Adding to requirements

[CA_Scouter]

Yea, Beav I started to write a longer post in defense of my position and thought better of it. Just want to point out that I made my post AFTER my son had ALREADY secured 4 letters of recommendation. I am not embarassed about that.

 

Generally I agree with your post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Beavah]

Beavah, for me the merit of the military approach was its clarity.

 

Yah, packsaddle, and da main point of my post was that simplistic clarity isn't available in other disciplines where yeh aren't coordinatin' an assault on a hill. Da maintenance of children and families is a lot more nuanced and complex than da maintenance of an M-16, and they don't come with manuals.

 

Da Army is about the only place yeh get that kind of simplistic clarity.

 

Try this. Write a simple and clear set of rules for behavior in society.

 

What did you get?

 

If you're like any nation on da planet, you got at least forty books worth of codified statutes, at least 3 times that volume in regulations, and libraries full of case law and interpretations. Along with a whole professional class of people tryin' to interpret and apply those to a particular case.

 

It's not (just) because lawyers and lawmakers are stupid. It's because da world is complex, and people are different, and the road to justice isn't always straight and clear.

 

Simplistic clarity is a chimera anytime yeh get beyond "shoot the guy who is trying to shoot you."

 

My position with respect to Boy Scouting advancement is pretty clearly expressed in da BSA Rules & Regulations, eh?

 

In Boy Scouting, recognition is gained through leadership in the troop, attending and participating in its activities, living the ideals of Scouting, and proficiency in activities related to outdoor life, useful skills, and career exploration.

 

Unfortunately, I'm sure you'll find that as unclear as my position with respect to human society - "Love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself."

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Mafaking]

 

 

Beavah, I agree with your first post.

 

Ya like to think that the reason you are doing what you are doing, be it as a MB counselor, as an ASM or sitting on a BOR is that you bring experience and wisdom to the BSA's written program.

 

Baden Powel was basically making this stuff as went based on his own experience and background. One might reply, "you sir are no Baden Powel". OK so I am not even 10% the youth leader he was. On the other hand, that should entitle me to 10% personal guidance to the scouts whom I serve. Not whole sale modification to the program but a little wiggle room based on whatever I know about the outcome the scout is trying to achieve.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

Sandspur, nice name by the way, I have had the same changes of thought. And I agree with Beavah that simplistic clarity doesn't do it. I never mentioned 'simplistic', though that kind of thing seems to be one of his favorite tactics in an argument.

I confronted this issue the first time when an SM who thought he knew better than anyone else what an Eagle Scout should be (he never made it himself) declared that he would not allow any boy to complete those requirements until after age 17. I note that his requirement was perfectly clear. What wasn't clear was his reasoning for it. Another SM requires a boy to start over on a MB if he doesn't finish within six months of starting it. Also clear. The reasoning is also clear. These rules are being applied as I write. Another wanted to require additional lashings and service projects for advancement from Scout to 1st Class. THAT, at least went away. One SM required a minimum total of 150 hours of labor for an Eagle project. I'm not sure of the current status. There are abundant examples like this. I find myself in disagreement with these leaders when I ask what the benefit to the boy is for each requirement. That is when their simplistic clarity becomes nebulous. They can't provide a convincing explanation for what benefit it is to boys to be limited in these ways.

I ask them, for example, if a boy is highly motivated and precocious as he devours scoutcraft and responsibilities, how does that boy benefit from being held back? If a boy takes more than six months because he finds the subject difficult, what benefit is it to arbitrarily require him to start over on a MB. In this second case, I already know the answer because the clear justification that the SM states has nothing whatsoever to do with benefit to the boy. It merely has to do with someone having to keep track of advancement. Bean counting.

I'm sorry Beavah. I'm simply not going to be able to agree. Either we follow the actual official requirements or else we're going to have nonsense like this.

[sandspur]

Packsaddle:

Yeah, did my scouting in the south and always came back from hikes with socks loaded with the little devils. Folks up here dont know what theyre missing.

Your post provides a perfect example of the reasonableness dilemma. My current troop allows MB requirements to never expire. Clear rule. Fairly applied. Thats the rule and I abide by it. However, I confess that when a scout approaches me to sign off a partial card and I see requirements he had signed by another counselor over a year ago, and the scout cant remember what he did or what he learned, I find myself wondering if I am doing him any favors by signing. So, I understand the urge to time-limit partials. Six months though? Maybe a year but thats just me and not a policy so I dont do it. So, what I end up doing is working with the scout to make sure he remembers what he learned when he started the MB.

I also understand the sentiment behind the SM wanting to curtail younger Eagles. I also find that 14-year old Eagles are not really as mature and ready for leadership as the 17 year olds. I count my own sons in that group (one Eagle, one working his way up but the youngest just isnt ready and I hope he takes his time). Still, BSA requirements are what they are and in the end I would not deny a scout that had passed all requirements his earned rank just because of my personal thoughts. I might encourage him to slow up a little at Star and Life though

On the other hand, my current battle is with a positively byzantine troop POR policy that uses indecipherable excel spreadsheet formulas with no less than ten variables entered to calculate POR credit and gives an average 3 months credit for six months POR, seemingly because of an unspoken desire to slow up advancement at the higher ranks (see above). That does not pass my reasonableness test.

 

[packsaddle]

Yeah, when I was a kid we'd carry a sheath of sea-grape leaves and sometimes lay them ahead to step on in order to get to the shore in bare feet. I can't begin to fathom the perhaps thousands of those things I pulled out of my feet. The interesting thing is that in retrospect, it's a good memory. Wow.

 

I'd like to ask you not to publicize that spreadsheet thing. Someone might be listening and think it's a good idea.

[Buffalo Skipper]

Beavah, Thanks for a great topic. Ever since I first read it, it had me thinking. And like gwd-scouter, it has been on the edge of my mind for some time. It made me think about how to instill these "higher than minimum" values into the scouts I see every week.

 

I spun off a Scoutmaster minute about this.....

[OldGreyEagle]

personally I am impressed by the correct use of the word byzantine starting with the lower case

 

its good to stretch ones lexiconic abilities

 

it may be even better to go back to the first sentence Beavah wrote about this topic

 

"I'm thinkin' that if I hear someone use da phrase "that's adding to the requirements!" one more time about somethin' trivial I'm goin' to blow a gasket."

 

The issue isn't about speciously arcane and overly encrypted spreadsheets, but over "TRIVIAL" stuff. Which of course begs the question, "Define Trivial?"

 

One mans Trivia is another's man charactor building block that has been part of this here troop since I was knee high to a grasshopper and no rule book quotin' pedantic policy monger is going to change what we hold dear!

 

Told a young lady this weekend where the caduceus came from and took some convincing I wasnt telling a tale just to let you know when I say trivia, I know trivia!

(This message has been edited by oldgreyeagle)

[Beavah]

Either we follow the actual official requirements or else we're going to have nonsense like this.

 

Nah, packsaddle, I reject this false dichotomy like da others yeh seem to like to create.

 

That same notion of "da actual official requirements" is used when someone wants to justify minimalistic nonsense like active=registered or sayin' "we don't have a patrol flag" counts for describin' the patrol flag.

 

Fact is, it ain't possible to write requirements or policy clearly enough to prevent abuse in either direction. So rather than strivin' for clarity, simplistic or otherwise, why not just strive for helpin' boys become good men?

 

If we teach people to focus on helpin' kids grow instead of on writin' pages of policy language, then I reckon most good folks will avoid both the POR spreadsheet formula and the serve-actively = wear a patch stuff. Leastways, folks like that represent about 90+% of the scouters I know.

 

Then yeh approach da few who cling to the arbitrary extremes. But yeh don't use "don't add to / subtract from the requirements!" because that isn't the point. Rather yeh use "what's the best choice for this boy and this group of boys to help 'em grow?"

 

Seems far more sensible.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

"Rather yeh use "what's the best choice for this boy and this group of boys to help 'em grow?""

 

DUH! You really don't get this do you? That's precisely the question these leaders think they've already answered. Thanks for all the help. It'll be six months and 17 years.

[Daddy_O]

Dear Board,

 

Eamonn, who I respect said, There is adding to requirements and adding to requirements! I dont believe this. IMO there is just adding to the requirements

 

When I read you guys defending your arbitrary raising of the bar it amazes me how you rationalize it! Changing the rules published by your own organizationon a case-by-case basis is the most unfair demagoguery. IMO.

 

It should be like college. Follow the syllabi. Check your progress in the published legally-binding catalog. Complete your required courses and a smattering of electives and you graduate.

 

 

 

[Twocubdad]

I've started and discarded two posts on this topic because I just couldn't get down what I wanted to say. But Beav is coming close. We have to work with each Scout at his level, understand where he's coming from, what makes him tick, what motivates him and how we can best use the "published" program with him to achieve the goals of the organization.

 

For most folks, Scouting seems like a pretty straight-forward program. But what most don't understand is it is incredibly nuianced. A lot of parents and new leaders have a lot of trouble with that. Without understanding the subtle nuiances you get the two extremes: either ham-handed rules or anything-goes advancement mills.

 

Uniforms make a perfect example. The importance of Uniforms as a method of Scouting is that it allows us an opportunity to teach the boys discipline, self-respect, attention to detail and pride in themselves and their team. The expectation in our troop is when uniforms are worn, everyone is in full uniform -- hat, necker, shirt, belt, pants and socks. The younger guys are excited to wear the full uniform. Receiving your troop hat and necker at crossover is a big deal and the little guys take great pride in wearing it. With the younger guys, the issue is training them to wear their uniform properly. They are constantly forgetting something, buttoning their shirts wrong or running around with their shirt tails out. A reminder -- that is, a little extra training -- is all that's needed to get them in line.

 

Some of the older guys still want to buck the system. They started in the troop under the previous administration and uniforming wasn't important. I have one kid in mind, a patrol leader, who doesn't want to do anything. He uses his uniform as a weapon to see what he can get by with. Two weeks ago he showed up for a campout in sandals, no socks or necker and a college hat on backwards. I pulled him to the side and asked if this was his idea of leading by example. "Huh?" is all I got. I asked him where the rest of his uniform was and he said it was in his backpack. (That he had it all with him speaks volumes.) "Get it on" was all I said to him. I've sent guys like him home to get forgotten uniform parts. I've made guys like him buy lost pieces from the troop inventory.

 

So what's the difference between a friendly, Scoutmasterly reminder and the proverbial kick in the butt? A trained, experienced leader who has taken the time to get to know the Scout, understant where he's coming from, what makes him tick, what motivates him, etc, etc. So would I deny a Board of Review to a guy out of uniform? IT DEPENDS! If he's really trying and just forgot something, we'd probably scrounge around and find the pieces he needs. If he's being a twit and trying to push our buttons, we'll push back!

 

This is one of the great advantages of Scouting over other programs. You go to any other kind of camp and your leader is some college kid who's ticked his parents are making him work for the summer or because he has the hots for the cute girl working in the crafts lodge. An important part of scouting (one of eight) is having that relationship with adults of character who have a long-term interest in they boys' development and well being.

 

Unfortunately, Daddy-o, it doesn't always lend itself to easy checklists. If I have a Scout who is struggling with an something, I'm going to give him the extra attention and help he needs (and maybe even a mulligan or two). On the other hand, if I have a boy who is dogging it and I know can do better, I'm going to hold his feet to the fire and push him to give his best effort. You have to know when to push and when to pull. It's the Scoutmaster's job to know the difference.

[Beavah]

It should be like college. Follow the syllabi. Check your progress in the published legally-binding catalog. Complete your required courses and a smattering of electives and you graduate.

 

LOL. Do yeh really think there's any standardization of expectations between college professors and different classes? Or different colleges? Yeh must be jokin'!

 

Da primary issue isn't inconsistency within a troop, eh? It's differences between troops. Usin' the college analogy, what you're arguin' is that da expectations of Harvard should be da same as Podunk Community College.

 

Nuthin' wrong with Podunk CC, but one size fits all means it's da expectations of PCC that will prevail, eh? Same with Scoutin'. One size fits all means da absolute minimum, because that's what everyone can meet. So we get active=registered.

 

Me, I like havin' a diversity of different colleges and universities with different expectations to serve a diverse bunch of kids. Judgin' by da way the rest of the world flocks to our universities, I'd say it's a model that works.

 

B

 

[asm 411]

"You have to know when to push and when to pull."

 

Wow, this is such a great line and I would like to add a bit to it -

 

You have to know when to push

And you have to know when to pull

 

You have to know when to throw them a line

And you have to know when to walk away so they can climb up alone

 

You have to know when to catch them

And you have to know when to let the them fall

 

You have to know when to guide

And you have to know when to let them show you the way

 

You have know when to listen

And you have to know when to speak

 

You have to know when to whisper

And you have to know when to shout

 

You have to get to know your Scouts

And they have to get to know you

 

[Daddy_O]

Beavah,

 

You state: "LOL. Do yeh really think there's any standardization of expectations between college professors and different classes? Or different colleges? Yeh must be jokin'! "

 

-- I see your point. How about this: The registrar evaluates 2 students who have successfully completed the same coursework (at the same U), and tells one to go take another class, and approves the second for graduation.

Or a professor gives Mary an A with 87% and Billy a B with 88%. Because Billy wasnt active in the class

My point is this is a slippery slope. Either you follow the rules. Or you dont. IMO there is no gray area here.

Thanks for listening

 

--D_O