New Rank Requirements

[Lisabob]

Anybody who has ever been or had a late elementary or middle school aged child in the US (and likely in other places too) is probably aware that bullying happens, that it is not fun to be the target, and that over a prolonged period of time, it could be really harmful. I don't think this is seriously in doubt. Awful as it was, I recall being bemused by the amount of surprise that people seemed to express when it turned out that the two boys involved in the Columbine shootings had been picked on, apparently pretty relentlessly, and suddenly the entire country seemed to "discover" that hey, some kids get bullied at school a lot. (Not that this excuses violence, mind you, and from the sound of things those two boys had a host of other issues too, but what hole were all of these people sticking their heads into, that this was "news," I wondered?) I know for a fact that the issue of bullying has come up with our boys in scouts. It seems like things peak around 5th-7th grade and get better after that for most kids.

 

But you know, I'm really not so sure about the institutionalized "anti-bullying" or "bully-proofing" types of programs. These have been a regular facet of my child's public school educational experience since about 2nd grade. And they are routinely viewed by the kids as being a joke, because a) they propose unrealistic solutions and b) the adults in charge do not follow through on their end of the bargain which c) often makes things worse for the kid who tries to follow the latest recommendation, and d) then results in a breakdown of trust between the kid who is being picked on and the adult who is supposed to be implementing the latest anti-bullying program.

 

As for the BSA, I have noticed that in troops where "A Scout is Kind" is taken seriously by adults and youth leadership alike, bullying is both far less pronounced and also seems to be dealt with more effectively when things get a little out of hand. Conversely, in troops where the adults don't appear to pay attention and the youth leadership is left to its own devices to deal with behavioral issues with little to no guidance (which typically results in some rather Lord of the Flies-like behavior), bullying seems to be more of a problem and can become an entrenched part of troop culture.

 

Given all of this, I am uncertain that a mandatory BSA version of anti-bullying is the proper solution because in places where the adult leadership are doing what they should be, there is already guidance in place for dealing with bullying, and in places where the adult leadership AREN'T paying attention, mandating some superficial discussion of a program that probably isn't going to be followed anyway is worse than useless. IMO.

 

But. If it has been added then it has been added, as John points out.

[evmori]

Most of this stuff is a CYA for organizations. They say "we require it" so they are covered. Bullying will continue. Some kids will learn to cope, some won't. Creating new rank requirements or requiring Scouts to go through the training won't eliminate it!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[AvidSM]

Now that there will be requirements, which a scout only has to meet one time, and "A Time to Tell" will help statisfy those requirements, then National is in a sence mandating that a scout see it at least one time?

 

For troops that have never shown it, they are now forced to show it at least once to the scouts that need it, or come up with some other way of teaching those new requirements.

 

For the troops that show it every year to all the scouts, are we now tempted to show it only to those who need to satisfy the requirements? We've been showing the older version of the video every year to all scouts and after they have seen it once, they don't pay much attention to it or crack jokes during the viewing.

 

There are other requirments, like SC #8, that have nothing to do with the troop or scouting. They only serve to educate the boys about the dangers they may face in the real world.

[John-in-KC]

"There are other requirments, like SC #8, that have nothing to do with the troop or scouting. They only serve to educate the boys about the dangers they may face in the real world."

 

Without any sarcasm whatsoever, isn't that part of why the Boy Scouts of America exist? http://www.scouting.org/nav/enter.jsp?s=mc&c=mv

 

We want good people in the next generation after us, don't we?

[ASM915]

Thank you John and Avid. Everyone seems to have gotten hung up on the word BULLYING. Look outside the box. It's about the whole realm of YP, not just bullying.

 

Avid, at least your Troop show the video yearly. How many other SM's reading this thread do likewise?

 

And as John stated, "Isn't that part of why BSA exists?" and Avid, "They only serve to educate the boys about the dangers they may face in the real world." The real world today is in the schools, streets and homes. The wilderness is now the fantasy world for most boys.

 

We are suppose to be teaching them to also be good citizens. Going to an authoritive figure when they see something that is not right, is that not good citizenship? The kids need to be taught what to watch for. So many things may seem a little off, but not enough to alarm someone, then gets missed until disaster strikes. Then people start wondering, "If only I had..."

[allangr1024]

I went to the www.scouting.org site, but did not see any new requirements posted.

 

Can someone post the link so I can see the official changes?

 

Thanks.

[Beavah]

Yah, I think this is another example of a special-interest invadin' the program. Sorta like the anti-gun crowd and the lasertag bit.

 

There's lots of societal problems out there. Scouting can't begin to address 'em all. We don't have the time or the talent. Cyberbullyin' really gives me a chuckle. Half the scouters out there have trouble gettin' the council email, and they're goin' to be savvy to MySpace, YouTube, and private blogs?

 

I don't think this change was thought out that well.

 

We will have parents in our area who will strongly object to anybody other than them talkin' to their kid about some of these issues. Plenty of parents in our council won't let their Boy Scouts see PG-13 movies. The issues are sensitive, eh? Not every parent is ready to trust someone else talkin' about sexual behavior and abuse.

 

For the bullyin' thing, I'm with Lisabob. It's a current fad, but there's no evidence at all that the anti-bullying programs do one lick of good. Remember DARE? That was also a fad, but when the evidence came out it had no effect, or even made drug abuse more likely. Just watch, this will be the same.

 

Beavah

 

[LongHaul]

Beavah's statement that these new requirements were not well thought out made me smile as I think most advancement changes are not well thought out. Some are just not as bad a others, laws of chance say you gotta be right sometimes whether you planned it that way or not. What really got me LOL was the DARE reference. The DARE program in our school district gave out thousands of pencils with DON'T DO DRUGS printed on the side so that which ever way the pencil was laying on a desk or table the face pointing up would have the slogan. Problem was they spaced the breaks between words so the slogan took up the entire length of the pencil, DRUGS being at the eraser end. After several sharpenings ( which occurred almost immediately) all the pencils proudly proclaimed: DO DRUGS

LH

[GernBlansten]

Why? Why? Why?

I understand that bullying is bad and we need to address this in some way. But every time BSA thinks something needs to be addressed, are we going to get a new set of requirements for rank advancement?

We already have drugs and recruiting as a requirement.

What's next, sexual abstinence?

Why are these tied to advancement?

Is a scout who isn't interested in advancement expected to complete these or left behind?

 

I thought T-2-1 was scout craft specific. S-L-E was leadership.

If these are important to BSA, then they should be applied to entire group as a requirement to keep your charter.

[FScouter]

"What's next, sexual abstinence? "

 

Hey, that's a great idea. It fits in perfectly with our mission to help boys make ethical choices over their lifetimes.

[GernBlansten]

Where should we stick it in? Tenderfoot or Eagle?

[TheScout]

I would say Family Life MB. One requirement could be discuss sexual morality with ones parents.

[GernBlansten]

Now that makes more sense. Put these added requirements in merit badges that are related not in rank advancement.

 

*SARCASM*

Perhaps one new eagle required MB to group them all together. Put in bullying, sexual abstinence, drug avoidance, recruiting, etc in there. You know, all the stuff that really shouldn't be in the rank requirements.

Call it CYA MB, or the Rubber Stamp MB, or the Dynamic MB. That way BSA can add and delete requirements as they see fit.

*/SARCASM*

[John-in-KC]

Gern,

 

I've recently had talks with EagleSon and one of his friends. Both are HS seniors. Both are active in a plethora of activities. Both see the drug problem at their high school, and are truly upset the administration and the school resource officer apparently don't.

 

We live in an area which, while having a mix of lower to upper incomes, seems to be settling as a "high-rent" area.

 

For more than a few societal issues, too many adults have chosen to stick their heads in the sand. Thankfully, there are young people who see the issues, and want to be agents of change.

 

OK, maybe T-2-1 isn't the place to do this. Maybe we need to re-visit Family Life MB, and make it a hard requirement for Star. Sticking our heads in the sand, and not giving our children and other young people the tools to defend themselves, be it trained fists or the right way to report to the police, is flat out wrong.

 

"Moral and ethical choices guided by the Scout Oath and Law." The outdoors is the principal (but not only) program delivery vehicle.

 

B and E, you've both been Council Commissioners. You both have had access to the higher levels. How do we make the adjustments needed?

[GernBlansten]

We are preaching to the choir. Our sons are not the ones having drug problems. Its those youth who don't darken our doorways who do. Heaping and diluting our rank advancement with these requirements just doesn't make sense to me.

 

*SARCASM(kinda)*

In the new era of terrorism and our firefighters being turned into domestic spies, perhaps we should add a new scout law. A Scout is Vigilant.

 

Add the following to the 2nd class (why 2nd class, because there's room in the book):

 

26)Make a list of all your friends and acquaintances, sort the list into three categories, Potential terrorist, subversive, good guy. Review the list with your scoutmaster, explaining how each was chosen.

*/SARCASM*