SM assign MBC

[Beavah]

CalicoPenn, yeh read things da funniest way sometimes.

 

Scoutmasters are tryin' to do their best for the boys in their unit, eh? They're tryin' to find 'em good experiences with the right amount of challenge. They're tryin' to hook 'em up with da best counselors they can, so that they get da most out of the program.

 

I'm not sure what point of character is bein' advanced by havin' a lad go behind da SM's back to find a different counselor for some reason. If there's an issue or concern, the lad should bring it up.

 

And if in your odd world the Scoutmaster is the big bad bully who is just out to be da troglodyte gatekeeper hell-bent on making the lad do more than da requirements, then I reckon da issue isn't blue cards, it's findin' another troop.

 

The intent and meanin' of da Guide to Advancement and the other program literature is pretty clear, eh?

 

7.0.0.2 It is the Scoutmaster's responsibility to see that a counselor is identified from those approved. The scout may have one in mind, or may want to take advantage of opportunities at Midways and such, but the unit leader should still consider the recommendation and approve it if it is appropriate.

 

7.0.2.2 Scouts should not have access [to the MB counselor list]. Their interaction with the Scoutmaster in obtaining approval to work on a badge, and obtaining a counselor's name, is an important part of the merit badge plan.

 

7.0.3.3 A Scout, if he believes he is being treated unfairly, works with his Scoutmaster to find another counselor.

 

Let's see now... that's the Scoutmaster must approve both workin' on da badge and who da counselor is, nobody besides the Scoutmaster and da district is even supposed to have the list to be able to find their own counselor, and if there is a problem the lad works with the Scoutmaster to select a new MBC.

 

That seems pretty clear to me, eh? Happily, it also coincides with what da BSA practice and policy has been for decades. That's because it works best to balance all da competing issues and pressures to the benefit of the boys.

 

Beavah

 

 

 

[fred8033]

Wow. My heart stopped for a bit. Beavah quoted the GTA. Wow! A first. Of course the section quoted is one of the worst written sections anywhere. BSA has made a mess of the documentation / processes / intent.

 

BSA's intent and intended processes is debatable because of that messed up documentation. BSA does intend some level of "approval" but it's the most minimal level ever implied by BSA. So minimal you can essentially view it as not an approval, but more documentation of a conversation between the scout and the SM.

 

Here's other parts of GTA section 7.0.0.2 that you quoted. " ... any registered Scout may work on any of them at any time, as long as he has the approval of his unit leader." ... "A unit leader should consider making more of the process than just providing an OK. The opportunity exists, then and there, to share in a young mans life. Preliminary merit badge discussions can lead to conversations about talents and interests, goal setting, and the concept of challenge by choice. The benefits can be much like those of a well-done Scoutmaster conference."

 

(BSA "challenge by choice" encourages each person to participate fully while maintaining the right to 'opt-out' of any individual part of the program.)

 

It's also interesting that nothing ever discusses what approval it means. The blue card signature line itself NEVER says approve or approval. It says " (scout name, address, city) is a registered (scout type, unit, district, counciL) and is qualified to begin working for merit badge noted on the reverse side." so the key "qualified" recommendation is mentioned already as it discusses "registered". There really isn't any other "qualifications."

 

It is interesting that the BSA Advancement news further says the following on page 4 of the March newsletter. "The words approved and approval in BSA literature

thus have a limited interpretation, based only on administrative qualifications and those related to being capable and able. As we move forward with literature revisions, we will look at different wording that is clearer."

 

"Capable" and "able" is vague as I can't find any MB pre-requisites that are not really just MB requirements that the scout can work to resolve while working on the MB with the MBC. So in my mind, it's sort of a non-issue.

 

What I find most interesting is that the current advancement news video says a 2013 GTA update is coming to fix wording such as this and can be expected with the start of 2013. http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/GuideToAdvancement/Advancement_News.aspx

 

At 22 minutes into this video, the video discusses the intent of the signature. It's interesting that the quote is "don't read too much into the signature". It's a conversation with the SM and a discussion of the MB process and the MBC process. THAT'S IT!(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[Eagle732]

The way I handle this is by having a short ( no more than a few minutes) Scoutmaster's Conference with the scout.

We agree on a MBC, briefly discuss the requirements and I ask him if he has any questions on the process.

 

It really doesn't have anything to do with control, just making sure the scout as a good experience and has the support he needs.

[Eagledad]

>>BSA's intent and intended processes is debatable because of that messed up documentation. BSA does intend some level of "approval" but it's the most minimal level ever implied by BSA. So minimal you can essentially view it as not an approval, but more documentation of a conversation between the scout and the SM.

[Beavah]

Yah, fred8033, this is where yeh need some history with da program. What I describe has been the process forever; what you're tryin' to twist da words into is novel. G2A was put together with lots of input; da monthly advancement news and random videos are put together by a smaller group of mostly office-folks. Those were the same people that brought us "active=registered".

 

But da bigger question of course has nuthin' to do with quotin' books. To me da question is this, eh? Yeh have a Scoutmaster who is spendin' time in a conference with the lad about his interest. He or she knows the boy, and probably better than any other person in the troop knows the personalities and expectations and quality of da local MB counselors. Da SM has heard the feedback of other boys who have used the counselor, has seen the results of da MB Midway in previous years and knows who's runnin' it this year.

 

So yeh have the person who knows the boy and the program and da local resources the best spend some time sittin' with the lad in order to offer good direction.

 

And then yeh say "Forget it, none of that matters, his parents can insist he take the badge with dad because da MBC the SM assigned is black?" Or "it doesn't matter that the SM knows the MB Midway First Aid badge has been taught poorly and in less than 2 hours by an old grump of a district person who no one wants to remove despite da complaints?"

 

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me in terms of our mission. And yes, I've seen exactly those things, I'm not makin' it up.

 

Start from the assumption that the SM is a decent fellow (or lady). Start from the assumption that the boy is a good kid, but still learnin' and growin', and like all boys will be great one day and then test whether yeh care the next. Build in that most parents care a lot about da progress of their kids, but aren't trained and don't always understand the program fully. Add in a touch of Chartered Orgs that have stricter YP rules than da BSA. Bake overnight.

 

Yeh know what yeh get? A system very much like what we have now, eh? Where boys pretty much are encouraged and helped to go for any badge they want that is at all reasonable, where their honest efforts and progress are rewarded and they learn new skills by interactin' with different folks, and where there are a few minor, reasonable checks in da system.

 

Beavah

 

[CalicoPenn]

Beavah, only someone who reads things in the funniest way sometimes could possibly accuse someone else of reading things in the funniest way (insert smiley - I don't know how to do it, and being a fifty year old tired of 50 years of being an early adopter of technology, I just really don't care to learn, either (yeah, I'm feeling a bit Luddite-ish lately)).

 

"Scoutmasters are tryin' to do their best for the boys in their unit, eh? They're tryin' to find 'em good experiences with the right amount of challenge. They're tryin' to hook 'em up with da best counselors they can, so that they get da most out of the program."

 

Yeah, I agree with that sentiment - but it doesn't require a Scoutmaster to "assign" a specific counselor to do so, does it? The Scoutmaster's recommendation handles this quite well. In 98% or more of the cases, the Scout is going to accept the Scoutmaster's recommendation anyway, wouldn't you think? The issue is in that 1-2% of the cases where the Scout ignores the Scoutmaster's recommendation and uses another registered merit badge counselor. Those Scoutmasters who have decided that they "assign" the MBC is much more likely to get upset and stressed than a Scoutmaster who understands that he has made a recommendation. Now one would hope that there would be some kind of interaction between the Scout and Scoutmaster over changing MBC's - but it's far more likely that an "assigner" rather than a "recommender" is going to take it as a personal affront and change the nature of what should be a friendly conversation into something accusatory.

 

"7.0.0.2 It is the Scoutmaster's responsibility to see that a counselor is identified from those approved. The scout may have one in mind, or may want to take advantage of opportunities at Midways and such, but the unit leader should still consider the recommendation and approve it if it is appropriate."

 

Well now this just may be one of my funny ways of reading something but the way I read this is if a Scout has a different counselor in mind, and the counselor is a registered merit badge counselor, then it is appropriate for the Scoutmaster to approve using the Scout's MBC rather than the Scoutmaster's recommended counselor. Same with Merit Badge Midways - if the Scout wishes to attend, and the Midway is using registered MBC's, then it is appropriate for a Scoutmaster to approve. If the Midway is being staffed by people that aren't counselors, then it is not appropriate for the SM to approve. The Scoutmaster's approval in this case verifies that the counselor is a registered MBC.

 

The Scoutmaster's approval of the lad to take the Merit Badge is a message to the MBC that the lad is a registered youth member of the Boy Scouts and has met with the Scoutmaster. It's no more than that.

 

"Forget it, none of that matters, his parents can insist he take the badge with dad because da MBC the SM assigned is black?"

 

Unfortunately, if Dad is a registered MBC for that badge, and the parents object to the SM's recommendation of a MBC, for any reason, you have really have no grounds to reject dad as the MBC. Yes, as abhorent as the reasoning in this example is, it doesn't matter - yours is not to judge the parents reasoning - heck, you don't even have to respect the parents reasoning, you just can't force the lad to use the MBC you prefered if the parents object - and since there is no policy that disallows parents from being a MBC for their own sons, provided they are a registered MBC, you can't really reject the parent.

 

"Or "it doesn't matter that the SM knows the MB Midway First Aid badge has been taught poorly and in less than 2 hours by an old grump of a district person who no one wants to remove despite da complaints?"

 

I really hate to disagree with you on this point because I think these midway things are a load of hogwash and should be abolished. I can also understand the objection that the counselor is short-sheeting it - but really, that's a risk with all of the merit badge counelors, isn't it? If a lad comes to you for Landscape Architecture Merit Badge and your list has one registered counselor that you've never worked with, you're taking a risk that the counselor is good at this, aren't you? I would hope that you aren't telling a boy he can't take that MB because you don't know the counselor. It's even still a risk choosing a counselor you've worked with in the past - you can have 3 years of great feedback from prior Scouts but maybe this is the month that the MBC got the news that his wife has cancer, or he's being laid off at the end of the year and the quality just drops. So the question for the midway is "is the counselor registered"? If so, then it's appropriate. And who knows, maybe this year the old grump has stepped aside for the young Paramedic who takes more time to do it. However, this is where the Scoutmaster's power of pursuasion comes in - this is when you have a long chat with the Scout and convince him that he won't learn anything or really get anything out of this event and should really consider taking it with an individual counselor who will give him much more time and detail. Outright dis-approving eliminates that conversation, and that chance to really help the Scout grow - and in the end , isn't that they goal that you keep trying to remind us of?

 

That lofty mission and the CO goals you are always mentioning are well served by the processes that are in place - and are far better served by a lot of yes rather than a lot of no. The MBC process, for a very long time, has never been about giving the Scoutmaster the opportunity to say No - it's always been about giving the Scoutmaster the opportunity to say Yes - and how can I help.

 

 

[CalicoPenn]

A thought has occured to me - often in discussions like this, someone brings up the analogy that Scoutmasters are gatekeepers but I'm going to suggest a different analogy.

 

Gatekeeper implies that the gate can be opened or can be shut. I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't be keeping gates closed.

 

I think a better analogy is Lock keeper. Common on canals and navigable rivers, lock keepers open and close locks to allow passage upstream or downstream. When the locks are closed, the lock keeper is preparing the lock to allow for smooth passage. When the way is prepared, they open the locks.

 

I think the same applies here - the Scout goes to the Scoutmaster for a blue card - the lock is closed - the Scoutmaster prepares the way, talking to the Scout, recommending a MBC, signing a blue card and then send the Scout on his mission, opening the lock. If a lock keeper were to keep a lock closed permanently, it interupts the smooth flow of traffic on the canal or river, which is not the goal we want, is it?

[Twocubdad]

I think key is to remember that the MB program is a council administered program

 

It would be good here to read Eamonn's thread about BSA programs and policies being based on the assumption all other jobs, functions, policies and programs are being executed perfectly. The idea the the merit badges are a council program makes one of those assumptions.

 

Here, and I suspect in many places, calling merit badges a council program is a joke. I've never heard of a counselor being recruited by or registered through the council -- it probably happens, but outside summer camp or a MB university, I've not seen it. Almost all exclusively serve one troop. The troop identifies the counselor, the troop handles the registration paperwork, the troop steers them toward training, the troop submits it's list of counselors for renewal annually.

 

And let's talk about supervision and quality control. How is that maintained at the district? Are there special MB Commissioners who visit counselors and see how they are doing? Does the DAC chat with Scouts turning in their completed blue cards to see how it went? And suppose a SM complains about a counselor. Then what? Does the DAC launch an investigation? Is there a procedure? I'm guessing that at best the DAC has an uncomfortable conversation with the couselor then has to make a decision to actively remove the counselor or not.

 

Compare that to how it works with troop counselors. Since many troop MBC are parents and existing troop volunteers, the troop leaders already know them and have a relationship with them. The Troop leaders, through informal chats, SM conferences, BORs and just the buzz among the Scouts hear about the quality fo the counseling. "So, how did you like Railroading?" "Oh, it was great. Mr. Smith's model layout is amazing. My dad and I are thinking about joining his model RR club." OR... "Eh! I just showed him my paperwork and he signed the blue card."

 

Then what? Within the troop we just quietly find a new counselor and start referring counselor there. We've needed to do that twice since I've been SM. No stink, no confrontation, no one is removed from anything, just quietly handled and moved on.

 

I agree with you guys that the direction of the merit badge program -- at least as suggested by the changes in the blue card -- contemplates Scouts earning MBs from some "council cloud" of MBC with little involvement from the troop. (But I just caught Beav's post, and that sure runs counter to the actual policy, eh? Kinda makes me wonder who is driving this? Does a minor tweak to the blue cards receive the same scrutiny as a rewrite of the policy manual? What's the review process for pronouncement on the advancement team blog? Hmmm....)

 

This merit badge cloud a quaint idea, but it's brain dead. It falls in the same category as CORs controlling the council and having one commissioner for every three units. The only way this makes sense is for those who see a requirement-adding troll behind every Scoutmaster patch and believe the advancement program should exist in a zero-gravity, zero-drag environment.

 

Edited to add -- you're right that 99% of the time the SM recommendation is followed and often, if it isn't, it's no big deal. But what about those few cases where the SM recommends a specific counselor for good cause? Maybe the counselor is a notorious pencil-whipper. Regarding parents, what if the Scout has earned 17 MBs from his dad already? I understand the zero-gravity/zero-drag crowd probably doesn't have a problem with that, but approach being suggested here means the unit NO ONE has the ability to stop that runaway train.

 

And Calico -- I appreciate and understand your Ludditeness from time to time. I'm with you, brother. It took me about 8 years here to figure out italics, underlining and bold.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[Beavah]

Unfortunately, if Dad is a registered MBC for that badge, and the parents object to the SM's recommendation of a MBC, for any reason, you have really have no grounds to reject dad as the MBC.

 

Sure yeh do, and that's exactly the point. The SM does have the ability to direct a boy to a particular counselor (or not allow a particular counselor if another is available). Da SM has that ability for exactly the reasons I described, and then some.

 

How he executes that ability is most often goin' to be through conversations with the scout, unit culture, etc. As Eagledad suggests, in a well established troop with a sound unit culture, this stuff doesn't come up. Peer pressure and personal honor and gentle conversations take care of it. A boy who went to dad as a counselor to avoid the well-liked African-American counselor would be hammered by negative peer reaction and social disapproval. The 2-hour First Aid MB would be dismissed by his patrol mates as "fake", and dealt with by a kind SM with a "let me hook you up with Mr. Smith where you'll have a great time learning this well."

 

Not every unit is perfect or healthy, and not every boy or family has yet learned honor. In that case, sometimes when yeh have "the talk", the lad turns around and misbehaves again, and it now becomes a matter of discipline rather than persuasion. Most of da time youth leadership works marvelously if you've set the lads up for success, but every now and then yeh get a boy who doesn't buy in and yeh need to offer more firm guidance.

 

No different here, eh? Particularly when there is not (yet) a sound, experienced unit culture in place, but also occasionally in response to da choices boys make, there are times when "no" just has to be "no." Approval really does mean approval, and if yeh do somethin' without approval it may not be honored.

 

As for da rest, yah, sure, there are no guarantees in life. A good MBC might have life happen and not be as good, but at least the SM has done his best. And if da SM has done his best consistently over time, then he or she will have built a unit culture where the lad will come back and say "Mr. Jones really hasn't had the time, and even though he said I was complete I'd like to try it again with someone else."

 

We're here to do right by da kids, not to serve da bureaucracy.

 

Beavah

 

[raisinemright]

Darn. I was hoping to get one of those really long and obnoxious argument threads going but it turns out we agree. (Insert smiley face here cause I don't feel like trying to figure out how to add a real one)

 

We homeschool and have recommended the Merit Badge books to non scouts. I never thought any would expect a MBC to give a free class to their kids.

 

Since they are not scouts, they cetainly can and should learn the skills but they cannot earn the badge.

[Beavah]

Yah, OK, for CalicoPenn and raisinemright.

 

- that's a : followed by a )

- that's a ; followed by a )

- that's a : followed by a P

- that's a "cool" sandwiched between two :

- that's a "mad" sandwiched between two :

 

It just isn't any fun unless yeh can make faces at other people!

 

B

 

[CalicoPenn]

Ok Beavah, I'll go ahead and surrender on the parent thing - even though I agree with you that the situation in your example was abhorent, but by gosh, I just didn't understand that a Scoutmaster can override a Parent's wishes. I guess I'll just go ahead and contact all the Scoutmaster's I know and tell them that ole Uncle Beav has said that Scoutmasters don't have to listen to parents anymore - that when a parent tells the Scoutmaster their child is not to have peanut butter, the Scoutmaster can say Pfffftt, and ignore the parents wishes. After all, the Scoutmaster knows best, right? Hmm - I wonder how that will go down with the risk management folks.

 

Yeah - enough sarcasm. If you can't understand that the ultimate decision maker for a Scout is Mom and Dad, then there's no sense trying to convince you otherwise.

[CalicoPenn]

Gosh darn it Beavah,

 

I said I didn't want to learn this stuff

 

[fred8033]

Eagledad - Beavah's points are well argued and he does use "parts" of the GTA, but it ignores the other parts of the GTA and the BSA published clarifications both in the Advancement News newsletters, the BSA video from the BSA annual conference and many other sources.

 

- 7.0.0.2 quote ignores "any scout can work on any badge at any time" ... scouting choosing a MBC -> "That is acceptable" The wording on approving the scout's MBC choice is more about making sure the MBc is a real MBC. Less about controlling the scout's MB experience.

 

- 7.0.2.2 is about privacy. We are not to broadcast all the BSA volunteers. But scouts can also find MBCs by word of mouth, MB fairs and event fliers.

 

- 7.0.3.3 quote is about mis-treatment. It does not address if the scout loses the MB counselor because of the end of the event, time or other reasons. In my experience, if the scout finds another MBC, fine. Or he can ask the SM for another recommendation. It's about supporting the scout in his effort to complete the badge.

...

 

The key BSA clarification is in the BSA March Advancement News newsletter. That newsletter and the video indicate that GTA is being fixed and cleaned up because of this very issue. BSA says in "The words approved and approval in BSA literature

thus have a limited interpretation, based only on administrative qualifications and those related to being capable and able. As we move forward with literature revisions, we will look at different wording that is clearer."

 

The SM signature is very very much more a chance to share personal time with the scout. It is really not an approve / disapprove situation. I'm sure there are cases that could be argued to disaprove allowing the scout to do the badge, though for the life of me I really can't identify one.

 

Perhaps, a SM should deny a swimming merit badge to a scout who can't swim yet. I'm not sure I would do that though. The MBC has a requirement to see the scout passes the requirements and the swim test is one of those requirements.

 

I guess if you can wait until December/January, you will then see what BSA has written in the supplemental notes and made available on the video will be merged into the revised GTA.

[fred8033]

I was trying to find clarification in Scouting Magazine. Often they clarify big issues like this. Well, I found something else REALLY INTERESTING. It's from an Ask Andy column. http://netcommissioner.com/askandy/2012/08/issue-323-august-1-2012/

 

The BSA Blue Card is going thru revisement. The scoutmaster signature line is changing. Current proposal is "I have discussed this merit badge with this Scout and recommended at least one merit badge counselor. I look forward to that change but I hope they update the GTA to clean up the wording.(This message has been edited by fred8033)