Venividi

In my opinion, standing up to peer pressure is character building. Middle school years are a time of jockeying for position in the heirarchy by whatever means; typically by putting down others for any possible reason. While I don't condone such putdowns, I dont believe the main problem is a (mis)perception that scouting isn't cool, but rather that some wither under any sort of teasing. I would suspect that a lad that would deny his scout membership (or drop from scouting, even if he enjoys it) would also wither under razzing about the type of cell phone he has, the clothes that he wears, the bicycle he rides, etc. Look at the difference in reactions between the example CNYscouter describes, and Lisabob's son's reaction, even before the support of a great teacher. I recall a conversation between two scouts riding in my vehicle on the way back from a ski trip. They were discussing plans to drop from the troop. Both had been on many outings and had fun. It provided an opening for a conversation between the scouts and me about perceptions and reality. Both still dropped and went on to other activities. Both were from good families that supported them in those other activities, and both are now in college, and as far as I know, turned out fine. Venividi

Gonzo, I would suggest sticking to a patrol members only. Inviting everyone else might be seen as a power play. A patrol members only activity would be much easier to justify to the SM. It has the added benefit of really driving home the concept of Patrol Method over the "whomever wants to come" method. Come to think of it, what I refer to as the "added benefit" is really the primary benefit. Gives the opportunity for one patrol to earn some social capital by camping the extra night, and make them feel special and build a tighter bond with each other.

Parents have more influence on their sons than any leader is likely to have. They are with their kids for many more hours than scout leaders are. They see what their parents do; good, bad, and nuetral. If they see parents that contribute to community, (scout, town board, school board, church, youth sports league, etc.), they are likely to adopt those attributes as they become adults. Contributions to the community is good role model behavior whether through scouts or through other volunteer activities. Eamonn, I read into your post that you have more recently adjusted balance of other activities as a result of a wake up call from HWMBO. I think that is also a valuable addition to the role model that you are being to your son. I expect that he will learn from it. Too often, we think that if we only spend one more hour each week, we can help one more boy that otherwise might not get the opportunity for scoutings benefits. That time has to come from somewhere, and once available free time and wasted time has been exhausted, there is danger in taking too much time from other areas of life, such as family. Personal limits need to be set on time and effort devoted to scouting. It was appropriate not to be involved to a greater degree in your son's troop because of your other volunteer activities. It would have been the same if you had been heavily involved in your school board (for example). No one can do everything. This does play into another current thread on "mandatory" volunteering. There are parents involved in other volunteering activities that they have no additional time to give without negatively affecting family. There are parents that would liabilities to the troop rather than assets, and are better off not being involved. We all also know of people that have other priorities; career, golf or other recreational activities, etc., and make a choice to pursue those instead. We all have choices in balancing what we can do, and what we can support. Given "x" number of volunteers, with "y" amount of time and talent, we can support "z" number of scouts. We need to recognize that limit and stick to it, because otherwise program quality drops to a point where some scouts leave, or our families are inadvertantly penalized, or scouters experience burnout and become less effective. Eamonn, I thank you for your volunteer work at council level. My personal view is that those are much more difficult jobs to fill.

On your second item: I would prefer to see an youth instructor be teaching plant identification, if possible. I would definately discourage have the SPL be teaching these skills; he has other responsibilities, and should be delegating instruction to others. venividi

fl_mom_of_2, I don't believe that identifying poisonous plants in the field is adding to the requirements. If one thinks about the purpose behind including this as a rank requirement, i.e., its usefulness to the scout, it would be so that scouts can recognize these plants in the field where they will encounter them, and learn to a)avoid them, and b) what to do should they touch them. This is much more useful than merely being able to describe it. I am assuming, of course, that you are in a local where these plants exist. venividi

Welcome, Jim. My scouts chose Laguna station for a trip back in 2001, quite a distance from Northern Illinois. They had a great time. Only lost one flashlight and only broke one fishing pole :-).

fotoscout writes: ...they want to do their own thing without being a part of the group dynamic that is so much a part of belonging to any organization. Fotoscout, that is an excellent observation. I think it is important as to how scouters act, react and communicate to counteract those that are not as in to the program as the folks on this site are, and to teach them the benefits of active participation in the program. We teach people how to treat scouting program, and it is much bigger than an issue with leaving camp early. If we heap a lot of awards on scouts that leave camp early, that are an island in a sea of scouting, that do not become part of the troop (and patrol) dynamic; i.e. trustworthy, loyal, helpful within their troop and patrol, then actions are communicating that, despite what is said, we value the individual achievement of MB's more than that troop/patrol loyalty. Just look at other discussions on this board; a scout not earning advancement to the next level is referred to as "being denied advancement"; BSA's position is that active = being rostered; completing requirements of a POR is not a scout's responsibility, it is the SM's responsibility to assure that he does them. Rather than rewards for actions that we want to encourage (such as full participation at Summer Camp), we consider consequences for leaving early. I agree with JohninKC that a SM conference with the scouts leaving early is appropriate and needed. It is important to have regular "all hands" meeting with parents, to communicate the vision of scouting, the benefits to their sons, and how the reward system is tied in to encourage this. Include the leaving early issue as a part of the overall vision. This will have to be repeated many times.

I think that prevelance of this in a unit is highly dependent on the culture of the unit. Units with long tenured scouters that understand and have successfully indoctrinated scout-run into the troop will have good examples for new scouts to follow, and expectations of what is required coming from both the scouters and fellow scouts. Units that are only beginning to move towards scout-run don't have those examples of scouts "getting it", and are more likely to have a culture where a scouts do not step up to the requirements of their PORs, because that is what they have observed. A conundrum for this type of troop is how to help scouts "get it", and grow the troop towards more scout-run without being put in a position where a few of them have to be fired for lack of effort. If there is sufficient adults involved, each POR holder could be assigned an adult to push and prod until culture changes. If not, perhaps POR's are better off left unfilled.

This thread is great brain food. I will toss out a suggestion that some (many?) of the accidents result from an outing that doesn't match the abilities of the participants. Not only outings that are beyond the skills of the particpants, but also outings that are below the abilities of the participants. If scouts aren't sufficiently challenged they are likely to look for their own challenges and find things to do that are unsafe.

Lisabob, After having to deal with a scout (and his parents) that was solely motivated by advancement, but was far from trustworthy, loyal, helpful, etc., I sat down with my son and had a talk with him to tell him that advancement was his choice. I was more interested in seeing him involved with helping his patrol and troop members than Eagle. He did end up with 21 Merit Badges. There were more than a couple that he started and didn't finish, and many that he never started, but would have met most of the requirements just from his other activities (music, sports and reading MB's, for example). There are a number of scouts that I have worked with that were never motivated by advancement, never received Eagle, but I would say they were the equal of any of the best Eagles. They are the ones that I expect to be most successful as adults, because they are excited about what they do, not about awards they earn. You may want to casually ask questions related to some of his partially completed MB's: "I am thinking about taking a hike on Saturday. What do you think I should take? Anyplace you would recommend? Do you want to go?" (hiking MB) "Lets listen to my new CD on the way to our family reunion on Sunday." (music MB). Then it is "hey, I see you just completed xxx" how about calling your MB counsellor tonight after dinner?" As you recognize, balance between too much pushing and not saying anything is important, and more an art than a science. When I was SM, I didn't keep track of who had started what MB, choosing instead to let any scout go wherever a muse took him. In retrospect, conversations about unfinished MB's and suggestions to complete some before starting on new ones would have been worth considering. Seems there are so many additional things that would have been worth doing. Too bad days are only 24 hours long.

I live in the general vicinity of Elgin district U-46. I believe it is the 2nd or 3rd largest district in the state (Illinois). I suspect that they do not have the financial ability to make the schools available to all organizations at no charge. Their expenses are pretty high - they have over 100 administrators and teachers that were paid over $100,000 per year. Their budget likely already includes estimated revenue from renting facilities.

Motivated by hatred does not preclude anyone from having a God, including extremists. They are not Godless. cheers

Gonzo, Thanks for the additional explanation; it does help clarify, and I better understand your view. While you believe that they are Godless, everything that I know about them is that they are extremely motivated by their view of God. I acknowledge that I could be wrong; that they are motivated by something else and are using religion and God solely as a cover. There are people that do so, but I do think that is more likely in this case that they do believe in God. I do agree with you in believing that God would not command people to kill others simply because they dont believe. I agree with you on the problems with fanaticism; I believe that most people want to live in a peaceful environment, regardless of their religion. That does not mean that the enemy, or kooks, etc., involved does not believe in God (i.e., are Godless), or are not finding their motivation in what they believe to be God's message. One can find statements in both the Koran and the Bible to support actions that you and I and others that we would consider rational people would find unthinkable. thanks for listening.

Packsaddle, I agree that we cannot prevail by being nice. I agree with you that Gonzo does not specify a religion. I am calling him on his reference to the enemy as Godless, when in fact they are not. When you say " In fact, his assertion that the enemy is godless, well, implies no religion at all." you make the same point that I am making; i.e., Gonzo is stating that the enemy in Iraq has no religion (or God, if you will), even though they do. Let me add that I have not laid any traps in my messages. Venividi

OGE, The thing that is most notable to be is the houses within Hogwarts, and the competetions set up between the houses; both Quiddich and overall points for house of the year. Also, teachers are truely teachers and mentors, and not constantly watching over the shoulders of the students to make sure that they do what they are supposed to do. Very similar to how I envision patrols working in an ideal troop.

Gonzo, Thanks for trying to explain, but after reading your explanation 3 times, I still dont see where there is any basis on calling Muslims in Iraq "Godless" and "bastards". It seems to me that this is a needless miscaracterization that serves only to incite. I had thought this thread had been about Iraqis and the war in Iraq. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that it had been established that the attacks on 9/11 were not done by Iraq or Iraqis. Please forgive me if I am appearing dense, as I dont get your tie-in of what is going on in Iraq with 9/11. I think it totally believable that there are people that believe that God has instructed them to kill any that they consider to be non-believers. It is very similar to believing that God instructed Isaac to kill his son, and that he commanded Israelites to kill other tribes. Those are Christian beliefs. Please don't take this reply as an indication that I must be a sympathiser with those we are fighting in Iraq. I am not. I AM concerned that when emotions are allowed to run unchecked, bad decisions can get made. Venividi

Gonzo, Can you explain why you believe they are Godless? And why you think they are bastards? It is my understanding that the people we are talking about are deeply religious. And I infer that their religious convictions would result in very few of them being bastards. Venividi

PeteM, With respect to the scout, Lisabob is correct. Beyond the scout, it may be appropriate for SM/ASM/CC to meet to review this particular scout's activities, actions, and behaviours within the troop. The goal being to consider if changes in how the program is run, and how advancement is used to further the aims. It may be that the lad was a fine example of a scout, but that something in his life changed, and the criminal activities were a result. It may be that in retrospect, you can see signs that the lad was troubled, and leaders can learn to intervene if another scout is seen in a similar situation in the future.

>Doin' EBOR's, I've occasionally done things like, after approving a boy, mentioned offhandedly that "gee, we usually see a bit more hours/youth independence in service projects from other troops. Are you folks happy with the level of expectation you've set?" One of the most prevalent ongoing issues I saw was that new leaders and committee members that believe it is BSA that sets the level of expectation rather than the unit. They don't want to be perceied as the "bad guy". More than once I have heard adults talking after reviewing and approving an Eagle project saying that they didn't think it was sufficient, but they didn't think it was their place to say "no". Rather, thought that the district advancement committee had that responsibility. Requires constant education/communication as new volunteers come in to serve on BOR's.

Todays WSJ had an article titled "Blame It on Mr. Rogers: Why Young Adults Feel So Entitled". http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118358476840657463.html A couple of excerpts: ...as usual, students were making a pilgrimage to his [Mr. Chance']office, asking for the extra points needed to lift their grades to A's. "They felt so entitled," he recalls, "and it just hit me. We can blame Mr. Rogers." Fred Rogers, the late TV icon, told several generations of children that they were "special" just for being whoever they were. He meant well, and he was a sterling role model in many ways. But what often got lost in his self-esteem-building patter was the idea that being special comes from working hard and having high expectations for yourself. American students often view lower grades as a reason to "hit you up for an A because they came to class and feel they worked hard," says Prof. Chance. He wishes more parents would offer kids this perspective: "The world owes you nothing. You have to work and compete. If you want to be special, you'll have to prove it."

From the Advancement Committee Guide Policies and Procedures, #33088, 2006 printing: Page 28: - To make sure the Scout has done what he was supposed to do for the rank. To see how good an experience the Scout is having in his unit. To encourage the Scout to progress further. And then similarly stated on Page 29: The review has three purposes: - To make sure the work has been learned and completed. - To check to see what kind of experience the boy is having in his patrol and troop. - To encourage the Scout to advance to the next rank. Other than stating that the review is not an examination, I do not see anything in the guide that specifies how the board is to accomplish the first item, so I would expect that the troop advancement chair would have some leeway in determining how to do this, and would expect it to be applied consistently. Additional note, since uniforming was asked about: Page 30: The Scout should be neat in his appearance and his uniform should be as correct as possible, with the badges worn properly.

Hunt, Considering the information on the CVC web site FAQ to be an interpretation would be easier if they didn't attribute the statement to the National decision. But the words are in quotes, and the National decision is cited. What is puzzling is why National didn't post the same BOR text that CVC posted on the National web site (This is assuming that CVC is indeed providing a direct quote). National's intent might be clearer if they posted the entire decision. Or issued a memo ;-).

John, Thanks for moving this. I was hoping to find a copy of the decision somewhere on the web so that I could read exactly what was in it. I was very surprised when I came across the statement about BOR being responsible to resolve whether service was satisfatory. They do show it in quotes, and attribute it to the same decision by National.

John, The Clinton Valley Council web site FAQ is in agreement with the national web site on the issue of a scout being given credit for time in POR if not removed. It goes further than the National web site in providing a statement about BOR's role in such a situation: "The issue of whether their service is satisfactory is resolved at the local board of review for that rank." Please note that I am not associated with Clinton Valley Council.

OK, I used the wrong word. Sorry.