Venividi

Hawkrod, Thank you for the descripion of and links to ausbergers syndrome. I think that many of us can benefit from your candor. As a Scoutmaster, I once had a scout that I suspected had the syndrome, though I was in no position to know for sure. It would have been helpful if his parents had been willing to provide suggestions on how to work with him.

On the first campout after becoming scoutmaster, the boys in the PLC said they wanted to have a campout where there was no plan. Just go camping and have fun; as Scoutfish put it "... free time for the kids to run around, play, get dirty, explore and just have fun.". Following the boy led instructions that I had received, I said fine. In the early afternoon on Saturday, the boys had become bored with the all day capture the flag game that they decided to do. So they enhanced it with some rather unscoutlike treatment of the new scouts. It was the worst (or perhaps best?) indoctrination as scoutmaster. The next time the PLC proposed a similar campout, I changed my reply slightly to "Sure. You guys are in charge and can decide to do what you want. You will need to solicit some parents to go with you, because I am not going to attend." So they decided to plan some scouting activities. I do think that a weekend camping trip needs to have time for exploring the woods and streams, but not an entire weekend without a plan other than run around and get dirty. But if by "plain simple camping" you mean "schedule activities without emphasis on advancement", then I agree. I suggest doing this on ALL campouts, not just 1 or 2 per year. Campouts should not be a "school or class for rank advancement", nor be required work towards a merit badge; if you see this occuring in your troop, then I agree with you that you should try to de-emphasize this. Campouts should be for activities. The activities drive the need for learning skills in order to participate and to get better at them. Completion of T-2-1 requirements (and perhaps some merit badge requirements)would naturally fall out of this.(This message has been edited by venividi)

A related question: Should a scout write a thank you to someone that gave him a gift or did him a favor? Even if he is not really appreciative? I think the answer is yes, because it is part of learning to be appreciative. Apology under compulsion is the flip side.

Reminds me of a situation that we dealt with a number of years ago. On a campout with new crossovers, the boys were out in the woods playing a game. During the game, the older boys held down and hit one of the new scouts. What we found was that the new scout had been captured, and kept sneaking out of "jail". While the older scouts were attempting to return him to "jail" and have him stay until his team freed him, there was some threats given, and the new scout said words to the effect of "go ahead and hit me". After investigation and talking to the older boys, the SM asked the older boys to write an appology. All but one were appologetic for their role in hitting the new scout. However, one scout wrote that he did not think he needed to appologize because the scout had given permission to be hit. This gave another opportunity to sit down with this particular scout and have a discussion about the difference in age and size, how the new scout was wanting to fit in (same reason as why new members will put up with hazing in instances where it is present), and how this all fit in with the scout law. He still didnt get it, and continued to be self centered.

SeattlePioneer, A pack could recognize a scout's karate achievements by having him stand up, recognizing him, and having the pack give him a big round of applause. No belt loop required.

This thread, following on the recent discussion on when to sign off (on achievements), got me thinking about parallels between the two. In that thread there were opinions expressed that scouts need not be proficient when being signed off on requirements, or when advancing in rank. I dont think that it is a far stretch to think that if scouts are not expected to be proficient at the skills, then perhaps they really shouldn't be trusted to participate in activities that may be risky.

Barry, A good thought provoking post. For years I have created and run a first aid skills scenario at our klondike derby. The scenario that I create is based on T-2-1 first aid skills. I find that very few know the skills at a basic level, let alone be proficient at them. I had always thought that we as scouters were letting the scouts down by not having higher expectations of scouts for skills that should be valuable to them in life. Your thoughts on the prevalence of accepting mediocrity sends them out into the world thinking they are high achievers, when in actuality, they may not be. Scouts that are strivers and achievers may more likely develop that attitude from programs that push them to do more than they thought they were capable of achieving (high honors courses in school, competitive sports, band, etc.)

JMBadger, It appears that we are reaching common ground. Your last post is much different than the earlier posts where you indicated that it is to be the boys choice unless the SM has serious evidence of misbehaviour on the part of a counselor. So I trust that you can understand my previous disagreement, as I do not consider providing an opportunity of meeting with quality adults as equivalent to serious counselor misbehavior. I would note that also have not seen anyone indicate that a proper reason for a SM to select a particular MB counselor is to control a boy and/or to prevent progress towards Eagle, which appears to be one of your fears. If that were the case, the troop has bigger problems than their MB program. Ultimately, it is the SM's call, as BSA has charged the SM with that role, whether you or I or anyone else likes it or not. I trust that the majority of SM's will make wise choices for their troop's particular circumstances. BSA does.

The word for word statement in BSA's Merit Badge Counselors Instructors Guide is: There is no limit on the number of merit badges that a counselor may counsel with one scout. However, the Scout will benefit the most from working with a variety of outstanding adults. I do think that is a pretty solid reason. It does not say that a SM cannot approve a counselor that a scout asks to work with, and depending on the situation, to do so may be a good course of action; (or it may not - that is for the SM to decide, not for us to tell him/her how it should be done. It is still the SM's decision. JMBadger, where I no longer followed (or agreed with you) was where you stated "But unless you have serious evidence against the boy's choice of counselor, you should not prevent him from going to whomever he chooses.". It doesn't mesh with what is in the MB Counselor Instructors Guide. A SM can make selections based on providing the opportunity to work with a wide variety of scouts, as it says in the instructors guide. I know of nothing in any BSA literature that implies "if the boy would rather go to Counselor B instead of Counselor A, then the Scoutmaster should select Counselor B for the boy to see, unless the SM knows of a very good reason why scouts should avoid Counselor B.", as you say SHOULD be done. Providing the opportunity for a boy to work with a wide variety of adults has nothing to do with avoidance of a particular counselor (though for a SM to consider such as a factor is permitted).

"But unless you have serious evidence against the boy's choice of counselor, you should not prevent him from going to whomever he chooses." Well there is the MB procedure provided by the BSA that says that it is the scoutmasters responsibility to select the counselor. You may choose to do otherwise, but to tell others that they should not follow the BSA procedure is a bit of a stretch.

Twocubdad, I think that counselors that do what you describe do not understand the purpose of the MB program and its fit with the aims of scouting. There appears to be too much focus on the completion of the requirements as efficiently as possible. The training for MB counselors stresses that the counselor is a teacher, a mentor, an examiner and a coach. Counselors are allowed and encouraged to expand on the information in the MB pamphlet based on their knowledge, experience and expertise. It is the journey, not the destination that is important.

From the Merit Badge Counselor Instructors Guide: A merit badge counselor can counsel any scout, including his own son - although this is discouraged in order to offer a scout the chance to meet a diverse group of outstanding adults. There is no limit on the number of merit badges that a counselor may counsel with one scout. However, the Scout will benefit the most from working with a variety of outstanding adults. Net take away: a SM should consider the circumstances when selecting the MB counselor so as to provide the best possible experience for the scout. If multiple counselors are available, the SM should send the scout to a variety of outstanding adults. If the scout wants to work on an obscure badge where only one MB counselor is available, and the scout has already completed two other badges with that counselor, the SM should still provide that counselor's name and phone number. I don't see a slippery slope. I also think that this is an esoteric discussion, as I suspect that this issue is rare.

artjrk wrote: I personally do not think it is my job to tell a scout you must use "this" counselor. Instead I can recommend or suggest but it is up to the Scout and the Counselors to get together. I don't need that bit of control over the boys. I understand and agree with the sentiment of not needing that much control over the boys. I would raise though, that the purpose of the SM responibility to assign counselors is not to control the boys. Rather, it is to provide for a merit badge experience that is consistent with the aims of scouting. Some merit badge counselors are better at holding to the requirements of the badge than are others. A SM should want to make sure that the counselors that he refers scouts to adhere to the standard of requiring no more and no less than required. When he/she knows of counselors that do or don't, it enhances the scouts experience by the SM making an appropriate referal. True story: A friend that counsels for citizenship in the world told me of an experience where a boy came to him for the badge. The scout came minimally prepared, not meeting many of the requirements. The counselor explained the additional work needed to meet the requirements as written. The scout did not show up for the next appointment. Rather, he went shopping for a counselor that had very lax standards on meeting the requirements. Scouts are human, and will often take the road with short cuts, if available. I participated in a recent BOR where I asked the candidate about his experiences with merit badges, which were meaningful, which were not, and why. His response was that the badges that he found most meaningful were the citizenship badges. (The SM assigns a known counselor that he knows has high standards. The least meaningful ones were the ones that were taught in a group setting at summer camp and "merit badge university", saying that often one scout provided an answer to a question, and all scouts got credit for it. Thats not how it is supposed to work, but is all too frequent. It is easy for scouts to get their 21 badges at summer camp and MB university. Many, such as the citizenship badges, taught in classroom settings. I know of one or two troops that will not approve their scouts for taking the citizenship and first aid badges at summer camp because of the classroom setting. When done correctly, the scouts get some great experiences in calling an adult that they dont know, and the opportuinty to meet with and be mentored by exceptional people. But that does take work and oversight to assure that the MB program in the troop are in alignment with the aims of scouting. It does not happen automatically.

I like Beavah's approach also. It uses carrot rather than stick; honey rather than vinegar. It would be a great addition to the SM/ASM specific training course. I'm reading between the lines, and suspect that the parents are promoting merit badge class instruction at troop meetings, attendance at merit badge "universities" as a replacement for a campout, and 5 or more MB's at summer camp, rather than the proscribed merit badge process where a scout approaches the SM to ask to work on a merit badge, and the SM providing the scout with the name of a counselor to contact outside of troop meetings. Is this correct? If the former, then in addition to Beavah's recommendations, education of the parents would be helpful. You could arrange an "all parents" meeting at the same time as a troop meeting, and then either you, or someone from the district training committee, provide instruction on the aims and methods of scouting. This could be scheduled on the troop calendar annually. If you havent already, sit down with the committee chair and explain your vision and what you are trying to accomplish by following the scouting plan, and enlist his/her aid. Cajole him/her to attend the SM/ASM specific training class. Enlist the aid of your unit commissioner, if available.

I'll go one futher. I dont think that is productive for a new scout to be a patrol leader, whether on a monthly rotation or a 6 month term. New scouts may like the concept of being designated the "leader", but they didnt join boy scouts to learn to be leaders, they joined to have fun in the outdoors. Putting a lad in a position of being a patrol leader at age 11 for other 11 y.o. scouts provides a dis-incentive to be a leader in the future, when he is ready and able, because the concept of being a leader will be colored with memories of boring PLC meetings and how none of his patrol members listened to him. If thrust upon him too early, it becomes something to be avoided. Two of the attributes that factor into leadership at that age are age difference and experience. New scouts naturally look up to older boys. They will listen to an older boy when they would not listen a same age peer because they want to be accepted by the older boy, and will tend to follow his lead as a result. Boys are also more willing to be led by those with more experience than them. They will listen to someone that has had a lot of experience at (insert any activity or skill here) than they will to a same age peer that hasn't had any experience at it. So right off the bat, the new scout that is designated the leader of the new scout patrol has two huge disadvantages to his leadership activities that would be advantages to a patrol leader in a mixed age patrol.

I am going to be contrarian and say that the most important Boy Scout Rank is Scout. A boy has joined a troop with the anticipation of adventure in the outdoors. For those that are interested in the adventure, that provides the motivation to try new things and develop the skills necessary for those adventures. Ranks are the device used to measure the development of those skills. Focus on developing the skills of the scouts and the rank awards come along on their own. Focus on the rank, and there can be a tendancy to value the measurement itself more than the skills that they are representing.

Call me cynical; despite retoric about wanting smaller government, both parties prefer to increase spending. Increase spending for a new prescription drug bill for seniors? Sure. Increase spending to enter a war? You Becha. When there was concern that Obama's health plan would cut Medicare spending - result was political outrage. It will all get paid for with, (are you ready?), a tax cut! Tea Partiers mission of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, Free Markets, lowering taxes, reducing wasteful spending, and reducing the national debt are all fine ideals, but there is little practical output. Hours can be spend arguing about wasteful spending, what is included, what isnt. But eliminating all of it wont have much impact, because the 2 biggest spending buckets are defense and social security & medicare; the deficit will not be reduced without major cuts in them. Those aren't the categories that that tea party candidates have been vocal about cutting. My cynical view is that the tea party continues because there are people making money from it. Multiple tea party groups with separate web sites, all soliciting donations. Think perhaps that the organizers draw a healthy remuneration? Think talk show hosts can draw larger audiences the more that they can polarize the public and help them feel victimized, and thereby increase their own compenasation power and influence?

I agree with UCEagle. A program that is challenging enough to be engaging. This requires an increasing level of challenges as each scout's skills develop, otherwise the program is no longer engaging to the scouts. Each of the methods of scouting can be used to provide an increased level of challenge for an individual scout to rise to. - off the top of my head: Outdoors - move from car camping to lightweight camping to homemade equipment to short backpack trip to long backpack trip to easy climbing to technical climbing, etc. Leadership - move from participant to patrol cheermaster to grubmaster to quartermaster to instructor to patrol leader to senior patrol leader. Ideals - move from reciting the oath and law to living the oath and law, to being a role model for the ideals. Patrols - should be given increased challenges as they become better at working together - move from cooking together to patrol service projects to patrol campouts without adults. Advancement - move from skill level of "do this" "know the skills by heart" to using them in competitions at weekly meetings and campouts to teaching them. (For scout spirit requirement, see Ideals above. Given the diversity of skill levels in a troop, there is no "one size fits all".

ev, That is quite a stretch. BSA has a big enough tent (pun intended) to accomodate how you choose to implement the requirement and how shrubber's SM has implemented it. Turning this into a p***ing match accomplishes nothing.

Sherm,I see the point your getting to, and dont disagree.

I once had a scout as a JASM for whom I wished that I could have tied his scout responsibilities to a grade towards his GPA (he was responsible for getting a crew ready for Philmont). He was very focused on graduating with high honors, he was very talented, but since he didnt see an immediate personal connection with the crew being prepared, he put no effort into it. He was in band, and put in significant effort there, because it did affect his GPA.

Sherminator, I'm not sure that I agree with you. National needs to be concerned with a national program, that boys want to belong to, from a big picture perspective. If a particular boy is given an award that he didn't really earn, it doesn't affect the program too much. At the unit level, scouters get to know eack boy as an individual. They (hopefully) learn what motivates him, and know when to encourage him, when to congratulate him, and yes, even tell him that he is not yet ready. Same emphasis on providing a program to develop youth, but a different focus.

Good point, Lisabob. Rec leagues go a bit longer around here. They even have a co-rec for soccer at the high school level; no practices, just show up for games, though it isn't very popular. My son went out for the high school soccer team as a freshman. He had played rec league before, but had not been interested in playing in a competitive league. He didnt make the team, and I have to say that it was the best thing that could have happened to him. He joined the high school cross country team instead, which is a no-cut sport here. The athletes supported each other to an unbelievable degree, cheering on all runners no matter where they finished. My nephews also ran cross country at their school (different state). Their coach had goal setting meetings individually with each of the runners. The goal setting went beyond running, including academics and life goals as well.

>"Remember the Titans" is a good story, but the virtue/value of the coach was the source of the boy's growth, NOT the football sport. I must be missing something? I'm not seeing this pointing out a difference between football and scouting. The value that youth get out of either of them is highly dependent on the coach or the ScoutMaster. All the coaches that I am familiar with in my school district stress values in addition to skills and effort.

Lets not forget FUN. Both provide opportunity for those with that particular interest. The best learning will come when a lad is in the activity that he is passionate about. Whether it be scouting, sports, music, theater, motocross, or something else. Lad participates at a level to become good at it. The better he gets, the more he wants to participate. He is willing to share, and will help teach and mentor younger participants.