Beavah

what one holds sacrosanct was not important, how to help a unit was more important. But you have hit what I meant. If a CO wants to reward effort and "trying" and wants their Troop members to feel success, what if they said, you earn 18 merit badges and we will spot you the other two? Yah, you and Hunt "get" each other, OGE. But I'm still mystified by the need to create these straw man hypotheticals to satisfy the urge to call something "wrong." I think you're gettin' to a weird answer because you're asking weird questions. Start for a moment with the premise that our role is to be of service, and the question "How can I help?" I think dat's what folks who post to the forum are lookin' for, eh? Help. Service. Friendly ideas. In most cases, quotin' a rule at people (and perhaps decrying their actions) really isn't helpful, eh? Now Troop 2 comes along, and they have a very active program with a near perfect safety record. But they don't own a copy of G2SS, or it sits on a shelf somewhere (like most troops, eh?). One of 'em remembers flippin' through it once and laughing. But the SM is a former professional whitewater guide and instructor, and the Venture Patrol ASM is an AMGA certified climber and mountaineer. A second ASM is a teacher and part-time instructor for Outward Bound. (I don't actually remember what each was anymore, but this isn't far off the mark; I think somebody on the committee did legal work in Risk Management). If yeh ask "How can I be of service?" you look at their program and say "Wow. This is the tightest safety I've ever seen in a troop." And then you move on to other things. If I recall, that troop really needed some help planning for a few years down the road when some of those key adults might be leavin'. But safety wasn't worth spendin' time on. They had that wired, G2SS or no. Yeh see, Safety is the principle, G2SS is one possible mechanism to get there (and a relatively poor one at that). If they succeed at the principle, dat's enough, eh? Close as I can figure, some would be waivin' G2SS at 'em and sayin' "Not optional." A bit like an EMT-Basic tellin' the ER Doc how to handle a trauma case by quotin' field care protocols. Then sayin' something like "If we let him get away with it, then everyone will be insertin' chest tubes!" And it really does get silly to follow the Guide without engagin' your brain. I can't wait to tell George (our camp waterfront director) that he must install lights and firefighting equipment on all da Sunfish sailboats this year (G2SS Black-letter Boats guideline #6). Yah, they're not a bad map and guide, eh? But G2SS and all the BSA materials are meant to be read while keepin' our eyes on the prize, and our mind on the road. Followin' rules becomes a character defect when the rules don't serve the purpose for which they were intended, or fall short of a higher principle - Like not stayin' Mentally Awake, or unnecessarily infringing on creativity or freedom, or servin' as a mechanism for exercising a person's ego rather than their charity.

Yah, jhkny is a bit shrill for me too, eh? But I wouldn't call that promoted, necessarily. It could as easily be another game of corporate "pass the trash", where a lousy executive at one company gets a new executive job at another before he gets (or while he's getting) fired. Much cheaper than dealin' with all the paperwork and litigiousness of actually terminating someone, if you can stomach the ethics of it.

Yah, unlike acco, I've seen some Commissioners still listed on staff even after they had died. Often they "fade out". Occasionally units ask for one to help with something, and are told "Joe is your commish" and they say "Joe who? Haven't seen him in years!" Then the DC finds 'em someone and the process repeats. Good Commissioners can and should stay around for as long as their heart is in it, and they are really into support and service (not just hangin' around da coffee pot with their district buddies).

Hullo there, Bob! Tough question, eh? Often, kids who aren't (yet) engaged with Scouting still haven't found anything in Scouting that they connect with and experience some success at. I think that's true of most scout retention, eh? Boys need to find a connection to people (SM, buddies), and have an experience or 12 where they succeed and get some kudos (the hard hike, the daring mud-stacle course, etc.). Dat's the principle behind things like New Scout Patrols, Troop Guides, and First Class First Year, eh? But those program elements aren't the only way to get there, and they definitely aren't the best way. That's what Adult Association is for, eh? So the big question is "What do you know about this lad?" What is he good at? What does he like? Yah, and I think a second question always should be "How much time/energy are you willing to spend on this lost sheep?" I think if he is engaged with other things outside of Scouting, you do him the favor of helping the parents adjust to Joey being a Theater Buff, not a scout. If he's not engaged with other things yet, then maybe he can find his connection in Scouting. Is there a particular youth or adult he seems to like? Have that youth or adult suggest activities/a role within the patrol/a merit badge that he might succeed at, and build connections doing. Follow-up is key; he'll need to "feel" that someone cares about him personally - someone checks in and spends some time with him at every meeting, calls when he's not there just to say he's missed, etc. Don't be afraid to consider thoughtfully whether a different troop in the area might be a better fit, and make introductions eh? Yah, odds are dat in a year's time this boy won't be with you. He'll find "his thing" in some other activity, eh? It may also be that in "holding the line" on behavior, you give him the excuse he needs to get by his parents and go find "his thing". So don't be afraid to hold the line on behavior and set expectations the way you have been.

Yah, lookin' for some fellow old-timers... Does anybody remember the timing and rationale for the BSA switching to "adult run" on BOR's? My aging, addled brain ain't up to the task.

Both are running programs with strengths and weaknesses, like virtually every other Troop there is. However, I'm not prepared to say that the many successes of Troop 2 somehow prove that all of their deviations from BSA's program are good ideas. Yah, that's the way it is, eh? The real world is messy. People do their best, and do things differently than each other, and achieve differing levels of success. I wasn't advocatin' for one or the other, beyond the obvious: nobody does it perfect, and program modifications don't necessarily lead to the kinds of "slippery slope" failures some seem to think. Lots of times, people who are doin' it different are also doin' a good job. In particular, their choice to ignore the requirements of the Guide to Safe Scouting is a very bad idea This is the fault of my writin' eh? Or at least maybe it is. I really did mean "ignoring" as in "not reading" more than "violating." The troop was blessed by having some genuine professional expertise. They were all about runnin' a safe program, to a level generally far in excess of a typical G2SS compliant troop. Safety isn't optional, but the Guide is, eh? Also, a number of the rules and practices of this troop suggest to me that it is run by the adults and not the boys (retesting and failure of BORs is often the tipoff for this). Yah, sure, like all troops there are various levels of adult involvement. Troop 2 I remember as bein' top 5% in terms of "youth run", but there were certainly things like the CO's direction in the ongoing community service efforts that had an adult component, as well as some of the safety/outing prep, for sure. Not the BOR's, though. The kids liked showin' off their skills a lot more than the other "dumb adult questions," as I recall. And they generally had a kid on the BOR after all. One way to improve performance at anything is to consider what the experts have to say about it--and BSA is the expert on its program. Well, now that's an interestin' idea. Might make for a different thread. Certainly the BSA is the publisher of its program. But does that make it the "expert," especially when it comes to implementing the program? Can a corporation even be an "expert?" A book publisher may put out a book on law. But the author of the book, not the publisher, is the expert, at least on the theory and general principles. Then perhaps the attorney who implements the principles of the book successfully over time in helping his clients is the real expert. Whether the publisher does a better job with later editions of the book depends on how good the feedback is between the author and the field experts, eh? And probably on how little the publisher's executives get in the way. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I'm really not sure who you are targeting with your comments? Yah, SR540, Im not targeting anyone, eh? Quite the opposite, Im sharin my personal perpectives . Im not fond of targeting people. Isnt that a G2SS violation? You keep advocating tweaks and adaptations to the Scouting program. Advocatin? Nah. Defending? Sure. My theme has been to offer some alternative perspective when someone goes off about One Way. The theme is friendliness, courtesy, and service. Even when we think were right, we must also decide such questions as Is this any of my business? and Whats the kindest and most courteous way to approach it if it is? and What are the possible (unintended) consequences of my approach? Or perhaps just takin a moment to put oneself in the other persons shoes. A second theme is that its impossible to design a national program or curriculum for kids that works perfectly in all its elements all the time everywhere. Cant be done by anybody, no matter how expert (or our schools would be a lot better, eh?). Success of a national program like the BSAs depends on intelligent local adaptations by caring adults, with a healthy dollop of common sense. Messy? Sure. Freedom is messy. But it works a lot better than Soviet-style centralization. A third theme in conjunction with the second is that the way the BSA program is designed and implemented, local adaptations are expected. That is a feature of the BSA program, so that the program materials can best serve the needs and goals of different community organizations and the kids they serve. Thats it. Ive been a scouter at various levels and a commissioner a long time, and Ive never seen two programs that were the same, nor have I seen a single unit anywhere that hasnt adapted the program materials in some way. Success depends a lot more on the personality, commitment, and judgment of the youth and adult leaders than on the program materials, eh? And to be honest, the ones who are the worst of the bunch who rarely work well with kids are the scouters who get officious about the program or some rule or reg.

But I think you know that this isn't reality--in fact, some scouters run programs that are not in the best interests of the boys--sometimes only in small ways, but sometimes in big ways. Nah. Never seen it. Seen BSA program elements work in some places, but fail the boys in others, though. Oh, fer sure I've seen some men and women who don't have a knack for workin' with groups of teens, eh? Usually the ones who get too hung up on adult formulas and rules. I've seen Scouters who've made mistakes while tryin' to do their best. And the Good Lord knows I myself have made some doozies. I'm grateful for the understandin' of fellow scouters and parents and kids when that happens, and for their support. Just like SPL's eh? They sometimes make decisions not in the best interest of the group, eh? But if we're smart, we support 'em just the same.

There is not rule against a SM taking scouts on a hike w/o an adult so long as there is more than one scout... And National is leaning away from fire buckets...If we can't even get some of this stuff strait in this dicussion... Yah, Eagledad, that's part of the point, eh? There's always someone as wants to shout "wrong, wrong" over something, whether they've got the rule right or not, whether they understand the rule or not, and whether they're balancing the risk against other important needs of the kids or not. I just think it's nicer to say, "Hey, make sure you consider this..." rather than "wrong, wrong!" That way, we acknowledge the role of understandin', interpretation, balancing goods, and common sense. And the possibility that we might be wrong ourselves. We need to do right by kids, and that means (in part) protectin' 'em and equipping them to protect themselves. That can be accomplished by alertness, compassion, and common sense, eh? Yah, sure, and some good solid guidelines. It can't be accomplished by thoughtless adherence to scripted procedure.

BUT YOUTH PROTECTION IS NOT AN OPTION! Every time a SM tells a youth that it is ok to make an exception he is putting that scout at risk. Yah, given da behavior of a few Catholic clergy, that might be true, eh? But I'd still let the boy go to confession behind closed doors. It's not "two deep" that prevents abuse, eh? It's knowin' the boy. I'd agree with wingnut's statement if it said "Protecting youth is required" or such. But we'd just best be careful not to confuse a set of procedures (BSA Youth Protection) with really protecting youth. Those procedures aren't enough, eh? They're nowhere near sufficient. Takes a lot more, includin' Gonzo's alert eyes. Yah, and while BSA YP makes for good institutional guidelines, they can also become silly. I worry about that sometimes, eh? The times a lad has talked to me about thinkin' suicide, the times lads have shared real serious personal or family issues, the times boys and girls have shared their concerns about a friend's drinkin' or drug use - always happened when I was effectively alone with the kid. Yah, sure, maybe that's "last men standin'" at the campfire. But it's also been drivin' a kid home from a meetin'. The one-on-one times are da only times boys are likely to share those things, eh? There's a reason why dem Catholics build confessionals, eh? I'd hate to think we were so all-fired zealous about Youth Protection by rules that it got in the way of really protectin' kids. We can put metal detectors at doors and have zero tolerance policies in da name of "Youth Protection", but it just ain't goin' to compare with reachin' out to kids in need and just bein' there. And there's the practical, too. Round here, sometimes the only way for a boy who lives a bit out of town to make a meeting is if a scouter gives him a lift. We don't all live in da 'burbs, eh? And not all kids have a parent who cares.

Yah, I think the term "cops" as in "Uniform Cop" or "Program Cop" is a jest used to poke fun at those of us who take themselves a bit too seriously about such issues, or who enjoy a bit too much the role of self-righteous, indignant authority, and hop into the role even when the authority isn't ours to exercise. If an Orienteering MB counselor meets 5 boys at a local city park to counsel the badge and do an orienteering hike around the park, is that really "wrong?" I don't even think it's contrary to da guidelines, eh? If a Catholic troop takes their boys to Confession with the IH, it is almost by definition one-on-one behind closed doors. A scouter may take a tearful boy into a room so as to allow him to regain his composure out of the sight of the boy's peers; another may opt to drive home the lone scout left at the meeting because his parent's car broke down. Should these all be immediately smacked with da YPT brickbat? I'd say followin' regulations isn't always the right thing to do. I dunno if a parent with no training (registered or unregistered) is really a more appropriate BOR member than a 17 year old Eagle who has served as Troop Guide and JASM, and represented the boys as a voting member of the Troop Committee for 2 years. I suspect not. And I doubt da BSA was really "wrong" for all the years its official program materials said to use Scouts as BOR members. Lots of troops pass kids for holdin' positions like "Bugler" or "Librarian" that involve very little work or responsibility in that troop. But they're followin' the program, eh? Some troops won't pass kids for holdin' a position like PL and not showin' up. They're not followin' the program, eh? But I wonder what da boys and their parents feel is really "right?" Yah, shouting "wrong" at each other and waiving rules in our colleagues or kids' faces is an activity we should all resolve to do less of in the new year. I don't think implyin' fellow scouters are molesters is a position to start from. Yah, sure, we all will find things to disagree about, and a modicum of due diligence is appropriate. But it's incumbent on us to recognize that people who give the kind of time and energy to young men and women that Scouters do are really a remarkable bunch. They deserve first and always our respect and admiration. I suspect our boys recognize as they move up da ranks that there's little merit in declaring how "wrong" someone is, but a lot of merit in being their friend. Leastways, I hope they do.

Just found these two photos of Eagle Scout and former President Gerald Ford from his days as a scout in Michigan: http://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/avproj/hseries/h24-2b.gif http://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/avproj/hseries/h54-1b.gif Uniform historians may chime in, but it seems like young Gerald Ford is wearing a non-standard "uniform" shirt in both of the photos. Also a shirt that is remarkably "understated" in terms of badges, patches, and awards. Perhaps a lesson to us all in our application of the Uniform Method.

Yah, OK, I really wasn't tryin' to be an advocate for BPSA or whatever. The point was that good fellow scouters and commissioners recognize different approaches within the BSA as legitimate and worth supporting. If not for their positive effects, then for reasons of good fellowship. But you make a good point that much of Troop 2's "tweaks" were not their own developments. They were really the result of not changing when the BSA "tweaked" the program out from under them. In some cases (kids on BOR's for example), they came half way between the "old BSA program" and the "newer (tweaked) BSA program." That's an interestin' point. And it raises perhaps a different question. We recognize and allow any old pre-de la Renta uniform part as still "official." I wonder if we should similarly recognize any previous BSA program elements (like boys on BOR's, no FCFY, etc.) as still "official" and available for use at the option of the troop. Not that the BSA cares, but a statement to that effect might dampen the enthusiasms of da self-appointed "program cops."

And now, from Paul Beavah Harvey, da rest of da story... Troop 1 Despite an 800-student middle school to draw from, has 15 scouts. Routinely loses half or more of their recruits every year. Those boys leave scouting for good. Has only 2 high-school boys, one the SMs son. Boys Eagle Out or just leave by age 15. At Eagle BORs, some boys have a hard time holding a conversation, or talking about Oath and Law. Average Eagle project is 50 man hours. Troop does no adult screening beyond BSA application. Troop has needed rescue twice from bad situations in the field, and has had some more serious behavioral issues at camp. Patrol identity is weak, because of small troop size. A fair bit of planning is done by adults, because of the limited age/experience/skills of the boys. Troop 2 With an 80-student middle school to draw from, troop has 60+ scouts. It loses a couple of recruits every year, but introduces them to other troops so many stay in scouting. Has a large number of high school boys, two active Venture Patrols. Boys never Eagle Out but stay right through high school and often continue as ASMs. At Eagle BORs, every boy is one youd want to hire for a job that same day. Most volunteer that Scouting has been the most important influence on their lives as teenagers. All can talk about the Oath and Law in detail, and with passion. Average Eagle project is 300+ man-hours. Troop has a very thorough screening and training process for adults (uses same process for teachers at the elementary school). SM and several ASMs are or have been professional outdoor guides. They regularly conduct safety seminars at the University of Scouting. Kids are always great citizens at camp. Troop is well-known in the community for several ongoing service projects, including youth tutoring, after school programs, and homeless support services. These are coordinated through CO, but the kids seem to buy in. Troop conducts its own TLT, and is a pretty good example of boy-run. PLC has nearly complete control of the activities, planning, etc., and you rarely see an adult leading or instructing. Patrol identity is strong, and patrol competitions are a regular feature. I believe this unit had the highest number of religious awards in the district, from several different denominations (but I may be mistaken - district really didnt keep records of that). A higher fraction of their boys come from single-parent homes. This troop in the past 25 years spun off two additional troops. The 3 troops are the biggest troops in the district. Oh, yah... and the SM is married to the IH, so he mostly does what the CO wants, eh? Im not fer one over the other. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. But I think yeh have to look at the whole, and not get caught up on a notion that any tweak is a violation that puts yeh on the slope to disaster. A few tweaks might be better in the circumstances. Most are just different. A few might be worse, but then good Scouters and kids will figure that out, too, with a little help from a good Commissioner. CNYs distinction is a good one the difference may be between a program feature not implemented because of laziness, and a program feature modified by conscious choice to achieve some end. BSA does the latter, too, eh? If every detail of the program was perfect, we wouldnt be revisin the requirement book every year, and the handbook every ten.

But in my eyes I'm doing what is best, but not abusing the system. Yah, monn. I'd support you, eh? But then, someone else may come along and say that you weren't followin' the program, were givin' your kid an advantage over other kids, were a dishonest and untrustworthy lout and all that. The problem is that one person's reasonable adaptation can be another person's slippery slope violation. Depends on what the goal is, eh? If the goal is for the kid to learn math, I'd go your way. If the goal is to maintain the integrity of the grading/feedback system, you're a cheat. Here's one. Up here in da upper midwest in winter, it sure is possible on rural roads in snow to get both lost and stuck. Ain't much traffic, or much cell phone coverage. Yah, you can be stuck fer a pretty long time. Caravaning or "keepin' together with reasonable rules" is safer, eh? After yeh get off the highway and into the remote parts. Less chance of gettin' lost, immediate help if yeh need it. Is the goal safety? Or is the goal Obedience in followin' the G2SS regulations? One person's reasonable adaptation can be another's Oathbreakin'.

This doesnt mean that a unit is not turning out Scouts with Bad character but does make a difference between a unit that is running a "good" Scout program and one that is running a poor Scout program (which could be a topic in itself). Yah, CNY's comments were very thoughtful, so here's a new and related topic in itself. It's in Issues & Politics so dan can give full-throated objections to his heart's content, eh? Hypotheticals always limp, so this is a tale of two real-life troops, from a former council I was in about 9 years ago. Troop 1 CO is a public middle school PTO. Mostly hands-off, uninvolved. SM and ASM officially trained. SM working his ticket. Diligent First Class First Year program. New Scout Patrol used. Age-based patrols after 1st year. SPL elected by troop. Troop used BSA JLT for training. Advancement program by the book, except non-committee parents and UC used for BOR's. BOR's averaged 15 minutes, no retesting except for Oath and Law. Troop offered regular MB sessions at meetings, and participated actively in Council MB offerings. Strictly adhered to G2SS, filled out all paperwork, collected permission slips for every event. Did popcorn sales, spaghetti dinner. Boys mostly paid their own way. Used all POR's - bugler, librarian, etc. Troop is strictly uniformed, by the book, even on outings. Troop was a regular at district and council camporees, and often had someone at Roundtable. Troop 2 CO is a parochial elementary school, but accepts kids from all over, of any faith. CO is more involved in setting "tone" and expectations. SM and ASMs not usually trained. Make jokes privately about WB and knot-ridden chests. No First Class First Year program. Most boys don't make First Class until 8th grade. Vertical, not age-based patrols. No New Scout Patrol. No Troop Guide. ASPL elected by PLC; ASPL succeeds to SPL after 6 months. Troop did not use BSA JLT/NYLT. Troop adds LNT requirements to T-2-1. For all I know, they may tweak other advancement requirements. Older scouts, non-registered parents, and SM might sit on T-2-1 BOR, but not S-L-E. ASMs do SM conferences for T-2-1, usually with PL for all but last bit. Parents are forbidden from counseling MB's for their own son, and no boy can get more than 3 MB's from the same adult. No MB's offered during meetings. No MB-Fairs. Some summer camp badges not allowed. BOR's average 30-60 minutes, and do ask boys knowledge/skill questions that many consider retesting. Boys are occasionally deferred on a BOR. Troop doesn't use BSA POR's like bugler, but does have its own unapproved POR's like Webmaster. Troop plays Lasertag, and mostly ignores G2SS in favor of doing their own thing. Troop avoids district and council events. No popcorn sales. CO supports the program financially, so scouts do not pay their own way. Troop wears uniform shirt only for public events, selects their own pants, and has unofficial awards and patches. Who's running a good program? What should be done with Troop 1? With Troop 2?

Yah, DenZero, I think you've found the real need in your own reflections, eh? Your pack's problem is with adult leadership. Before you can get any boys, you need a Cubmaster who can give time and energy. Parents join packs, not kids so much. Parents are lookin' at the leadership. You don't mention how far apart the North and South and Parochial schools are. That makes some difference in the "let it die?" question. If it's easy for kids at North to get to South for meetings, etc., that's different than if there's some distance. You also don't mention the size of the schools and the size of the large pack. Can the schools support a pack, numbers-wise? Is the large pack getting "too big"? Generally, though, I hate to see a Pack that had some energy fold, especially with a strong troop relationship. Packs seem to rise or fall on the leadership of the moment, and it may well be that in another year or two the South School Large Pack will turn over leaders and suddenly shrink. Havin' another active program in the area is important. Go to the school PTO, get to know the "active" well-organized moms, find one with a husband who's a former scout. Either the mom or the dad need to have an outgoing, kid-friendly personality. That one is your Cubmaster. Talk to the church youth minister / Bible School director, and ask the same questions, looking for the same kind of people. Bring in a UC or DE who you think is a good "pitch man" to help with the sale. Wherever you go looking for a CM, you need personality and time availability. They have to bring positive energy and organization.

Gonzo wrote recently: I'm a UC. I attended a troop meeting where the troop had a BOR, they had 2 committee members and A LIFE SCOUT SIT IN ON THE BOARD. While this is wrong, I did not come unglued. I asked the BOR chairman what was going on, he said they let older scouts sit in and participate on younger scouts BOR. At the next committee meeting, I addressed it and with the COR, I called him and let him know the next day, no scouts sitting in on BOR' ..... no changing the (da) pragram. This was handled OK, eh? The observation was addressed to the Committee and COR for their action (or, presumably, their choice not to act). I confess as a District and Council commish, it was a bit aggressive for my taste. A PO'd unit can easily say "this commissioner no longer welcome on our property", which doesn't help our efforts any. So I might be havin' a word with Gonz on gentler and more service-oriented approaches. I'm curious as to others' views, particularly those who serve "for real" as Commissioners at one level or another. Discovering this situation how do you respond? 1. Formal or informal A) I would talk informally to the SM/CC/AC (whoever puts together BORs), explain the reason for the guideline. I'd go no further, and spend my time on helping them wherever their biggest need is. B) I'd do like Gonzo, and show up at the next Committee Meeting, and call the COR for backup. I'd make 'em do it right. 2. Collegial or authoritative A) Do you explain the reasons for the guideline to them, listen carefully to their point of view and what they are trying to accomplish, and perhaps suggest a compromise like using 3 adults on the board with the youth as a non-voting member? B) Do you tell them that they must do BOR with only registered Committee members because that's the requirement, and they're not allowed to change. 3. Empirical or theoretical absolute A) Before I do anything, I'd talk to the rank candidate or ask to sit as an observer on the BOR, to see how BOR's actually go in this unit. If the BOR did a good job for the kid and the unit, I'd let it go in favor of more important things. If there were issues, I'd discuss those when a good opportunity arose. B) I don't care if the BOR did a good job or not. No youth members are allowed to participate, period. 4. Consistent or inconsistent Is your response to 1-3 the same if they use non-committee adults on the BOR? For example, if a) they use a parent (of another boy) who is not registered? b) If they invite you as a Unit Commissioner to sit on a BOR? c) If the pastor (IH) drops by and they invite him to participate on the BOR? (Remember, the guideline is only unit committee members on BORs other than Eagle.) Personally, I think 80%+ of the units in my district use some non-committee folks on their BOR's. That's typically parents, but also Venturers, kids who serve on the troop committee, UC's, scouters from a neighboring site at summer camp, a COR youth minister, the DE, etc. etc. That'd be a lot of commish time and energy "fixing", eh? What say the group?

An ethical theorist named Kohlberg once defined the followin' Stages of Moral Development, and provided some evidence that kids and adults progressed through these until they reached some "stopping point" for each individual. Pre-Conventional 1. Obedience/Punishment: I do it because if I dont, Ill be punished. 2. Self-interest: I do it because Ill get what I want. Conventional 3. Conformity: I do it because Ill fit in. 4. Authority: I do it because its the rule, and rules are necessary for society. Post-Conventional 5. Social Contract: The rules are flexible, together we do whats best for the general welfare. 6. Universal Principles: The rules are irrelevant. I do what is categorically right each time I make a choice. ?Possibly? 7. Transcendent Principles / Saintliness: All human law and morality are irrelevant. I serve God with my whole heart. Seems to me that some of the insoluable arguments about program modifications and adaptations are based on people bein' at different levels on this chart, eh? If morality for you and your CO is based on Authority (Stage 4), then that's goin' to lead to one type of program for your kids. It'll effect how you view the Oath and Law, how you administer advancement requirements, how you feel about the uniform, etc. Follow da program. It is Authority . That's goin' to be different from someone at Stage 5 or 6, eh? Or more properly, different for a CO that wants the example for the kids to be Stage 5 or 6, even if the Scouters in that program happen to disagree, eh? They're goin' to be tweakin' and modifyin' to serve the general welfare, or just ignorin' stuff to do what's categorically right. Da stuff is resource materials, not Authority. So probably these discussions are doomed to go nowhere, eh? CO's are goin' to have different views on this. And that's their right. What concerns me is that sometimes Scouters don't know or understand their CO's view, and may be conveyin' something different to the kids. I wonder if da Follow the Program crowd is representative of a Fundamentalist/Baptist tradition (Authority in Written Word)? I wonder if units like LongHaul's (green shirts) are Catholic (value tradition...)? Those of us from traditions emphasizin' personal interpretation and conscience might be the tweakers, eh?

Yah, dan, like I said, "slippery slope" is a Straw Man argument, eh? It's a logical fallacy that someone uses to smear another person's argument rather than address the points. "If someone puts an 'Untrainable' patch on their uniform for humor's sake, then where does it end? Jeans? A shirt of their choosing? It is just a slippery slope that leads to adults going to events with no clothes at all!!" Funny, except der's some that actually believe that, eh? What we see in this thread is all kinds of different interpretations and adaptations by good Scouters. Some count fractions of a pullup/pushup/situp as "improvement." Some count improving in any of the activities as "improvement", even if da kids get worse on other activities. Some may substitute modified pushups or pullups, so that kids can experience greater improvement than if they were held to the original activity. And some insist on concrete improvement in each activity as stated (which seems to be the clear intent of the requirement, before we start readin' like defense attorneys). Goin' back to da original thread, some stick to 30 days, and some are more flexible. What does all that mean in real life? It means you can go from troop to troop and find them all doin' different things. The experience their boys are havin', and the requirements they have to fulfill for Tenderfoot, are not the same! Ohmygosh! We are on the slippery slope to total anarchy! Reality is that I have every confidence that the good scouters here run delightful programs. While I disagree with some of their interpretations/adaptations of the requirements personally, I support them in their efforts. If a parent of theirs came to me in person or on this forum and complained because they allowed a fractional pushup as "improvement" and he thought that was "just wrong" and "on the slippery slope to no requirement at all", I would support the unit and the Scoutmaster. Because that's what it means to be Loyal, Helpful and Friendly. Even when I personally disagree.

Yah, Gonzo, sorry to have yeh on the other side of the jury, eh? But maybe I should clarify. There are two separate questions here. The first is that "improvement" generally requires an increase of at least one. So, for pullups for a 10 year old, where we recognize that if a kid starts at zero there's a huge effort that must be made over a much longer period of time than 30 days in order to get to one, does the leader fudge in favor of the boy? Whether the fudge is "I'm going to count 1/10th of a pullup as 'improvement'" or "I'm going to substitute the flexed arm hang" really doesn't matter. Neither is in the BSA materials, though one shows up in other professional literature because it has less risk of injury (hint: it's the flexed-arm hang). I perfectly understand those who say, "No, fitness is more important than FCFY, and we're going to work with this boy until he makes one pullup even if it takes a year." But I also understand those who say "no, trying and having an early success at making Tenderfoot is more important to the boy, and to our long-term goals." It's a unit's and scouter's choice. But this is just an example, eh? The second and more important question is "if a scouter makes a modification like this to help a boy, is it OK to holler at him in public about violating the Oath and Law?" Is it honest to imply that any program adaptation like this one causes "kids to be harmed or hurt" as one poster suggests? Or tell the boy or the boy's parent that the scouter is "just wrong?". Or imply that letting a boy do a flexed-arm hang means that you must be admitting girls and conducting 12 hour boards of review? In other words, even if in your opinion the Umpire made a bad call, is it OK to go shout at him and kick sand in his face? My answer to the first is the same as jblake's. The kids come first. Modify if you need to (and if you're going to modify, go with the professional recommendation ). Whether you need to depends on the unit culture and the kid. As to the actual choice I'm agnostic; I trust the scouter to make the right call for each kid and each unit. Personally, I'm kinda fond of really working with a boy over time to improve, eh? My answer to the second is that it's always wrong to chastise the umpire, even when he makes a bad call. It's poor sportsmanship in baseball, and a poor example to kids everywhere else. Doin' it in the service of "program standardization" or some such claptrap is no excuse. It's just another version of the self-appointed uniform cop. Some disagree, eh? They like bein' self-appointed program cops. Fills egos or somethin'. I just find it kinda embarrassing. But enough, already. Go be with family. Go delight kids. And God Bless us, everyone.

What is this prep? I don't want to speak for jblake, but I believe what he means by "prep" is "fun program activities designed to give kids the skills and opportunities to meet the requirements for that particular award program." Not to mention the youth and adult volunteer time to administer the award program.

A couple o' jurors (or prosecutors?) come back in with da Straw Man arguments. Ah, so much fun such arguments are! "Unless we Pidgeon Manage any scouter who doesn't do things the way we like, we're on the slippery slope to admitting girls, molesting children, and the end of Western Civilization as we know it." But yeh missed answerin' the question. Do you make the kid do a pullup, or do you change the requirement? Or, more importantly, do you call a fellow Scouter who does change the requirement for the kid an Oathbreaker? That is, after all, what started this thread, eh? The charter agreement is a fine document on which to begin a partnership, if we actually read the whole thing and understand how the BSA applies it. The rest of the partnership involves respect, charity, and service. It is more important that we do right than that we be right. And the answer is always the boys. Been fun yappin' with you all. May the Solstice renew you, the lights of Hannukah fill you with hope, Kawanza unite you to your heritage, and the birth of Jesus fill you with Joy. And most especially, may the New Year find us renewed in our commitment to service to one another and to the young men and women we hold so dear. Beavah

Ok Beavah, I will try take 2, as I said I sometimes have problems expressing myself. Yah, mebbe OGE. Or maybe your worldview is just different, eh? You ask me again, in different words, when I would condemn another volunteer (and, indirectly, when I would condemn the parents and kids and organization who liked that volunteer's program and stayed with it). That's not a question that would even come to mind for me. I don't believe it's the right way to think, at least about service in the BSA. Certainly it's not the way the BSA thinks. The question for me as fellow Scouter and friend to the unit is "How can I be of service?" "When would you condemn?" and "When is another unit's program not Ritually Holy (sacrosanctus)?" aren't useful questions to me, because they don't lead us to acts of friendship and service. Our job is not to condemn. Our job is to provide materials, friendship, and support. Our program is not Holy. Our program is Helpful. Our role is to be of humble and cheerful service.

there are some parts that I hold sacrosanct. I realize you also may have sacrosanct items that you hold that I would not. The question is, what are those items? Yah, OGE. Da problem is that I think that's the wrong question, eh? I've been on staff at a bunch of International Jamborees and a host of international events. In sitting with Scouting colleagues from around the world, I can't recall your question ever comin' up. Mostly, we sit around and share what each of our programs does, our methods, our successes and failures. The interest isn't in judgin' who's "not doing real Scouting." The interest is in sharing ideas and comparing different methods with friends who care as much about kids as we do. The only people who come across as donkey's tails are da ones who think their nation's rules should apply to everyone else, because only they know about The Program, or Safety, or... Same goes within the BSA. The real question, especially for those of us who work at regional, council, and district levels, is not "what is sacrosanct?". It's "How can I be of service?" In this grand game of Scouting, how can I be a friend to your unit? How can I best support you? What can I learn from you? What can you learn from me? Ours is a role of humble service, and genuine friendship. The question "what is sacrosanct" almost never gets you to an act of humble service. And givin' yourself angina is a waste of a good heart. (This message has been edited by Beavah)