dkurtenbach

Venividi wrote: "(I)t is the unit's responsibility to decide on the quality level that they want, the standards they expect, and then implement a program that provides it." Venividi, well said. denP, I've signed up as your 11th "ignorer."(This message has been edited by dkurtenbach)

[badenP wrote:] In this forum we debate and argue over rules everyday, yet the councils don't seem to follow them, many of the scout leaders fudge on them, and National doesn't seem to care one way or the other, and the result is the disjointed program we have today, producing substandard scouts and Eagles. IMO we should take all the advancement guidelines, procedures and regulations, and the G2SS and burn them since few are following them anyway and no one from council or National is enforcing them or can enforce them. However if council is meeting their numbers and money quotas, junior is getting all his badges quickly and Eagle by 13, and troop leaders do not have to even camp anymore or even learn scout skills than everyone seems happy and content. [/badenP] And here I thought that _I_ was cynical. [Wink] As I said previously in this thread: "In any case, the whole point of Scouting is to change _boys_. Coincidentally, it is in our units where most of us have the actual ability to exercise leadership, to effect change, and to 'demand high quality and the very best.' The unit's year-'round program is where the rubber meets the road, where we can counteract the dumbing down of the program, where we can build membership, and where we can show the public the value of Scouting." We often cannot control what happens in BSA at the National, council, district, or camp levels. But if you read the program literature such as the Boy Scout Handbook, the Scoutmaster Handbook, Passport to High Adventure, Scouting Magazine, etc., you find a really great program for youth. Much of the excellence of that program is achievable by _us_ at the unit level, regardless of what is going on at National, council, district, and camp. Other than some paperwork we need to do with council from time to time (membership applications, merit badge counselor applications, advancement reports, tour plans) and some purchases at a Scout Shop or ScoutStuff.org (uniforms, handbooks, badges and insignia), units really don't have to deal with them at all if the unit doesn't like what they are doing, and can run a great program without burning the Guide to Safe Scouting and Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures.

denP, we know what happens when we ass_u_me. Ask my Council's Camping Director and Camping Chairman, the last couple of Deputy Scout Executives in my Council, and the current Central Region chief about my "fall back and play dead attitude." LOL. This topic offers interconnected issues at all levels, from whether National has the right idea about what summer camps should be doing all the way down to whether a 15-year-old first year camp staffer should be entrusted with teaching Environment Science. Some problems can be fixed on site with a word to the Program Director or the Camp Commissioner. A few weeks back I sent an email that got some Council folks working on a dining hall problem. I'll be working on some interesting things with the Council Camping Committee this fall. As perhaps one of the few CORs who actually does the COR job as intended, you're effective at the Council level. Which all goes to my point: Work on the things you have the power to affect, and don't get worked up about the ones you don't -- work around them.

TAHAWK wrote: "The decision to offer MB's that are not, or cannot be, adequately staffed is a decision - not an act of God." That statement presumes that the decision-maker knows that the merit badges are not or cannot be adequately staffed. But who is the decision-maker? And whose opinion matters concerning whether a merit badge is adequately staffed? The Area Director who believes that the staff members teaching the badge don't know the subject matter of a particular merit badge well enough? Her boss, the Program Director, who has 50 Scouts signed up for that badge and nowhere else to send them because all the other program areas have no room? The Scout Executive, who doesn't want to get 50 complaint letters because a merit badge was cancelled? The Chairman of the Council Advancement Committee, who knows the the standards inside and out and believes that the existing camp staff can adequately deliver the merit badge? Since the Scoutmaster controls the troop's advancement program, and can refuse to allow the Scouts in his troop to take a particular merit badge offered by the camp, perhaps he is the decision-maker.

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." You can demand all you want from your camp, district, council, and BSA. That doesn't mean you can effect change in your camp, district, council, and BSA. You need something else. To effect change, you need (a) to have or be able to create conditions in which the change you want is both possible and likely to be successful, and (b) you need the leverage to permanently move the powers that be. Calling the powers that be "bozos" probably won't help effect change. (But I would suggest that, if you have accepted that you can't change them, concluding that they are "bozos" probably helps to achieve serenity.) In any case, the whole point of Scouting is to change _boys_. Coincidentally, it is in our units where most of us have the actual ability to exercise leadership, to effect change, and to "demand high quality and the very best." The unit's year-'round program is where the rubber meets the road, where we can counteract the dumbing down of the program, where we can build membership, and where we can show the public the value of Scouting. If you can't stomach the solution I suggested, jtewestark offered other practical alternatives: "Dont like [the standard summer camp program], dont participate. Roll your own camp, many units do that every year. Or keep looking for that perfect camp that is going to meet every expectation you want met. Good luck."

When I was younger and had fewer years of Boy Scout leadership under my belt, I used to "rage against the machine" far more than I do now, and one of my pet peeves was summer camp. I don't like the advancement-based (as opposed to an outdoor skills and outdoor adventure-based) nature of the typical summer camp program, and I don't like it that the advancement program was often poorly executed. Now I'm much more cynical, or perhaps just old and tired; but the wall we beat our heads against consists of this: (1) These days, most Scouts, most parents, and most Scout leaders want their Scouts coming home from summer camp with lots of merit badges and advancement requirements checked off -- that is the prime reason for going to summer camp. (2) Most Scouts, most parents, and most Scout leaders don't really care about the quality of the instruction or the experience provided in merit badge "classes." Only a small fraction of Scout leaders -- those who have really thought about the program (you know, the kind who join discussion forums) even know what to look for. (3) Most of the camp leadership and staff, most of the time, are doing the best that they can under the conditions: no money, staff with almost no subject-matter experience, too many Scouts to teach, terrible facilities (picnic tables outdoors in the heat and/or rain) for the classroom-type instruction that has become standard in BSA). If you can't fault the camp staff, all you have left is the Council Advancement Committee bureaucracy, who couldn't really do much anyway because (4) The summer camp season is too short, the summer camp leaders and staff too transitory, and the ten-month time gap between summer camp seasons far too long to build any momentum for improvement year-to-year. The camp has what it has at the beginning of the summer, and that's it. The camp leadership has just a matter of days to train staff. You can expect a certain minimum performance, but beyond that it is a crap shoot. So what is one to do? Being old, tired, and cynical, I would say: Stop taking the earning of merit badges at summer camp seriously. The skills that Scouts really need to learn are learned through expert/experienced instruction, actual practice over time, and real experience -- and those things are rarely provided at summer camp. Most merit badges offered at camp, if they aren't fluff, are just "dipping the toe in the water" for a particular subject anyway, and any real knowledge or skill acquired is likely to fade quickly after camp unless the troop offers regular opportunities to practice or the Scout is interested enough to pursue the subject further on his own, and thus acquire knowledge and skill _for real_. In short, very little serious learning is going to happen via merit badge instruction at summer camp anyway; and besides, by offering merit badges in this venue, BSA is telling us clearly the level of importance it gives to them. In short, accept the summer camp merit badge program for what it is, take advantage of the _other_ opportunities that summer camp offers where you can do something _real_ (hiking, patrol cohesion, cooking in non-dining hall camps, free time in program areas like shooting, archery and canoeing to actually practice, sitting around a troop campfire, doing patrol chores, etc.) and watch out for the Scouts who seem to be taking a shine to a particular merit badge subject so you can help them pursue that interest _after_ summer camp.

The tents are big canvas (approx 8x8) on wooden platforms, each with two cots. You do not need your own tents.

EDGE (Explain, Demonstrate, Guide, Enable) and Hondo (a reference to the movie "Hondo" in which John Wayne's title character, on learning that a boy can't swim, promptly tosses him into water over his head) are two different, even opposing, approaches to teaching a boy _how_ to carry out a task. The problem posed in the title of this thread is about motivation. As the old Boy Scout Roundtable training used to say, Roundtable was about giving troop leaders "the WILL to do and the SKILL to do." So, how do EDGE and Hondo affect the WILL to do while providing Scouts with the SKILL to do? I read Stosh's original point as being that the EDGE philosophy tends to sap a boy's initiative. I think Stosh stated it quite eloquently: "As long as adults treat their boys like children that can't figure things out for themselves, they will stay that way. Why learn when some adult is going to teach you. Why problem solve anything, some adult is going to tell you what to do eventually. Why take initiative on any priorities, the adults will tell you what you need to do next. Don't worry about screwing up, some adult will have a backup plan anyway and they'll take over. If adults keep doing these kinds of things there boys will NEVER step up and take over!" The obvious problems with the Hondo approach are that, on one extreme, sometimes the kid will just sink if you toss him in over his head, and on the other extreme, sometimes the kid will quickly learn to swim, but may swim right into danger because he hasn't been trained. The trick, I think, is finding a way to assess each boy before immediately starting in on training (EDGE) or simply tossing him in (Hondo).(This message has been edited by dkurtenbach)

I think most folks use the two terms interchangeably -- the important distinction is not "led" vs. "run" but "youth" vs. "adult." Dan K.

1. You don't want Scouts who wouldn't fit in with your troop's vision and style. (I found that out the hard way.) 2. You DEFINITELY don't want parents who wouldn't fit in with your troop's vision and style. (Ask Stosh.) It may feel bad to not be successful recruiting Webelos Scouts, but you may be dodging more than a few bullets. And if your program is successful by your definition, who cares? Your troop has to have a great program for the Scouts it has, not the Scouts it wishes it had. And when you do have visiting Webelos, don't do anything special for them. For the good of your troop, you are inspecting them -- not vice versa. Show them the real troop warts and all, and explain why it is the way it is -- but not as an apology. Turn the tables on them: Explain that you only want Scouts (and parents) who have the interest and attitude compatible with your troop, and ask if these visiting Scouts have the right stuff. If they aren't enthusiastic about camping and trips, if they prefer a school environment with adults setting schedules for them and pushing them to earn badges, and they just want to go along for the ride, there are plenty of other troops for them to look at. Dan K.

Good explanation from ScoutNut. Let me see if I can phrase it another way that might be helpful. Tiger, Wolf, Bear, and Webelos are first and foremost the names of the grade-level programs (or sub-programs of Cub Scouting) that the boys participate in. Boys are called by the name of the grade level programs they are members of. Thus boys in or entering 1st grade are Tigers; boys who have completed 2nd grade or are in 3rd grade are Bears; boys who have completed 3rd grade or are in 4th and 5th grade, but have not yet left the pack, are Webelos Scouts. For each grade level program they carry the books for those programs and wear the uniforms of those programs -- Tiger neckerchiefs and hats, Wolf neckerchiefs and hats, Bear neckerchiefs and hats, Webelos neckerchiefs and hats with the option for the tan/green uniform. During each program year, the activities the Scouts participate in are largely centered on completing the requirements for the rank badge for that particular program, which usually bears [pun intended] the name of the grade-level program in which it is earned (the exceptions being Bobcat and Arrow of Light). Thus a Scout is a Bear because he is a member of and participates in the Bear Program. He is a Bear while in 3rd grade, even if he never completes a single requirement for the Bear badge. But he only holds Bear _rank_ when he has earned the Bear badge. Dan K.

Some good posts. I see adults having three different roles in a Boy Scout troop. The first is Program Oversight: health and safety, compliance with BSA and chartered organization rules and policies, and ensuring that what happens in the troop is a _Scouting_ program. Program Oversight forms a protective and prescriptive shell that doesn't really vary much in size because it isn't dependent on the capabilities of the boys. Inside that adult zone is the boy-run program zone. The second adult role is Coaching and Mentoring -- but not dictating to -- youth leaders so they can carry out the boy-run program. The third adult role grows and shrinks based on the capabilities of the boys: Program Support. Program Support consists of adults doing those boy-run program tasks that the boys can't. Some of those support tasks are things that adults pretty much have to do -- driving, signing checks, holding Scoutmaster conferences, counseling merit badges. Others are things that trained and experienced boys can do, but that adults have to do if trained and experienced boys aren't available -- training boys in outdoor skills, for example. It is this role that has the most potential for causing a troop to be adult-run. Adults tend to like efficiency, like to step in to solve problems, and like to keep things moving toward a goal. Parenting and Cub Scouting reinforce these tendencies. It can be hard for adults to exercise the restraint needed for this Program Support role, to tolerate inefficiency and failure, and to be alert for opportunities to turn tasks and decisions back over to boys whenever possible.

AlabamaScouter wrote: "I froze the patrols . . . I've decided that the new scout patrol will merge with the oldest patrol . . . I think it is important for the boys to stay with the group they came in with." There are a lot of "gray areas" between: (a) the Program Oversight areas that adults control (making sure that the troop maintains a safe and solid _Scouting_ program within the rules and policies and methods of BSA and of the Chartered Organization); and (b) the Boy-Run zone within that protective and directive shell, in which Scouts get to make the plans and decisions about _their_ Scouting program, with the coaching of adults who may make suggestions and offer advice, but do not impose their views on what are matters that belong to the Scouts. That the troop _has_ patrols of a certain size, each led by a Patrol Leader, seems to me to be a Program Oversight issue that adults are responsible for. Patrols are an important -- some would say critical -- aspect of Boy Scouting. But how patrol membership is decided? Well, we hear about lots of ways of doing it that are generally accepted or at least not inconsistent with the Boy Scouting program. BSA recommends one way, while many experienced leaders recommend another. Many troops leave it up to the Scouts, which indicates that Scouts are capable of handling it. Of course, letting Scouts make decisions can make things messy, and the Scouts might try things that don't work right away. But maybe they should be given the first crack at the problem anyway. Not a sermon, just a thought. Dan K.

I expect leaders to . . . - Sign up only if they really want to help out. - Sign up only if they are willing to have fun with Scouting. The last thing I want is a leader who treats it like work. - Do only as much as they can reasonably do without taking time away from other important matters in their lives. - Not feel guilty when they can't help out with a campout or activity. - Get along and cooperate with the other leaders, despite difficult personalities. - Conform to my rather easy-going philosophy as long as I am Scoutmaster, or volunteer to take over the job. I have a standing letter of resignation on the Committee Chair's desk, which she can accept at any time, no questions asked. Dan K.

For our troop's 40th anniversary I built a display for all the ribbons that had been gathering dust in a leader's attic. I took a six inch wide pine board about 4 feet long, and attached some 1/4 inch plywood pieces cut into the shape of an eagle's head and wingtips, and wooden letters with our troop number on the front and Boy Scouts of America on the wingtips. Stained brown (except for the head -- white -- and the letters -- clear), I put a bunch of small eye screws on the back, then strung the ribbons on safety pins five at a time, and pinned them to the eye screws so that they hang down from the "wings." Made a matching folding stand for it. It comes out for courts of honor, and hangs on my den wall when not in use. (We meet in a school cafeteria, so no permanent display space.) We add a few new ribbons to it each year, and they don't get all smashed and wrinkled like they did when hanging on the flagpole.

One of the responsibilities of adults in the Boy Scouting program is to ensure that the youth program is a _Scouting_ program, not a video game club or a marching band, or something else that doesn't satisfy the Purposes of the Boy Scouts of America, the Methods, and the Boy Scouting program as set out in BSA publications and training. That sphere of adult control also includes ensuring compliance with applicable laws, rules, and policies; the desires of the Chartered Organization; sound safety rules and practices; and of course the Scout Oath and Law -- a responsibility shared with the youth in the troop. Some of these boundaries and requirements dictate certain elements of the youth program, bar certain activities from being part of the youth program, and remove any options from some features of the youth program; some of them offer many valid options for a youth Scouting program, and areas in which the troop can exercise a lot of discretion. Within and in compliance with those boundaries and requirements ("fully-compliant") is the zone of youth responsibility: Scouting activities chosen by youth, run and supervised by youth in Positions of Responsibility, and carried out by youth in Patrols. In this youth program zone, where all the boundaries are honored and the requirements met, the role of adults is limited to mentoring youth leaders and carrying out program support tasks that are necessary to execute the youth program, but can't for various reasons be done by youth. These support tasks include things like driving to outings, holding Scoutmaster Conferences, signing checks and campground reservation contracts, and teaching or testing outdoor skills when a qualified youth instructor is not available. In other words, within the zone of a fully-compliant youth program, the role of adults is to coach and to fill holes. Sometimes, as when a troop has a lot of new Scouts, more mentoring is required and those holes are bigger; sometimes, as when a troop has a lot of older, experienced Scouts, very little mentoring is needed and those holes are smaller. But even when the holes are big, the adult role is still to coach the boys and fill those holes just enough so that the Scouts are free to do what they _are_ capable of doing (and maybe just a bit beyond). As the Scouts gain skill, knowledge, and experience, the need for advice lessens and the holes shrink, as does the need for adult participation in executing the program. Within the zone of a fully-compliant youth program, there is no reason that the Scouts themselves can't determine how to organize their patrols, even if they are just a bunch of brand new Scouts -- they just need some education and coaching. Within the zone of a fully-compliant youth program, there is no reason that the Scouts themselves can't decide what competitions to hold, even if they are just a bunch of brand new Scouts -- they just need some education and coaching. Of course, adults will always argue that they are dictating certain options or non-required program features to the youth because those elements are the "best" way to get the Scouts from point A to point B, or the Scouts aren't doing things fast enough or efficiently enough, or aren't doing anything. But this usually occurs without ever giving the youth a fair chance to select and carry out their own fully-compliant program features, or a fair chance to gain experience. Adults need to continually ask themselves: Am I taking away youth options because the Scouts aren't trained well enough or experienced enough to choose? If they were trained and experienced, would I let them try something different? Am I giving advice, or am I giving what amounts to an order? Am I telling them what to do because there is no other option, or just because I know that this particular option is successful? Am I dictating to them because in my judgment this is the surest and shortest way to success and there is no point trying something else? Have I educated the Scouts in the fundamental guidelines they must work within? Have I given them a broad array of examples of program features that they can use when deciding what they want to do? Am I giving them a fair chance to make choices within those guidelines, even if I personally would choose something else? Am I giving them a fair chance to execute those choices, giving support as needed, even if I personally disagree with those choices? Dan K.

Adult-imposed competitions in an adult-imposed format to vindicate a rigid adult notion of what patrols should look like? Nah. That is adult-led stuff. Let the boys choose patrol competitions that they want as elements of their program to enhance their program goals. As long as their choices are within BSA rules and policies, comply with the Scout oath and law, and don't overtax the troop's resources, competitions are youth responsibilities. If they succeed, it is due to the boys' efforts; if they fail, the boys will learn from them. Dan K.

Oh, my. A case of distantus punditus maximus. They rejected the "patrols by rank" idea, which, by the way, required some real creativity and intelligence from the Scout who came up with it on the spot like that. As should be abundantly clear, they were looking for an objective organizing criterion, rather than a subjective one, or one that relied on chance. And they found one. Sorry they didn't conform to the "mixed-age patrols is the only good way" adult preconceived notion; but their decision stayed within the bounds of BSA rules and policies and the Scout Oath and Scout Law, in addition to being the product of mature and serious discussion. Isn't that the sort of thing we're striving for? And if it doesn't work out, they'll learn from that failure. Isn't that the sort of thing we're striving for? Let's not let adult fixations and assumptions get in the way of boys showing us what they can do when given real responsibility. Dan K.

Beavah wrote: "Sounds like yeh might be overemphasizing advancement method in your troop, dkurtnbach. Boys are seeing da core of scouting in your troop as being rank instruction. Yeh should perhaps think about how to re-balance your use of da Methods." Quite a conclusion to draw from that one little story. And incorrect. Actually, I'm constantly being pestered by ASMs and parents about my UNDER-emphasizing advancement (in their view) -- requiring that boys who want to advance have to take the initiative. No "classes," no pushing Scouts to finish this or that requirement, no pointing out what requirements they still need, no "stealth" advancement ("Surprise! I bet you didn't know that by doing that just now, you competed a requirement!"). "Kids generally make da right decision for their circumstances." Yeah, I'd agree with that. Kids constantly surprise us by totally smashing our preconceived notions about what they'll do, and by constantly jumping out of the boxes we try to put them in. Dan K.

In December at our troop planning conference, which was well-attended by Scouts, I gave the boys a list of issues I wanted them to deal with. One of those issues was the organization of patrols. Our troop has never had "permanent" patrols, and there was usually a reorganization at least once a year. Over the last couple of years, however, the "reorganizations" had become chaotic, with boys constantly wanting to shift around as friendships evolved (or devolved), and almost weekly efforts to change patrol names. So I handed this problem to the boys and sat back. My only instruction was that I wanted the patrol organization to be fair -- I didn't want to see a "cool kids" patrol and a "geek" patrol. The discussion was fascinating. One idea discussed briefly was organizing patrols by rank, so that all the members of a patrol would be working on more or less the same advancement requirements. Ultimately, their decision was -- grade-level patrols. Dan K.

Yo, Stosh! Stosh! Hey, the issue is over here! Come back! 8^) I know, I know, you get a little excited. That's fine. I'm just not sure how any of that addresses the quite specific issue that thriftyscout raised in this thread. But thanks anyway! Dan K.

Stosh, getting back to the original issue -- having enough boys from a patrol going on a campout that the patrol is a real, functioning patrol on the campout. My view is that if your goal is Scouts working together in a real, functioning patrol on a campout, you need a bare minimum of 4 boys but ideally 6 to 8. But what you're getting is 2 or 3 boys from each of the troop's "standing" patrols, and they don't want to "move in with the neighbors" for the campout. I definitely agree that this is an issue that the boys can deal with: Tell those 12 boys, or 20 boys, or 50 boys, that in order to go on a campout, a patrol must bring at least six of its members; and then tell them to go form patrols that will meet that requirement. Dan K.

Let me suggest an answer to my own question: "What do you think you can accomplish on a campout with a larger patrol attendance that you can't accomplish on a campout with only 2 or 3 patrol members?" As Baden-Powell stated in _Aids to Scoutmastership_: "But first and foremost: The Patrol is the character school for the individual. To the Patrol Leader it gives practise in Responsibility and in the qualities of Leadership. To the Scouts it gives subordination of self to the interests of the whole, the elements of self-denial and self-control involved in the team spirit of cooperation and good comradeship." It is only with a larger number of people working together (but not so many that it becomes unwieldy) that you get opportunities for division of labor, delegation, cooperation, debate, leadership, and diversity. That is, you need a certain minimum number of people in a group in order to get group dynamics -- and thus the ability to practice citizenship and build character in individual Scouts. You can't do that well with just 2 or 3 patrol members. You need more in order to accomplish the citizenship and character benefits that a patrol can provide. Some folks would say that you can't really practice citizenship and build character very well if the "patrol" is together for just a short time (an ad hoc patrol), or if the patrol has members who are only there part of the time (patrol members with lots of schedule conflicts). I would suggest that if the patrol becomes a well-oiled, highly-efficient machine, then the members have probably squeezed out most of the citizenship practice and character-building opportunities that particular group could provide, and it is time for a change. That is one benefit of permanent, mixed-age patrols -- regular turnover of membership. I guess my thought is that if you can't have the ideal (most of the members of each patrol go on campouts), the next best thing is an ad hoc patrol formed in advance of the campout so that they have time to do planning and preparation together. Dan K.

thriftyscout wrote: "I would like to start pulling them together into a patrol so that they can have a better program based upon the original BSA program often cited by Kudu." Please don't take any of my comments as being critical in any way of what you want to do. I'm just very interested because the situation you are in seems to be very common. So I go back to my earlier question: What do you think you can accomplish on a campout with a larger patrol attendance that you can't accomplish on a campout with only 2 or 3 patrol members? Put another way, what are you doing that causes the creation of ad hoc patrols so that you will have larger patrols on campouts? Dan K.

Stosh, I'm not talking about "reverse engineering" the campouts with 2-3 patrol members. I'm talking about reverse engineering "ideal" campouts with 5-8 patrol members in attendance to see what makes them good. Take those campouts with high patrol member participation, and work backward to try to figure out what factors lead to a high level of patrol member attendance. I suspect that the possible causes will be different now than they were 50 years ago when there weren't as many organized youth activities on weekends and Scouts didn't have nearly as many conflicts. Most of the patrol was usually available, so most of the patrol went camping. I think that BSA continues to write its "model" program based on the unrealistic assumption that most Scouts will attend most activities most of the time. I also suspect that the elements necessary for campouts with 5-8 patrol members present from each patrol are either structural or demographic: - Have extra-large patrols to begin with, so that a 30% to 50% campout attendance rate will yield 5 to 8 patrol members. - Require high attendance/participation, so that boys with lots of scheduling conflicts will self-select out of the troop. - Build the troop/patrols only with boys who really, really want to go camping and are inclined to choose campouts over other activities. Dan K.