Beavah

All this can be done, but the CC and SM need a buy-in from the IH down to the PLC. If we really believe that our Troops are Boy-Led, then the PLC is the body who have to want to stop using the mills to get quickie advancement. Yah, I've seen several units that have done exactly this. One of da side effects is that the boys get somewhat uncharitable toward the badge mill units. They see someone with 50+MB's and roll their eyes and ask how many of them are "real." But they do take great pride in the badges they've earned. I've also noted over the years that the counselors who stick to makin' boys really learn the requirements and make badges a real opportunity/challenge are the ones that the boys respect the most.

Whats going to happen is the will end up banning all groups. Could be, but it's really hard to pull that off in a way a competent attorney can't blow holes in if someone wants to challenge it. What is for sure is that the school district will settle or lose this case. Can you imagine the argument "we banned this group because their flyers mentioned parents' statutory rights." Rights which the district should have been educatin' parents about in the first place?

Yah, Gonzo, in the big picture view of things I agree with Lisa'bob. It's OK for you to protect the boys and keep their meeting plans on track one evening, but dealin' with Betty just isn't your job, eh? You're not the SM. You're not the CC. You ain't the CO either, eh? You're the new guy. Slow down the train. Take a year or three, and be content with that gradual improvement. The boys need that time, too, to learn new ideas. Give other adults space to learn and to do their jobs in their way and at their pace. Yah, yeh wouldn't step in and take charge from the boys when they're not doin' it perfect, would yeh? Then don't step in on the CC or SM. Where appropriate, give 'em some gentle feedback privately in the same way you would for the SPL. Then be willing to let them fail, in the same way you would for the SPL. Beavah

When the NSP concept was originally created it was advised that the positions of PL and APL be rotated monthly until each member of the patrol had a chance to experience at least one of the positions. Yah, ajmako, I'm not one of the Scoutin' historians around here, but I was on council training staff all through that transition. I can't remember ever seeing this version. I know it's not in any of the current materials (where as Eagle76 points out, NSP PL is supposed to be an elected, not an appointed/rotated office, though the election can be more frequent, like 3 months. The boys are of course free to elect the same boy again). I don't keep my old stuff around when the new stuff comes out (too easy to get all confuddled), so I can't look it up to see if it was a brief blip. But back to the question, ajmako, have you used this appoint-a-rotating-PL thing in your troop, and if so what was your experience with it? Theory and speculation are OK things to muse on, but the proof is in the pudding of hard reality and experience. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

A ten or eleven-year-old needs to learn Scoutcraft to be warm and dry and well-fed and confident in the wilderness. The leadership stuff is better learned by him observing the best older Scout in the Troop as his close-range Patrol Leader role model. Yah, OK, I think I finally understand Kudu. The examples really help, eh? So in this view, FCFY or somesuch is OK, to the extent that First Class reflects solid personal scoutcraft that allows the boy to be personally comfortable and confident, to the point he can begin contributin' to the group. Older boys do the role modeling in the same way EagleDad describes. But because younger guys don't yet know how to recognize when an older scout has solid scoutcraft skills and a good "leadership personality" (scout spirit?), PL's are appointed. That way boys might not learn about the perils of an uninformed electorate, but they are much more likely to have an example of good leadership to learn from. Kudu talks about not havin' a "Scout Spirit" requirement in a BP system, but in a lot of ways it sounds like there's an adult-determined "Scout Spirit" requirement before being appointed to PL or another POR. So it's still there, it's just been moved from the tail end to the front end. Not "evaluation" as much - more like "setup." Am I gettin' that right? Beavah

Yah, in another thread we were talkin' about "punishments." BSA literature is remarkably sparse about offerin' techniques for managing kid behaviors, and that sinks a lot of leaders who don't have prior experience working with groups of teens. So, in you unit, how do you handle misbehaviors? Concrete examples are better, try to avoid "theories of constructive discipline". What do you actually do? Yeh might choose to respond to behaviors in three different levels Simple/frequent (like civil infractions ex. parking tickets). Examples might be doing a lousy job at a chore, using a bad word, dropping litter in the campsite More serious, but not awful (misdemeanors). Perhaps a no-injuries shoving match with a friend, mouthing off to the SM, etc. Serious (scouting "felonies"). Stealing, bullying, etc.

Yah, Eamonn had the fortitude to go pull all that exists in the BSA literature. If yeh read carefully, nowhere does the BSA literature actually give a single idea or example to an adult leader that they can use. That's particularly rough for a new SM or ASM, who doesn't have an established "reputation" with the boys to rely on. Hmmm... maybe time for a new thread.

In another thread, OGE writes about the BSA new scout patrol system, but with a big tweak: They have a Troop Guide and an ASM assigned to them and they rotate the Patrol Leaders job on a monthly basis until all have been in the position... Yah, I had never heard of/seen this particular permutation of the system, where you rotated individual new scouts through the PL position for a one month stretch, before I started lookin' at this forum. It's not in any of the regular literature, where the BSA states the NSP runs just like a regular patrol, with a long-term, elected patrol leader. And no troops around here do it, so I haven't been able to watch it in action. So I'm curious to learn a new trick. For those of you out there who do this appoint-a-rotating PL method, how does it work for you? What are the advantages you think you're getting from it? What are the downsides? Do yeh find that it's at all rough on quieter/less experienced lads? Is one month really enough time for a lad to make mistakes and learn from 'em, with a chance to do better? Are the boys better followers havin' been in the "hot seat"? Do they do a better or worse job with elections (no election experience, but have seen everyone in the hot seat to know how well they do)? How involved do your TG and ASM-NS need to be? Thanks! Beavah

For the first 12 months of it's existence, the OBS'ers operate as a new scout patrol.... When the following years cross oversarrive, the OBS Patrol moves out of New Scout Patrol status and becomes a "regular patrol"... In three years, they graduate to the level of a Venture Patrol. Yah, OGE, that's my reading of the current BSA model, although the materials also hint at other options. This setup is different from BP's "permanent" patrols in that the patrol dies (no later than) when the boys age out. A true "permanent" patrol can last for 30 years or more, as new boys are added and others age out. A son might be in the same Burning Bobcats patrol that his dad was when he was a lad. Very similar to the British public school house system now immortalized by the Harry Potter stuff. Da on-the-ground reality most places though is that attrition happens. So those 8 boys who joined as an NSP become 6 boys and then 4. On any given outing only half can come, so at some point you no longer have a functioning patrol. That either means that you do the bad thing and "reconfigure" patrols to create a new, viable patrol, or yeh do the worse thing and create "temporary" patrols each outing that are viable. I think there's three major versions of "patrol method" out there: Age-Based Patrols as described above. Traditional Patrols where new boys join an existing permanent patrol. Hybrid where new boys join a NSP for a short period of between 4 and 12 months, and then move out of the NSP into existing mixed-age permanent patrols. Kinda like the military "boot camp" model, with an ASM Lieutenant and a TG sergeant. They each have their advocates, eh? Small troops of course have to be traditional. Very large "mega" troops are often age-based, with semi-independent programs. Mid-sized troops are all over the place, eh? But it shows the tension in the BSA materials between the old BP/Hillcourt progressives and other influences. Beavah

The BSA's description of "regular" patrols (as per the SM Handbook) suggests the BSA expects regular patrols to be permanent patrols. Yah, they're samplin' cactus buttons, eh? The SM Handbooks says they want patrols to be "peers similar in age & achievement (aka rank)". But that's not a permanent patrol. Anybody who lives in da real world will tell you that normal attrition will make that patrol too small to be workable by the time they get very far into high school if not sooner. And of course, when they age out, the patrol dies. Steppin' back to a bigger picture, it's worth rememberin' that BP was a veritable paragon of progressive education from the era of John Dewey and all those folks. I believe that just like in the rest of the education world, there's tension in scouting between the progressive tradition of BP and Hillcourt and the back-to-basics/adult-run drill & practice crowd. So lots of the BSA materials reflect the tug-of-war between Baden-Progressive and Adult-Organized. Almost schizophrenic it is. The BSA materials on patrols are just one example. Kudu might be right, though. Over the years, even over the last 10, I think the progressive stuff has been increasingly squeezed by adult regulation.

Lowes and Home Depot are now offering MBs at their stores on weekends for plumbing, carpentry, etc. A few of our scouts have taken advantage of it and seem happy with the results. Yah, this is the sort of thing I'd like to see more of. The Flight Instructors at our local community airport offer Aviation MB the same kind of way. It's a much better system than the MB days. Beavah aka Tom Marvolo Riddle (with a wink and a nod to LongHaul, eh? )

What packsaddle said is most common around here. Yeh also have to be mindful of what the denominations want. I know our Catholic diocese gives out the Catholic religious awards (all levels - cubs, scouts, venturers, and adults) at an annual scout mass with the bishop. If a boy can't make that there's a procedure for the pastor givin' the award at the local parish. Our Methodist sponsored troop likes to give out their award at a parish service. Just depends, eh? But it's nice to have scouting visible and boys recognized by the broader community, especially when they are unit sponsors. The best troops I know would encourage all their boys to attend the award ceremony for one of their scouts, wherever it was held. A Scout is Reverent, eh? If yeh don't do that, then I'd think a formal mention of the award and recognition of the scout at the next troop COH is a fine thing. Beavah

Yah, dluders. I think you're gettin' your blood pressure up because you're misreading your DE's letter, and we folk on the forum haven't helped you much with that. Let me tell you what I think is really happening, in a hope that is makes for a calmer, more friendly meeting for everybody. I am sure and certain that your council's policy will not affect any boy who has already earned a badge. As you say, ScoutNet doesn't track that anyway. So no need to worry about old badges from three years ago. I am sure and certain that your council's policy will never hold up a boy who gets 6 or 7 badges from one counselor by mistake, or adult cluelessness, or whatever. So relax, eh? That's not what this is about. They're telling you that they want the MBC's to try to live up to certain limits. Only choose 7 MB's to counsel, only sign 5 MB's for one boy. They're only going to let you register for 7 MB's at a time, but as far as the 5 MB's per boy thing goes, the reality is that's "Scout's Honor" on the MBC's and SM's part. They'll never hurt a boy over that, at most they will talk to (and perhaps drop) MBC's. The net effect will be that you'll all work together to see boys have a good experience, and to sign up more MBC's in units where one or two guys have been doin' all the work. That'll also boost the # of registered volunteers for the pros, eh? So this is not what you think it is. It is good people tryin' to do something right. I disagree with it only because I think there are a few great counselors out there who can do more than 7 badges, and why turn down a volunteer's gift of time? But I bet even those few cases will be accommodated by "special exception" in your council's policy. Go to the meetin' with an open mind. Our BSA pros and district and council volunteers are our friends and brothers. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, no MB days in our council. Like Eamonn, I hope things stay that way. To quote the actual BSA policy excerpted in ACP&P: To the fullest extent possible, the merit badge counseling relationship is a counselor-Scout arrangement in which the boy is not only judged on his performance of the requirements, but receives maximum benefit from the knowledge, skill, character, and personal interest of his counselor. Just hard to live up to that even in well-planned MB Days, so too often they short the boys of the real, full experience. We don't want 'em just to get a patch, after all, we want 'em to get personally introduced to something interesting by a genuine mentor. The policy goes on to say that group instruction is OK in cases where 'special facilities or expert personnel make that most practical.' So epalmer's examples of doin' Pulp and Paper or Railroading are good examples - cases where some group instruction makes sense because you can corral the paper mill manager into giving an afternoon with a tour of the facility. Some of the APO badges offered at college chem labs are like that, too. Da problem is that while group instruction is allowed in such cases, "this group experience should be followed by attention to each individual candidate's projects and his ability to fulfill all requirements." Which goes back to the first bit about how "to the fullest extent possible" MB counseling is a personal mentoring relationship. So it's just difficult to do a MB day well, eh, and provide that core ingredient of personal mentoring. It should only offer badges where you get experts or special facilities, or badges where you are really short on counselors. And then yeh have to plan it in some way where even after you do the group bit, you live up to the expectation that there's a period of personal mentoring and individual attention. I've seen very few done well. Those usually limit boys to 1-2 badges, have a first and second session like mschwartz describes, and provide contacts for boys to finish up with over the following month(s). [How 'bout that, an impassioned defense of BSA policy by da old Beavah. Difference is this one is a real policy, not just a quote from support materials.] Beavah

Yah, yeh very politely pull mom aside and say "I'm sorry, that's not on our schedule for this evening. If you like, I can take the flyers for the boys and we can ask them to put them up on their own time, or if you like I can take your schedule request to the PLC and try to schedule it in the coming week(s). In the mean time, yeh signal the boys to get on with their meetin'. Down the road, yeh start to ask why mom and da committee are so involved with the boys' fundraiser, eh?

Yah, I'm with jblake as usual, eh? I think a lot is figurin' out what works for your unit, and being consistent and good at communicatin'. Sometimes we let the boys fall and sometimes we catch them, where we draw the line depends a lot on the boy's experience level, a fair bit on our views, and a lot on how big the cliff is the boy will fall over. But lookin' for new (or old!) ideas is always a good thing, 'cause they just may be useful. Here's one that I've heard Kudo go on about, and what I think it means if I try hard to read in the most favorable light. The BSA "leadership" courses, both for adults and kids, do draw a fair bit from popular theories of organizational management. You know - mission statements, goal-setting, and on and on. What I hear him saying is "forget all that, it's way too complicated. Half the adults and most of the kids don't get it." Instead, leadership in scouting should be learned as apprenticeship, not as theory. Make sure kids have solid scoutcraft skills, then teach 'em da practical nuts&bolts of how to run a patrol. Get 'em doing stuff, hands on. They'll figure out the important parts of "management theory" through experience and an occasional hint as they go. That seems pretty OK to me. It might mean things like selecting PLs from one or two APLs (apprenticeship). Probably also means doin' TLT not as a one-day event but rather as a whole series of one-day or weekend events spread out a bit, and tightly focused on "this is how to work meals in your patrol" and "these are the things you should do at a patrol meeting, let's practice!" Real hands-on, pragmatic stuff. I think most of us put a lot of that in our TLT just naturally, eh? So it's perfectly possible to do in a BSA program. But it might help new scouters more if we had materials that focused on practical stuff more specifically. Kinda moot though if he (or others) don't have a real live working troop as an example of what they're talkin' about. All theory shines until it hits the hard dirt of reality. Beavah

I admire your approach your scouting, even though you can pontificate at times as much as Eamonn, just kidding. Yah, thanks there (I think) . Seriously, though, I'm an old dog and the net is still a new trick. So if yeh catch me soundin' pontifical, send me a private message with the quote. It's hard to "hear" your own typed words da way others hear 'em, eh? And I could use the feedback more than anyone. Besides, I certainly don't want to get as bad as Eamonn :).

Hunt's point is a good one, eh? And it makes for a good question. Can/should a district do anything if a SM is the counselor for every MB earned in his troop (or earned by his son, or...). I read some people as sayin' "no, nothing can be done, everyone is bound by the two sentences in ACP&P." Seems to me that would be contrary to the principles set by the real policies, at least outside of the Lone Scouting program. So it seems to me to be a reasonable thing for a district or council advancement committee to want to address. Because councils in the U.S. range from geographically huge, rural ones to tight, near-urban ones, settin' one "national" policy just wouldn't work, eh? Which is why we have local councils and districts, to figure out how to interpret the real policies so they work in their area. Dat's the BSA system, eh? Beavah

Yah, Yah, OK. We all had so much fun with the last Limerick thread that it seems time for a new one, eh? Rules here are that you have to write a WB Limerick. It can extol da virtues of your old patrol, or it can have some good fun at another critter's expense, or it can simply play with some of da other parts of the WB experience.

Really, that's a pretty wild statement. Our national organization publishes the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures book and you're suggesting that it's not national policy? Nah, I'm not suggestin'. I'm sayin' it outright. Here's how I think about it. National policy is set in a different way than the publishing of guidebooks - it's set by the national executive board. While staffers do their best (given time constraints and other things) when they put together and edit publications, that doesn't mean it's policy. Fact is, very little of what's in publications is policy. Now, there are some things in ACP&P that are policy. For example, in my copy on pp16-17 are excerpts of real policies (titled "rules and regulations"). Another good example is on p.26, where it provides a quote from the National Executive Board policy on MB counseling. The book wouldn't have to say "this is policy" if everything in it were policy, eh? There are a few others. And there's a fair bit that outlines good procedure for Councils, and tries to support real policy with additional detail and information describing how National's folks that work on advancement think about such things. But I don't think it's really accurate to consider every word of every document to be policy. Especially when I know that sometimes it's even junk that got put in by the contractor hired to do editing . Back to the topic, though, I think Lisa'bob has got the right of this. I do disagree with the local policy of limitin' MBCs to a fixed number of badges. Councils can do it, I just don't think they should. But it's not really worth it to me to sacrifice my good relationships with fellow volunteers to make a big stink about it. Just not a hill to die on, eh? Rather be polite, raise it at a district committee meetin' and then let it lie. But it's up to dluders how much of his reputation he wants to put on the line over this issue in his area. As far as a kid gettin' no more than 5 MB from one person, that seems to me to be a pretty good guideline to tell people. Wouldn't hold a kid up for it, but would push adults to pay attention because I think it usually would give kids a better experience. There needs to be some way of sayin' "Yeh shouldn't get all 21 merit badges from your dad the SM", eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, a salute to our new member ajmako for encouragin' us to "get real" (and get calm and polite) with this debate on BP vs. BSA. I figured movin' it over here to a new thread would help a bit. So, Kudu, tell us a bit about what your troop looks like. How is leadership set up, what do boys/adult do, what's an average campout and meeting look like, that sort of thing. Help us see what you're talkin' about. Tell us what it looks like, then connect that to the principles you're tryin' to convey. Yah, yah, and sure, it's OK if yeh focus on da stuff that's most different from an average (or above average) modern BSA troop. I think I sorta get some of what you're sayin' (though I lose the melody in the percussion some times ), but I don't want to put words in your mouth by takin' a first jab. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I think it's important to be a little bit circumspect about throwin' around words like "violation" and such. We have to remember there's a lot of other policies, rules and relationships (the real ones) which aren't part of that nice color glossy AP&P booklet which is put out primarily to be helpful to volunteers, and most of the text in ACP&P (includin' the text ajmako quotes) is not national policy. And we have to remember that councils, like CO's are in many ways independent of National and can in fact have local policies. In truth, council-level restrictions on badges a MBC can counsel is a fact of life many places. In reality anyway it's a local discretion issue. So if it's something yeh disagree with, the way to approach it is politely, at the district or council advancement committee. Me personally, I agree with dluders. I don't like the restriction. There's plenty of great scouters out there who are super counselors, and who have the knowledge to do 10-15 badges very well. If they have the time to give, why would we discourage 'em? What unfortunately happens sometimes is young Scout goin' to dad or Uncle Fred or the one guy in the district who is known to be "super-easy" for 12 or so badges, which really doesn't help the boy much. Now, a good SM would be on top of that and not let it happen, but yeh know how districts and councils are always confronted by problems when the normal good Scouting stuff breaks down. So sometimes, we come up with extra rules to solve somethin' with a "policy" that we probably should have solved just by talkin' directly to the people involved. So let's cut our district and council volunteers some slack for doin' their best with a hard job, and then tweak or push back politely where we have to in order to provide the best service for the kids. I think most of da time, 5 MB's from one counselor is plenty, really. Mostly, though, I really believe is that talkin' to people is nicer than sendin' letters or quotin' pamphlets. Beavah

Hiya gigibw, It's very difficult to respond sometimes when I read a post from one side of a dispute. As presented, this incident is awful, and yet I can imagine the same underlying facts being viewed differently by other parties present. Since there seems to have been other people at each of these incidents, it might be worth considering their view of what happened. Anyway, the first incident is not a case of child abuse or of BSA YP. As presented, it's a crime of battery. If it went down as ugly as presented, you call law enforcement, report the facts honestly, and name the witnesses. You really don't want to be making accusations to other people in the community like the SE, because that might be defamation on your part if you aren't careful. And then needless to say, you avoid social engagements with this man in the future, "family & friends" or not. Beavah

I'm curious what everybody does for communications within your troop. Information on outings, fundraisers, what to bring, when to sign up and all dat. Both what the kids use to communicate and what the adults use, eh? (and what each half communicates about). Email? Phone? Newsletter? Bulletin Board? Announcements? Meetings? Web? Semaphore? Yah, and any rules on who can communicate or how? Let's share what we've found works, and what our struggles are.

Yah, thanks for the update SR540! I wasn't aware of the changes to "cut down the load." Not sure what I think about that. (Maybe a topic for a new thread!). If one were to follow your reasoning, it makes one wonder why the BSA even has the Eagle Scout knot, Youth religious award Knot and the Arrow of Light knot. Yah, sorry there for "knot" bein' clear. I think there's plenty of good reasons to wear the AOL knot if you're a cub scouter, or the Eagle knot if you're a Boy Scouter (etc.). I'd encourage that, and I'm glad those are available. Those are knots from your program area, and it helps the boys see connections between youth and adult service, gives yeh another way of encouraging 'em, etc. What's a bit odd is wearing an AOL knot as a Venturing Advisor, for example. Something out of your program area that the kids you're working with can't earn, and that ain't really meaningful to your work with a crew. I do think sometimes it's a bit odd for an adult to wear a youth religious award knot if there's an adult award available for the denomination. Seems like the adult should set the good example of earnin' the adult award for the adult uniform (then add the pips if desired). Scouter's choice. Just be sure you're doin' it for the kids. So here is a poll question. How many knots do you currently have? How many of those you have earned do you wear? Eleven. WB tan shirt (none). Venturing green shirt (2). Regular tan shirt (3). I'm only a commish for one pack (and dat's recent), so I don't have a cub shirt.