now here it is yeh want to take Saturn's Day away from him and make me write my name in hexadecimal! Me personally, I'm offended by trees on public property. Having rocks and trees and plants on public property makes public property a welcoming place for druid types of worship. That's clearly a violation of da establishment clause. I think all trees need to be removed from public property. Call da loggers! Beavah

We have lost at least 15 boys in 9 months because nothing is getting done correctly Yah, this would concern me a bit. But then a group of new parents and ASMs who wanted to help and do things for the boys would concern me a bit in the other direction. Most experienced SM's put some brakes on that kind of "helpfulness." I think it's telling that your son says it's a six out of ten and is fine with it. My guess is that's probably where things are at for most of the kids. Just a guess. I think you're still back to #1 or #2, mate. But if yeh want to continue the conversation (please don't continue the fight!), your next step is the COR and the IH. Perhaps bring your unit commissioner, respectfully share your perspective, let 'em know you and some others may also be leaving. Encourage 'em to talk to the other side, and to make a decision. It's their program, eh? They can replace the CC and the SM with a flick of their Bic. If it hadn't gotten to a vote-em-out shoutin' match, they might also have finessed a nice retirement and transition . Before they replace the CC and SM, though, they'll have to consider how many folks may leave because of that. The SM's and CC's kids for sure, and their friends. Maybe all the folks who voted to keep the SM, eh? That's pretty rough on those older lads especially. Probably lose 'em from Scouting. Dat's the problem with these adult wars. Makes for hard "no good answer" choices for the Organization, and inevitably leaves a string of kid "bodies" on the floor. Be understandin' of the CO's position, and polite. If yeh go that way, it's like askin' the superintendent to fire both the school principal and the football coach who've been there for years, because you don't like the way the football team is doin' things in your first year (while your son thinks it's on the upside of just fine). And then be ready to choose #1 or #2, or to step up and be SM. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I think what I'm trying to say is that meeting the requirement should be seen as a beginning not an end. Yah, I think this is exactly the purpose of my question, eh? To get a sense of where different people draw their line. For some it is "proficiency", for others, it's "introduction", for others it's "exposure to." That's what I was tryin' to capture with my #3, #2, #1. From what I see in units, though, I don't think there's any worries about a lad thinkin' it's over his head and not even tryin'. If he's in a unit that does #1, it'll be new, and scary, but he'll be gettin' encouragement and he'll be seein' other kids succeeding and say "I can do this." If he's in a unit that sets the bar at #3, it'll be new, and scary, but he'll be gettin' encouragement and seein' other kids succeeding and say "I can do this." IMO the only spot where there's problems is if a lad transfers between units of different types, or runs into an EBOR with adults who set the bar different from what he's used to. That's where we get all the "don't add to the requirements/kids have no skills" arguments. Thanks, gwd, for some great examples, eh? Your experience matches with mine. Units that do #2 and are very active might have one or two lads make FCFY, but 18 months is more typical. Da units that do #1 have a lot of lads make FCFY. Units that do #3 are typically 2-3 years to First Class. It seems to me that da choice also corresponds a bit to how advancement-driven a unit is. To really push FCFY (#1), most of a unit's program has to be focused on advancement, at least for NSP. Units that treat the requirements like an introduction (#2) have room for other things, to put the introduction in context and have some other fun. Troops that do proficiency for signoffs (#3) seem to be mostly activity/outing focused rather than advancement focused to me, so it's normal that a lad will have several experiences plannin' a weekend's meals just in the normal course of things before he's signed off as proficient, or he'll have been on enough float trips to have a good sense for rules & safety, so planning safety for such a trip himself is only a small step up. I'm not a strong advocate of one way over another, though I really like the kids in #3 type units. They get to FC and leadership roles at age 13-14, right when they're really ready (ages & stages) to step out and lead, and they've got some confidence and skills to do it. In terms of positive kid outcomes, those are the units I point to most often. Dat's why I think the BSA sets proficiency as its standard (on the one hand). I know fine units of all three flavors, though. Kid proficiency requires adult expertise, and that ain't always available, eh? An introduction (#2) may be best, then. And for some CO's like our LDS friends, #1 makes more sense, especially if yeh only get one night of camping per month instead of two, eh? So da BSA also sets FC emphasis and FCFY program goals as a counterpoint to da proficiency standard. Any other folks? Where do yeh do a signoff for a requirement, at #1, #2, or #3? And when do your lads typically make First Class? Beavah

Yah, GW had an interestin' rant in da parent thread that really merited a different venue . He offers the followin' commentary about his 50-person troop: When push comes to shove, I think that most boys in Scouting are only there because their parents want them there.... the Philmont crew started taking sign-ups in September or October but wasn't full until April or May....The real problem was that most of the boys didn't want to do the mandatory training hikes....Adventure? They had a caving expedition set up but it was cancelled because only three boys wanted to go....Rock climbing? Nah. COPE. Nope. Kayaking? Might get wet. Ski trip is cool because you get to hang out in the lodge and play video games. So I figured I'd move it over here since it's probably a good topic for other troops, too. Me, I think kids are kids. They aren't any different now than they were 50 years ago. So when I hear a tale like this, I sit down with da unit leaders and try to help 'em see what their role is in creatin' this culture, and how they can change and do better rather than blamin' it on the kids. One of the things that's true about kids is that they're a pretty conservative bunch, just like most humans. They tend to stay in their "comfort zones" where they know they can succeed. Doin' a new activity is scary. Not because it might be cold or wet, really, but because they might not succeed. They might not be good at it. Their friends might make fun of them. Goin' to Philmont or goin' kayaking is a "known" thing for us, eh? We're already good at it. But for them, it's the great big scary Unknown, way outside their comfort zone. Yeh get kids to engage with scary unknown adventure the same way yeh get a kid down his first rappel. 1) You start small. Day bike trips. Easy, good-weather backpack trips. A 3 foot rappel. Build some experience and some success. 2) You build a personal relationship of trust and enthusiasm. When a lad steps backwards for the first time off a rappel tower, that's an awesome act of trust and faith in the adult who's talkin' him down. And that adult is throwin' everything he's got into bein' encouraging, and supportive, and enthusiastic... probably even a few of the lad's friends or older scouts are joinin' in, too. Same is true for kids goin' on a scary new trek. It relies on a deep relationship of trust with the adult leader(s), and a lot of the adult and older lads throwin' their all into encouraging, supporting, and being enthusiastic. 3) You end medium, but yeh talk big. A lad makin' it down a short climbing tower rappel is really only a minor or mid-level achievement in the adult world, eh? But when it happens, we talk it up like it was da Second Coming! We comment on how awesome it was, we listen to the lad tell the tale over and over, we watch as younger lads get swept up in the enthusiasm. Same with startin' into more adventurous outings. Yeh end on a "medium" difficulty thing, but yeh talk it up like they just climbed K2. Then next time they're a bit more willing to step into the unknown, and the next group of lads comin' up is almost eager, because it ain't "unknown." Anybody else got suggestions for GW? Beavah

Hi Jwall, welcome to da forums! Sorry to hear you're havin' difficulty in your troop. My question would be "What does your son think?" Is he happy? Is he havin' a good time and learning? Lots of times I've seen adults get their knickers all in a twist over personality disagreements that really don't have much to do with da kids. Sometimes Eagle Scout dads are da worst, because they want the troop their son is in to be the way their old troop was, eh? Youth leadership is one method out of 8 in Scoutin'; some troops emphasize it more than others. And an experienced SM & CC can look like "dictators" to a group of first year parents who come in with a webelos mindset or a different vision... until they hang around a while and da next set of first year parents consider them to be dictators. All that's by way of sayin' "take a deep breath, and stand down on the assault." As GW points out, as a parent you don't necessarily get a say in who da SM is, any more than you get a say in who the band director or varsity soccer coach is. Yeh only get a say in the example of a respectful, thoughtful, kind person yeh give your son. He'll follow your example when he has "issues" with teachers and coaches and "authority." IMO, GernBlansten's got the right of it. Yeh sit with da SM like a friend over a cup of joe. Not just once, but a couple of times so he has a chance to think about things and make changes even if he disagrees durin' the conversation. Yeh listen as much as talk. Yeh praise the good things as much as address da things you see as challenges. And then yeh do the same with the CC. Perhaps even the COR/IH. Unfortunately, it's probably too late for that in your case. Once yeh try to lead a revolt and vote the SM out you've burned all your bridges. Your decision at this point is either: 1) My son is doing fine and likes the troop. He stays in, and I apologize, stay away and stay quiet. 2) My son doesn't like the troop either, so we leave in favor of a new troop. In answer to your specific question about "rules and regulations about being a SM", the real answer is "don't go there." But da technical answer is "they're right." The SM isn't required to go campin'. I know some fine older SM's who are past their high adventure days and had to stay out of the field for long stretches for health reasons, but their troop is active and they do an outstandin' job as friend and mentor and coordinator. Best of luck with your and your son's decision! Beavah

Our national commissioner, Don Belcher spoke at a gathering of commissioners in Minneapolis 2 summers ago. He was wearing a knot that was red with a silver background... Whatever it was, it was not official. Yah, red square knot on white twill (sometimes looks silverish) is a Heroism Award. It is official. I reckon Don didn't remove it from his uniform because it was not allowed. Rather, followin' guidelines, he wears a uniform shirt which is clean and uncluttered, limitin' it to 5 knots corresponding to wearin' 5 medals (in which he is pictured in a recent Scouting Magazine). I believe he's wearin' his Silver Critters, a James E. West, and a (Distinguished) Eagle Scout, though some of you may have better eyes All are awards related to his current role in da organization, as is right and proper. I assure you, Don has earned more knots than the 5 he's wearin', and takin' off one to make room for his Silver Buffalo doesn't mean it was an unofficial knot . Beavah

Yah, thanks GWD! Would yeh say you are also around #2 for the other examples? B

Yah, I like "warm and cuddly." My way of puttin' it is that a Unit Commissioner should be like da world's nicest grandpa or grandma. B

Lets not sully the name of FCFY with examples of troop practices which have nothing to do with the BSA advancement program. FScouter is right, of course, in terms of intent. I tend to take a slightly broader view, though. When yeh consider the merits of a policy or program, I don't think it's enough just to consider its intent. Yeh have to also consider it's unintended consequences. Rule by a Philosopher King is great in theory, and in practice if yeh can achieve it. But one of da unintended consequences of a monarchy is that yeh get lousy, despotic kings too. So it turns out a democracy with checks and balances is really better. Same might be da case with FCFY. It might be great in intent/theory, or even in practice a few places. But if it has a lot of unintended poor consequences when other folks try to implement it, it might not be da best to recommend as a the national program. Beavah

:) :) Yah, Oak Tree, good luck with this exercise, eh? In case yeh haven't noticed, almost all of da BSA program materials could use a good continuity editor. Or in some cases just a good editor. We're a national organization, but it's really a small publishin' operation, run by folks who aren't necessarily "immersed" in the program (ex. editing and writing done by outside consultants). New materials get da most attention, continuin' supplementary materials like the Insignia Guide just get quick modifications shoved in between print runs. No time for much else. It's OK to identify faults, I suppose. Just remember a Scout is Kind. And understanding. And just because the Insignia Guide warms the heart of the Uniform Police at Christmastime doesn't mean it's somethin' that gets much attention in Irving. Beavah

Yah, in answer to your question, da purpose of the youth member exception in the "old" version was to allow for da use of competent youth as relief drivers on long car rides, to give the adult drivers a break and keep things safe. The wordin' change a few years back was to allow registered 20-year-old Venturing "youth" members to attend OA and Venturing Area/Regional events without puttin' a registered adult in each car. And for things like Jambo, where da number of adults allowed per contingent couldn't drive everybody, makin' it a bit silly for some council contingents. Yah, sure, H&S tend to trip over themselves when writin' policy language . But da way to think about this is that minors driving generally aren't allowed, except when common sense would pretty clearly and unequivocally dictate otherwise. But if yeh want to read da BSA language verbatim, as Eamonn describes, your 17-year-old son is only permitted to drive to Area, Regional, or National events, eh? Not troop outings. Not council camporees. Only something like NOAC or Michigan International Camporee or Jambo. "Area event" means something hosted by one of da BSA's multi-state Area administration zones. "Regional event" means something hosted by a BSA administrative Region, etc. Any unit can establish da meet-up spot and tell folks they're "on their own" for transportation to that point, eh? So for a troop meeting, we just say "7pm at the VFW" and parents can do whatever they want to get their lads there. Not on our dime, so to speak. Same with if yeh drop your kid off two days late for camp. G2SS only applies to unit organized transportation to an event. As to signin' stuff, there's no obligation for you to sign anything, eh? And likewise, there's no obligation for the unit to allow your son to participate on any event, or even remain registered in da BSA. Be careful about playin' hardball. I'm with Oak Tree. There's got to be somethin' more to this story. Signin' agreements to troop rules is pretty ordinary, the drivin' restriction is pretty ordinary. There ain't much inconvenience if your son can drive to da meet up point, leave his car and hop in with an adult driver for the outin'. Plus then yeh know he can't "sneak out for a nightcap" while he's on da trip. What else is goin' on that's got yeh wound up? Beavah

Yah, donert, like GW says, it's just fine for a troop to put that kind of additional restriction on, eh? A lot of troops do, because sometimes kids drivin' other kids don't pay as much attention, or they don't want to get into things like "Billy can drive, he's responsible, but we don't think Johnny is there yet." I know some troops that won't let 18-year-olds who are still in high school drive on events. No harm, no foul, perfectly OK legally, perfectly OK with da BSA, good communication with the parents. I'd say what you describe is a fine example of a well-run, thoughtful troop. Beavah

Rules and policies are not guides. What are the consequences for not following these? I've heard that da District Executive is authorized to report you to the Big Man in the Red Jac-shirt.... and he might put coal in your stocking! Beavah

I've found: 1) Kids on BOR's were much better at talkin' to other kids than adults are. They speak the same language. I confess I find sometimes that even I don't get what a fellow adult is askin' sometimes . 2) Kids on BOR's were much better at askin' practical, specific, skill-based questions. (Some of folks might now call "retesting.") 3) Adults on BOR's are usually better at askin' abstract Oath & Law type questions. 4) Kids are more blunt about dealin' with behavior/Scout Spirit issues than adults, and usually set higher standards than adults. Sometimes it even creeps up to bein' too high a standard . 5) Kids are usually less picky about things like uniform patches and memorized stuff than some of da picky adults are. 6) Effectiveness of kid BOR's depend a lot on developin' a healthy unit culture. Having an adult present, at least sometimes, helps to keep that healthy culture in place, and keep the standards from creepin' too high. 7) Kids on BOR's provided a lot "tighter" feedback to the PLC and youth participants about expectations. These days in adult committee BOR's it feels far looser, with the feedback bein' very weak. O'course, I'm a fan of youth leadership, eh? I like to see da lads participate at all levels of the program, including' advancement reviews. Beavah

Yah, I agree OGE. Now, can yeh (or anyone else) pick a lad from your troop perhaps, and describe his experience (level of participation, sequence of events, signoff skill expectations, etc.) that allowed him to get First Class in his First Year? Would yeh describe him as an "average" lad or a "very active and driven" lad for your program? I think it might help folks to see and talk about examples, rather than theory. That helps answer questions like if you're a 9 month-a-year LDS unit campin' out only on Friday night, can yeh get there? If yeh can, does it happen because you devote a lot of meeting time to "classes?" etc. B

Eamonn's meal plannin' example is pretty good, so with his permission, I'm goin' to look at in detail a bit, eh? Help plan patrol meals for a weekend: When he looks at this. He already knows about the food pyramid. He knows about the nutritional needs. He has seen and helped with the meals at other Camp outs in the past. He is feeling that he can do this! At this point, the lad need only have been on 2 campouts, eh? Workin' on his third. Close as I can tell from bein' with kids, there's a big difference between knowin' the food pyramid and being able to plan a tasty set of meals. How much experience do we really think is necessary for a new scout to learn meal planning? make a list showing the cost and food amounts needed to feed three or more boys and secure the ingredients. He might need a bit of help with this one. Just how many slices of bread are in a loaf? What does it cost? If da lad needs help, does he get the signoff? Or is that part of A Scout Learns (step #1), so yeh don't sign off on him that time, he has to do it again, a second (or third, or fifth) time without any help, before he gets signed off? On one campout, serve as your patrol's cook. Supervise your assistant(s)... Prepare the breakfast, lunch, and dinner planned in requirement 4a. Having met all the other requirements and having worked through the Tenderfoot and Second Class requirements, he is now ready, prepared and able to take this one on!! In Tenderfoot he helped cook one meal. In Second Class he cooked one meal. Is that really enough to be ready to supervise others in the kitchen? Does cookin' one meal successfully really give yeh da skill to cook different meals successfully? Is it OK to limp through da planning and cooking of one day's meals and then never do it again and be "cleanup guy" for da rest of your scoutin' career? Is that da level of independence and skill that First Class means to us, and that sets a kid up for success as a PL to earn higher ranks? Just makin' conversation, of course . It clearly is enough for many troops, but not enough for many others. I'm interested in how people here think about it, eh? Beavah

Looking at one requirement is not the way to go? Yah, I agree. I was just choosin' an example. Da question is about Steps 1 & 2 in Advancement: A Scout Learns (what does it take to really learn? How much practice is needed for an average lad?), and a Scout is Tested (what is each of our standards for a signoff)? Here's some others. Which would be your signoff level for this one: 1. Swam 75 yards usin' doggy paddle/head up crawl (might have grabbed pool edge briefly after each 25 yards); struggled through 25 yards of backstroke and float. Barely made it, but tried real hard. 2. 75 yards of flailing forward stroke that was better than dog paddle but exhausting (without grabbin' pool edge). Float and backstroke were OK but not really restful. 3. 75 yards of solid crawl or breast stroke that left a boy tired but more than able to continue swimming; 25 yards of good elementary backstroke and float that let him rest well so he could continue swimmin' strongly. Or perhaps: 1. Recite the 9 points of Safety Afloat from a Safety Afloat Card or from memory (with a few prompts/hints). 2. Recite the 9 points of Safety Afloat and describe 'em, using a Safety Afloat Card. 3. Put together a plan for a patrol or troop float trip (which incorporates da Safety Afloat issues "in context" as part of the plan). Maybe: 1. Demonstrate a head bandage or collarbone sling usin' materials partially pre-tied by the last person, with someone givin' hints/talkin' him through it. 2. Put on a head bandage or collarbone sling from scratch; might not be quite tight enough so that it would probably fall off after a 5-10 minutes but it's good enough (or gets removed after a minute so no one knows). 3. Responds to a scenario that involves a head wound or collarbone fracture, accomplishes the diagnosis and treatment on his own during the scenario. Makes a fine bandage using improvised or troop first aid kit materials rather than specialty gear. My guess is that folks who are closer to #3 are more traditionalists, eh? Troops that view FC as meanin' somethin' special like what BP meant by it in terms of personal independence. Those might not be FCFY programs, eh? 'Cause I reckon the A Scout Learns time needs to be longer, eh? If yeh expect a lad to apply Safety Afloat, then he has to have participated on several float trips where he got experience & practice with safety stuff, rather than (just) learnin' da 9 steps at a meeting? B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, in da parent thread OGE talks about how FCFY isn't a goal for kids so much as it is a program objective for units. To offer enough to make it possible for an active scout to get there. Trevorum then jumps in and has the audacity to suggest FC should be earned in da context of havin' fun and using the other Methods in the outdoors, and a schedule that da PLC sets rather than a "standard curriculum." So perhaps somebody can describe what it looks like for a lad in their program to make FC in a year. How many outings a month are yeh runnin'? Are you countin' on near 100% attendance? Do yeh make weekly meetings into "classes" rather than outing-themed? Are your signoffs closer to #1 or #3 in the grandparent thread? At the end, does the lad really have solid skills so that he can function confidently and independently in the woods, and is therefore ready to start takin' responsibility for leadin' others? Beavah

Yah, da historical change was based on analysis of a bunch of different trends, eh? 1) A lot of attrition happens in the first year of Boy Scouting. 2) Boys who make First Class tend to stay in Boy Scouting. 3) Young boys are intimidated by older boys and sometimes the older boys aren't the most welcoming. 4) Large, successful troops often did some sort of special "orientation" program for new boys. Put 'em all in the stew and yeh get New Scout Patrols (#4), with select TG's and a designated ASM (#3), and First Class emphasis (#2) all to reduce first year attrition (#1). This was also when youth members were dropped from BOR's (#3). Well-intended program changes based on real data. Perhaps not the right data nor da best reasoning, but that's always da danger with statistics. Beavah

No guessin' about da three possibilities? I'm not sure there is a right answer, eh? Personally, I'm sorta fond of #3, in that troops that work that way tend to be ones where I really admire da kind of young men their kids get to be before they leave, eh? But I also see a lot of #1 and #2 out there, and they can do fine, too. B

Yah, I think speculatin' on what donert really means is probably not worth it, eh? Some of what he's suggestin' sounds like it might be as simple as a troop havin' its own permission slip/liability waiver. Best to wait for him/her to come back to us with more information. Beavah

Figured I'd spin this off from da parent thread just because it seemed like a good separate thread without hijacking the original. Firecat asks: Who came up with the idea of 'first class, first year' and why? Most kids are not emotionally ready for any of the responsibilities of the rank which can lead to feelings of failure. Kinda doesent seem to be working in our troop. It is either creating power crazy 'leaders' who just sit back and give orders or ones that avoid trying leadership.Do any of you have the same trouble? How have you handled it?

Yah, 1Vigil has been goin' around resurrecting old threads of interest, and in the parent thread joins jblake in talkin' about how FCFY used to be FCThreeYears, and how there's a lot of "did it once" rather than "learned it well" signoffs. I'm kinda curious. Using one of jblake's examples, what would yeh say merits a First Class signoff: 1. Planned a weekend's meals with a fair bit of help and/or went very simple: oatmeal breakfast, sandwiches lunch, hobo dinner. 2. Planned a reasonable weekend's meals with little help, but mostly copied previous month's meal plan. 3. Planned a weekend's meals multiple times until becoming pretty good at it, then demonstrated a complete, healthy meal plan with zero help. All three can be interpreted as fulfillin' da requirements, eh? Probably only the last one meets the BSA standard of proficiency. But then that's hard to get to in a year, eh? Especially if yeh use NSP and they're takin' turns planning one meal a month. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I take Chinet paper bowls. You eat your meal and then burn the bowl in the campfire. Seems pretty wasteful to me, just to avoid cleanin' a bowl. Also make sure yeh check da regs. Burnin' even paper food bowls in fires ain't exactly what we'd call good LNT practice, and is discouraged/inappropriate in some states and management areas. http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/gmfl/green_mountain/recreation_management/wilderness/index.htm http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.jkLXJ8MQKtH/b.788825/k.8CB0/Leave_No_Trace.htm Beavah

Yah, MV, I guess we all have our pet peeves, eh? Can't say as I worry too much about a commish who occasionally indulges an Insignia Guide pet peeve, if it's done privately and courteously. Best to remember that walkin' up to a kid yeh don't know and correctin' him on some small uniformin' point is a bit like walkin' up to an adult yeh don't know at a business event and correctin' his grammar. Yeh might be right, but that ain't what you're likely to be remembered for. So while pet peeves can be occasionally tolerated, for the other 99% of the time I expect a UC to be a courteous friend to a unit. Best ones are good observers and listeners, who then focus on the one or two small improvements that will help da unit the most to provide a better program, and that they're likely to be receptive to. Don't reckon that square knot devices (from da Insignia Guide footnotes!) are likely to fit that category, eh? Or if they really are, then dat's a fantastic unit that really doesn't need a commissioner, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)