ajmako

gtscouter, Two things you want to keep in mind: 1) A Scoutmaster Conference can happen at any time for any reason. It doesn't just deal with advancement requirements. In fact, the SM Conference is the number one tool for adult leaders. You can't help a boy you don't know, and the way you get to know him is by sitting down and talking to him. 2) Don't wait for a Scout to be ready to advance to deal with a discipline problem. Advancement is neither the stick nor the carrot in developing a Scout's behavior. If there is a discipline problem with a particular Scout the SM or another adult leader has to deal with it immediately and completely seperately from advancement. A BOR should NEVER be expected to deal with a discipline problem--if there is a behavior issue with a particular Scout he's obviously not ready to advance and shouldn't be sent before the BOR. As far as getting people to pay attention to the problem, that's the SM's job when he/she establishes the standard of behavior. The SM needs to communicate what is expected to the Scout and his parents. The SM needs to continuously work with the Scout and his parents to modify unacceptable behavior.

Strictly speaking, no. Even less so because of the size of the troop. In my experience I have discovered that there are times, regardless of the size of the troop, when cooking and eating as a troop would be adviseable. In some troops, particularly small or brand new troops, cooking and eating as a troop is really the only practical thing to be done. So it's not always necessary to do patrol cooking. As far as the Patrol Method is concerned each patrol should plan its own menu, purchase its own food, and handle the work of cooking and eating on its own. It's all part of being an independent group. What you describe is the patrol cooking process, just applied to the whole troop. I wouldn't condemn a troop for doing things this way, but I'd spend some time talking to the SM about the reasons it's done that way. As far as the other staffer's objections, it sort of misses the point. The Patrol Method is about being an independent group, not about everyone having a job to perform. You're right, even in average-sized patrols it's possible that not every Scout has an irksome task or weighty responsibility for every meal. It all evens out by the end of the campout, so everyone does pretty much the same amount of work. AJ

>> The newest, youngest scouts seem to be the most dedicated.

My only suggestion is to focus on teaching the skills and providing opportunities to complete requirements. Don't schedule advancement focused activities, schedule activities that provide the opportunity to advance. Then challenge every Scout who wants to advance to seize the opportunities as they come, and if they don't see a particular opportunity, make one. Ideally you want to run a fun program and only have to worry about advancement when a Scout comes to you (or someone designated to sign off requirements) and says: "I did this, can you sign it off?"

Eamonn wrote: Maybe due to my age I'm not remembering things but 30 years ago when I first became a leader I don't remember hearing of children with ADD and ADD HA. Of course now I have and am willing to allow these children some "Slack". I now know that this is an illness.Still even if this is an illness is it an excuse for lack of respect? Eamonn, That's because it wasn't called ADD, ADD-HA, or any of the other disorders that fall under the umbrella of ADHD. Thirty years ago it was called simply Hyperactivity and only covered a small subset of those with the disorder. Before that it was called Minimal Brain Dysfunction. Before that it was called juvenile delinquency. While I don't want to hijack this thread with a discussion of ADHD, I would like to point out that ADHD is not an illness. It's a disorder, but not a disease. The distinction is rather important. Regarding morals, ethics, and the role of rules, ADHD is not an excuse for not having morals, not understanding ethics, or not having a use for rules. People with ADHD certainly tend to be impulsive and this leads people to think they can't follow rules or be considerate of others. Without going into a long dissertation on the nature of the disorder, people with ADHD have the same capacity for following the rules, developing morals and ethics, as anyone else. If some "slack" is needed in dealing with children with ADHD, it is simply just to understand that their brain doesn't work exactly like everyone else's. They need a little more patience maybe; sometimes maybe a firmer hand; and it takes a little more effort for them to learn personal responsibility. Too often, in looking at the reason behind a person's actions, we prefer the simple answer. There has to be some mental or emotional defect to explain this behavior because "normal" people just don't act that way. Sometimes there really is a defect, but we have to be careful in blaming the defect for the behavior. A mental or emotional defect certainly can weaken a person's defences agains bad behavior, but unless the defect is so severe as to completely eliminate those defences, we cannot blame behavior on mental or emotional issues. A person who is depressed still has a sense of morality, of ethics, and can be a person of as good character as anyone else. Bad behavior--acting contrary to morals, unethically, without regard to rules--is the result of a moral or character defect or weakness. AJ (again)

My personal ethical perspective and background is simple. I grew up among the first generation of Americans to live without segregation--I was about 1 year old when the Civil Rights Act was signed. Most of my schooling was in a Catholic parish school. I became a Cub Scout at the age of 7, and have been registered in Scouting in one capacity or another since. I must also admit that I am a miserable failure at living by the ideals of both Scouting and Christianity, but I keep trying. Rules and regulations are imposed, even in a voluntary society, to ensure the survival of the society. In a democratic society, rules and regulations are agreed upon limits on individual freedom that are meant to keep your liberty from infringing on my liberty. They establish uniform methods for doing things within the society. Their role is to make it possible for each of us to live together in the society. How do we teach kids that? By first establishing a common set of understandable rules. Then by taking the kid in hand and teaching that rules are important, but far more important is the sence of community that gives force to those rules. By giving them something to do under those common rules that allows the kid to discover for himself what the rule means, why it is important, and what happens when we don't follow the rules. By understanding that kids will make mistakes--far more mistakes than the average adult, whose understanding and acceptance of the rules is far from perfect. By teaching the kid to reason, to think for himself and understand common sense. There are wrong ways to accomplish this, but there is no one right way. In our small-scale voluntary society called "Scouting" we have many different ways of accomplishing the task, but all of those different ways have common elements. Those common elements boil down to a common morality, a high expectation of personal responsibility for living by that common morality, and a realistic laboratory for learning and practicing that common morality and personal responsibility. Whatever differences there may be between Scouting organizations or individual Scouters are simply in how those common elements are defined, developed and used. Personally I view those differences much the same way I view differences between Christian denominations or between distinct cultures. Knowing what makes us different helps us understand the other guy, but far more important are the things we have in common. I just wish I wasn't sometimes a miserable failure at acting that way. AJ

while I'm not as sanguine as Ajmako that you can simply apply the Oath and Law to all situations. Hunt, Cheerfully optimistic? Yes. Hopeful? Yes. Confident? Yes. I am all those things when it comes to the idea that you can simply apply the Oath and Law to all situations. That is, after all, what we expect a Scout to do. We teach him the Scout Oath and Law and tell him to do his best to live by them in his daily life. We tell him to apply the Oath and Law to all situations and let those ideals guide his actions. He can only learn how to do that by observing us apply the Oath and Law to all situations. He will only be convinced it is possible if we show him that it is. AJ

Start by focusing on teaching skills, not checking off requirements. Use troop and patrol meetings to teach, then go to camp with a purpose other than "working on advancements." Let the TG take the lead in this. Let him do most of the work. The NSP-SA should be in the background. If you teach the skills like you teach a kid to tie his own shoes, and go to camp for a reason that is fun, advancement will happen. The TG should obviously know the requirements and have the authority to sign them off. As far as the PL is concerned, you can make a schedule, like a duty roster and rotate the PL and APL positions through the patrol until everyone has had a position. Don't forget the other patrol positions: Scribe, Quartermaster, Grubmaster, Hikemaster, Cheermaster. Everyone in the patrol should have a job to do, and they should be expected to do it. The TG will have to teach them how to do the job, and he might need to pick up the slack from time to time. As far as possible the responsibilities given to each Scout should be real responsibilities. At each month's PLC meeting the PL does the PL's job. The TG attends as an advisor and confidence booster. Don't forget about building a real patrol with real patrol spirit--that comes from doing things as a patrol pretty much on their own. Have realistic expectations and always believe the Scouts can do the job. In the words of Green Bar Bill: train 'em, trust 'em, let 'em lead. Above all, don't listen to anyone who says it won't work, or the Scouts can't handle it. If you believe, the Scouts will believe, and that's all that counts. AJ

Kudu writes: What's wrong? It is a description of your progress, not his. That's your interpretation, not mine. I don't judge a Scout's progress according to my own standards or anything like that. I set high expectations, develop a relationship with each Scout, and I watch each Scout grow. When it comes to signing off Scout Spirit, I ask myself if this Scout has done his best, based on what I know about him, to live by the Scout Oath and Law in his everyday life. Sometimes I ask him if he thinks he's done his best. And then I sign it off. Kudu writes: Ask yourself: why do you need adult-judgement Scoutmaster Conferences, adult-judgement Boards of Review, and adult-judgement Scout Spirit requirements in order to talk to Scouts about these things? It is because these "high expectations" are all about what you want, and most adults need sanctions against Scouts who think that Scouting is a game. Kudu, a Scoutmaster Conference is not about judgement. It's about talking to a Scout, getting to know him, finding out what he's learned, what he's been up to, and what he wants to do in the future. I can't help it if some Scout leaders use it as an interrogration, or insist on X amount of participation. The BSA manuals do not describe the SM conference that way. A Board of Review only marginally judges a Scout. It's primary purpose is to make sure Scouting is doing its job. Once again, I can't help it if some Scout leaders use it as a final exam or as a means of pulling the rug out from under a Scout. Once again, the BSA manuals do not describe the BOR that way, and in fact they forbid that sort of thing. The simple fact is I don't need SM conferences, BOR's and Scout Spirit requirements to talk to a Scout. They are something the BSA requires for advancement, so I have to deal with them. They exist for a reason, and if I was inclined to figure it out I would, but I'm not. It's unfortunate that you assume I mean something far different by "high expectations" than I do. Having scanned most of the BSA manuals over several editions, taken most of the BSA training, and managed to survive a few years as a Scoutmaster, my idea of "high expectations" is not much different than it ever was. My idea of "high expectations" fits very nicely with everything the BSA says about SM conferences, BOR's and Scout Spirit requirements. I can sum it up in a simple quote. Perhaps you'll recognize it. "Expect a great deal of your boys and you will generally get it." Kudu writes: Turning the Ideals of Scouting into obligations is the official policy of the BSA. And then he writes: Huh? An all or nothing proposition? Scouting is a game. This all or nothing "purpose" thing is your problem, not his. Actually, it's Baden-Powell's idea. Yes, you're right, the original idea was that a boy would take on the obligation of the Oath, Law, Motto, etc. himself. And everything I've read by B-P makes it pretty clear he expected that Scout to understand there was no picking and choosing. A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent. You can't pick and choose which points of the Scout Law you will be. You can't decide you agree with the Motto and the Slogan, but you'd rather leave the Oath and Law in a box under the bed. That's what I mean about being "all or nothing." Wanna be a Scout? The Ideals describe what a Scout is/does. Be or do them and you're a Scout. Kudu writes: The adults can give the sign-off sheet back if they want, but clearly the Scout Spirit requirements are intended to allow adults to evaluate the Scouts' "Spirit." This is not some kind of misunderstanding. Kudu, I'm afraid it is some kind of misunderstanding. The actual text of the Boy Scout Handbook concerning how Scout Spirit is to be determined has already been quoted. The Scoutmaster Handbook describes a Scoutmaster Conference of very nearly everything but evaluating Scout Spirit. What it says about Scout Spirit is this: "The conference is a valuable opportunity for a Scoutmaster to discuss with each Scout his activity in the troop and his understanding and practice of the ideals of Scouting." Nothing there about evaluating, just helping the Scout see. The Scoutmaster Handbook goes on, in describing Boards of Review, to say: "Each review should include a discussion of ways in which the Scout sees himself living up to the Scout Oath and Law in his everyday life." Again, no evaluation of Scout Spirit, which would certainly be problematic since the requirement has to be completed before the BOR can happen. The Troop Committee Guidebook says nothing about evaluating Scout Spirit. The Advancement Committee Policies & Procedures manual says: "The review is not an examination; the board does not retest the candidtate. Rather, the board should attempt to determine the Scout's attitude and his acceptance of Scouting's ideals." I've searched everything I could think of or have access to as far as official BSA literature and I've found nothing that says Scout Spirit requirements, Scoutmaster Conferences, and Boards of Review are intended to allow adults to evaluate a Scout's spirit. I'll certainly agree that many adults use them that way, but that's not how they are intended to be used.

Yah, I agree with ajmako, but I think he's leavin' out a whole bunch of stuff. Yeah, that's par for the course. Would you believe I was trying to simplify things? No? Okay, then I must have forgotten all the other stuff. But the cause of what ajmako describes is the right adults in a long-term relationship with kids. Hello Muddah, hello Fadduh, amen Bruddah! I think ajmako's exposition is only tryin' to tell people to avoid traps #2 and #3. (He/she will have to let me know if that's right ) That's good advice, eh? But it ain't enough to pull off what s/he's talkin' about. He will tell you that he's been caught in all three traps more times than he'd like to admit, and now that you mention it the only reason he didn't try to tell people to avoid trap #1 was that he forgot. Dat's the part ajmako left out, eh? He's able to pull a kid aside and have a gentle Scout Spirit conversation because he's developed the relationship with the boy to pull it off. He just didn't tell yeh about that part. Ooh, thank's Beavah, now I remember! I didn't tell yeh about it 'cause I thought it was obvious, eh? [face saved?] Getting to know the boys personally not only makes it easy to see their growth, it also makes it easy to see what sort of consequence is most likely to jump-start their brain. Had a Scout back when I was fond of "Scout Law Push-Ups" who always seemed to look for reasons to do them. Took me a couple conversations to put 2 and 2 together and figure out he liked doing push-ups and didn't mind the attention either. AJ(This message has been edited by ajmako)

Well, we've gone a little far afield of the original topic, but that's to be expected. Stosh: After all, isn't the whole idea behind a venture patrol and NBP meant to be stratafied? It allows a program focus that isn't possible with mixed patrols. Historically, the venture patrol concept was created to deal with a problem of older Scout retention. It's not really a new concept since long, long ago the BSA had Senior Scouts, which turned into Exploring. The NSP concept was introduced to deal with two problems--one with low Webelos-to-Scout transition rates and the other with younger Scout retention (after the first year). If you're going to implement these two concepts you sort of have to have a stratified program, otherwise they don't really work. Like so much of what we discuss here, if you use these concepts with an eye toward giving each boy the best Scouting experience, you can make them work quite well. My problem with them is that they seem to invite micromanagement by adults. They seem to confuse things a bit, making Scouting a lot harder than it should be. I mean, before we had NSP's we didn't have too much trouble with Webelos III patrols or anything like that. Way back when a new Scout joined a patrol already in progress. The PL might be 14 or even 15. The bulk of the patrol would be 12 to 14. The patrol had within it a wide range of experience--enough to accomplish whatever they set out to do. One of the PL's responsibilities was to encourage the patrol members to advance. Notice I said encourage, not take sole charge of teaching and instructing. So Bill joins the patrol and Sam, the PL goes to work. He gets George, the 2nd Class fire-bug working on 1st Class cooking, to teach Bill Tenderfoot cooking skills so he can be his assistant. He gets Drew, the patrol's resident genius with ropes, to teach Bill some basic knots. He gets Jim, the able APL, to teach Bill what he needs to be ready for the next campout. Bill learns the skills so he can survive the campout, but he learns them from members of his patrol. In the process connections are made between the new guy and the rest of the patrol. They need him to learn quickly, so they teach him well. On the campout Sam watches Bill closely, tests him on what he's learned, and pretty quickly a new Tenderfoot is minted--not on that one campout of course, but pretty fast. Now obviously there are things the older guys in the patrol want to do that Bill just can't handle yet. That's okay. As a patrol they'll figure out a way to do them. That's what patrols do. Maybe it means getting Bill up to speed a lot faster than usual so they can do some backpacking. Maybe it means teaching Bill how to swim so they can do some canoeing. Whatever it means, the patrol will do it because Bill is a part of the patrol and it wouldn't be right to leave him behind. That is how it's supposed to work anyway. Granted, in our modern world there are barriers keeping things from working that way. Older Scouts have a lot more opportunities to do those highly adventurous things they want to do, so maybe we do need a special sub-program for them. If we take out all the Scouts 14 and above and put them in Venture Patrols, though, we're actually making it easier for Sam's patrol to take care of a brand new Scout. The age range is narrower, and thanks to liability insurance and everybody wanting to sue everybody even 13-year-olds can't do some of the things 12-year-olds used to do 20, 30 or 40 years ago. Now, when we chop off the lower end and take away all the 11-year-olds, we're left with patrols of 12 to 13-year olds. Hog heaven for those guys because they don't want to deal with any "little guys." What they really want to do is what the Venture Patrol does, and since they can't do it, they'll do whatever comes closest. If you need one of these guys to be TG or an instructor, you're in trouble. They just got out of an NSP, and the last thing they want to do is go through boot camp again. That means TG's and instructors have to come from the Venture Patrol ranks. Whether the TG gets one of his buds to do the instructing, he's still responsible for a lot more than just teaching skills. He can't just abandon the NSP to be with his Venture Patrol pals, even when someone else is teaching the skill. Not if he wants to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient and all that other stuff. We've got Bill and his buds together in one patrol--not a problem, but it opens the door to one. It's easy to deal with this patrol because they are all essentially equal as far as being inexperienced and what they're allowed to do. Add in the First Class Emphasis (another retention fix, this time for mid-aged Scouts), and you have something that usually becomes intensive training. If the skills are taught completely; if the program is challenging enough and not soley focused on checking off requirements; and if the assigned adult doesn't get in the way, Bill and his buds will "graduate" from the NSP into a regular patrol without a hiccough--just like they graduated from Webelos into the NSP. Any one of those if's can mess things up. Don't teach the skills completely and Bill will have to be retaught in order to survive in a regular patrol. Don't make the program challenging and Bill won't stick around long enough to find out what a regular patrol is like. Focus on checking off requirements and Bill is on his way to being yet another Eagle Scout who can't tie a square knot (correction: doesn't know what a square knot is). Let the adult leader get in the way and Bill moves into the regular patrol without the faintest idea what boy-led is. More troubling is the attitude of the rest of the troop. As I said, one reason the NSP was introduced was to ease new Scouts into the troop. Give them a chance to get used to Scouting in the company of friendly, equally nervous faces, and when they come up against the harsh reality of the early teen regular patrol years they'll at least know what's what's what. In other words, it was introduced to eliminate the initiation rituals and hazing that new Scouts often faced going directly into regular patrols. Missed in all that is the fact that you can't be successful creating comraderie and brotherhood if you seperate out the group that needs comraderie and brotherhood the most. The mental immaturity that caused the ritual hazing in the first place remains, it just has a bigger target. Worse still, we've clearly defined three distinct classes in our little society. We've got the low-class new Scouts relegated to a basically isolated program. We've got the middle-class "regular" patrols focused exclusively on reaching for the upper-class. We've got the upper-class Venture Patrols who get to do the coolest stuff and are the coolest people. What must everyone think of the poor kid who gets to be TG? He sort of ends up looking like the people who join the Peace Corps--unless everyone assumes he's some sort of outcast. I'm certainly making it sound worse than it could ever be, but I've seen this happen (just like it used to with the Leadership Corps--one reason why they got rid of it). As usual, I made my point way up there at the top and went overboard trying to explain it. To me all these different groupings and intricate structuring and stratification just makes things a lot harder than it has to be. I can't even link this all back to the original topic of this thread without hopelessly confusing the issue--not that I haven't hopelessly confused it already. I know, I'll quit while I'm behind. (This message has been edited by ajmako)

Kudu wrote: How do you "measure" Spirit in a Scout's everyday life? When I was SM, I didn't measure Scout Spirit, at least not formally. I watched the Scouts interact with each other and with other people in the course of doing Scouting while he was working toward advancement. When it came time for an SM conference, I sat down with him and talked to him about things he had learned, how he was doing, and what his plans were for the next rank. I rarely had trouble finding out if he had done his best to live by the Scout Oath and Law in his everyday life. I rarely had a hard time seeing if a Scout had grown during the course of earning a rank. It's right there if you take the time to look. But, if I was doing SM conferences today, I might just ask him if he thought he had done his best to live by the Scout Oath and Law in his everyday life. While the Scout Spirit Scavenger Hunt is a fine thing and no doubt does a great job getting a Scout to see for himself, what's wrong with simply getting to know the Scout and opening your eyes to the growth in his behavior? What's wrong with having high expectations for him and working with him to achieve those expectations? Why is it necessary to argue and debate over aims and methods and history in order to figure out how to know if a Scout is acting like a Scout? Kudu continued: B-P invented Scouting as an alternative to the same social forces that now insist on turning the Ideals of Scouting into adult-enforced "obligations." Really? I thought he invented Scouting as a remedy to such "national inefficiencies" as irreligion, indiscipline, irresponsibility, want of patriotism, seflishness, corruption, disregard of others, cruelty, crimes of violence, lunacy, thriflessness, poverty, loafing, shirking, low moral standards, gambling, illegitimacy, disease, ill-health, squalor, infant mortality, mental deficiency, and physical deficiency. Things that are caused by disregard of the social forces I assume you are talking about (I really can't tell). I was pretty sure that B-P chose the opening words of the Scout Oath specifically because a boy who said them would view them as an obligation--a promise he had to keep in order to be worthy of being a Scout. Have we lost that in the BSA? Yes, to some extent, but it's not lost forever. It can be regained without tearing everything down or arguing over every minute point. Kudu continued: To understand the history of the Court of Honor is to understand OldGreyEagle's disconnect between the pretty words about Scout Spirit that he finds in the BSA Handbook and the way that religious conservatives turn these Ideals into obligations. If you say so. Being a religious conservative I for one am not trying to turn the Ideals into obligations. I am trying to get young men to accept the Ideals and recognize it's an all or nothing proposition. I don't have to understand the history of the Court of Honor to understand what the Scout Spirit requirements are supposed to be or how they are supposed to be evaluatued. I just have to look in the Boy Scout Handbook, on page 108, which OldGreyEagle quoted. His question was how a Scout leader can justify setting attendance percentages or other obstacles to advancement as part of Scout Spirit when the handbook clearly says it's not the Scout leader's job to "measure" Scout Spirit. The answer is, the Scout leader can't justify it. They have to either misunderstand what is meant, remain ignorant of what is meant, or purposefully ignore what is meant by Scout Spirit. That is human nature, and it's not unique to the BSA.(This message has been edited by ajmako)

I was asked some questions about my post privately, but they are good questions worthy of being answered publicly: But my question is now HOW do you implement that? You mentioned that after some time, it won't take more than a scoutmaster sit down to nip things in the bud. But how do you get to that point. I addressed this in another thread (see RE: name calling again). This isn't a quick, easy fix. The adult leaders have to put forth a bit of effort to make it work. Simply put: 1) Get rid of all behavior rules and zero-tolerance policies. 2) Sit down with the Scouts and establish the Scout Oath and Law as a zero-tolerance policy. That is, describe what you expect from each boy to be worthy of the name "Scout." He promises that he "understands and intends to live by" the Scout Oath and Law. He raises his hand at every meeting and recites the Scout Oath and Law--promising on his honor he will do his best to live by the Scout Oath and Law. Our job is to hold him to that promise. 3) Adult leaders must be on the same page as far as what is expected, and must always model the expected behavior. 4) Parents must understand the expectations and support them. What are your consequences for misbehavior in a zero-tolerance environment? The consequences for misbehavior are that the Scout isn't worthy of being called a "Scout." He doesn't deserve the benefits a Scout receives. That sounds harsh, and to some it may sound like I'm suggesting the boy be kicked out of the troop. Let me use Kb6jra's real life example to explain: "We had an SPL who lied to his parents about his grades. On his own volition, he spelled out his punishment. At home he lost his phone, tv, extra fun privledges for a period of time. At the troop level he stepped down as SPL, appologized to the troop for not being trustworthy, and did not hold a POR for 6 months, negating any advancement opportunities." What made him, on his own volition, admit his mistake and punish himself? His understanding of "honor," "trustworthyness," and what it means to be a Scout. Since he didn't lie to the troop, many would wonder why he admitted anything to the troop. Because he understood that being a Scout is a 24/7 thing. It meant something to him to be trusted with a position like SPL. It meant something to him to have "honor" in the eyes of his fellow Scouts. And because it meant something, he felt he needed to do penance for not being trustworthy. Being worthy of the name "Scout" meant something to that Scout because the adult leaders, and even his parents probably, established from the start high expectations and gave it meaning. The promise wasn't just words. They expected him to actually do what he was promising to do. No doubt, when he was just starting out in Scouting, he probably made the occasional mistake--he was momentarily unkind, unfriendly, disobedient, etc. On those occasions, rather than giving the Scout X number of push-ups, assigning him a dirty task, or making him write "I will not be unkind" 500 times, his Scout leaders sat down and connected his behavior with the Scout Oath and Law. They showed him how his behavior didn't just violate a point of the Law or a rule, but brought into question his honor--his worthiness of the name "Scout." The more they did that, the more being a Scout meant to him. after a scoutmaster sit-down, and the behavior continues, where do you go from there? Unfortunately, as some point you have to call the Scout on the promise he made. If he continues to misbehave, you have to give him an ultimatum. Either he lives up to his promise, or he doesn't come back. Scouting is for boys who want to be Scouts. That means they have to want live up to their promise. Misbehavior shows either they don't want to live up to their promise, or they don't understand their promise. Sometimes a Scout needs a little jolt for the pieces to fall into place. Sometime the Scout is just challenging your resolve. If you don't make the ultimatum and stick to it, the Scout realizes the promise doesn't mean anything. Going back, for a second, to behavior rules and zero-tolerance policies. Most troops start out by saying "The Scout Oath and Law are the model of behavior." Some then add in something like "we have no tolerance for bullying," "we have no tolerance for name calling," "we have no tolerance for foul language," "we have no tolerance for [insert behavioral issue here]." The problem with this is each additional rule or policy reduces the force of the Oath and Law. Bullying is quite clearly covered by the Scout Law, so a zero-tolerance rule against bullying tends to indicate that the Scout Law isn't zero-tolerance. The Scout Law means less because we've added a rule to cover a behavior as if we didn't already have one.

I used to want to save the world. When I was a newly minted adult I left my boyhood troop for what was at that time called an "inner city" troop. I did it because I wanted to do my duty and to help other people--especially those who needed it most. I was just a kid from the suburbs and really didn't have a clue what real life was like. Once I got to know the boys in the troop and got to understand the sort of neighborhood they lived in, the schools they went to, and what they and their parents had to contend with, I wanted to save the world even more. I did my best but some of the kids I worked with still got into trouble and spent time in juvie. Some of the kids I worked with didn't last very long in Scouting and got into the same things their non-Scouting peers got into. Some of the kids I worked with grabbed Scouting with both arms and clung to it for dear life, and some of those still made the same mistakes their parents or other peers made. I don't count any one of them as failures--not even as Scouting failures. I did what I could for them, but I learned pretty quickly Stosh is right. You can't save everyone. You can't even save every one of the kids God hands you to save. All you can do is your best and then pray a lot for the one's you can't reach. Please don't think I have the wrong attitude, or that Stosh does, or anyone else who agrees with him. We very much want to help every boy who comes to us. We reach out as far as we can to welcome every boy we can. But our reach only goes so far. I can't make a boy join Scouting. I can't help a boy who doesn't want my help. I can't reach a boy who refuses to be reached. Twenty-six years ago I thought I could, and it was a painful lesson learning that I couldn't. I stuck with that troop for six years, and spent another two years beating myself up for not being able to do more than I did. At the time I thought everything I did those six years was a failure. Well it wasn't. Fifty boys came under my influence during those six years. Twenty of them stayed with the troop at least three years. At the very least a seed was planted in those 50 that eventually changed their path through life. That might mean a couple thousand more boys didn't get reached, but there's nothing I can do about that. I hope and pray it means that the seed I planted grew in those 50 and that they influenced other lives. If your goal is to reach every boy, you will not reach your goal. Your focus will be on all the one's you haven't reached. If your goal is to reach every boy you can, you'll fare much better. Your focus will be on the only one you can reach--the one standing before you.(This message has been edited by ajmako)

C-BOLT wrote: The real problem is, some scouts not listening to certain leaders in our troop. This happens usually when the Scouts are convinced those certain leaders won't back up what they say. For example, if a Scout does something and a leader says "don't do it again or you get sent home," that can either be a warning or a challenge. If the Scout knows the leader means it, it's a warning. If the Scout isn't sure if the leader means it or not, it's a challenge. If he doesn't listen and the leader just says "don't do it again or you get sent home," the Scout now knows it's an empty threat. He knows he can do whatever he wants and probably never get sent home. The two biggest problems adults have maintaining discipline are not meaning what they say, and giving conflicting messages--one adult says he'll send you home, the other says it's no big deal.