Roles,expectations, and boundaries

[scoutdad]

 

Reading SPL- 15s post and his difficulties with adult leadership led me to ponder the Boy Scout program. In the Boy Scout program, all of the roles, expectations and boundaries are set out in the various publications; handbook, SM handbook, SPL handbook, PL handbook, Guide to Safe Scouting, Oath, Law and etc. There is then no need for adult intervention, other than to reference the scouts to the appropriate source material. In the Boy Scout program, the adults are not seen as authoritarian, but a mentors who guide the development of the scouts by well posed questions. If any of the participants inadvertently strays outside of their boundaries, then a polite word from either scout or scouter should suffice to fix the problem. This parallels with Youth Protection in that each scout is empowered to protect themselves from someone stepping over their personal boundaries. In units where adults are viewed as authoritarian, an adult over stepping his/her role is to be tolerated under the guise of a scout being respectful of adults. It seems to me that this is just the atmosphere that ASM P. D. Ofile was looking for when he joined this type of troop and he cant wait until the SM retires.

 

 

YIS

Scoutdad

 

[KoreaScouter]

After a trip to the council service center yesterday, I was going to start a new thread along these lines, but I'll just jump in on this one.

 

As I was waiting for the registrar to process some business I brought in, I made a beeline for the Scout Store. In there, I saw a book called "The Scoutmaster's Other Handbook". Don't know if any of you have seen it; it has a photo of the campaign hat on the cover.

 

As I flipped through it, I noticed that most of the information seemed to be exact repeats or paraphrases of what's in other BSA pubs. But, I did see something that forced me to thinking, and I want to get some other opinions.

 

That something was about the whole concept of "boy-led". I've never met a SM who didn't say he had a boy-led unit, although the definition of that can apparently be anywhere on a very long continuum. The author of this book gave a nod to the concept, then went on to say that boy-led shouldn't be allowed to become "boy-led-into-the-ground". In other words, the degree of boy leadership can and should vary in direct proportion to the collective experience, maturity level, skills, motivation, etc., of the Scouts involved. If the youth leaders are new in their positions, undertrained, very young, etc., more adult hands-on will be required. Does this diminish their leadership in an immediate sense? Perhaps. But, as the author goes on to say, leadership development is not included in the mission statement of the BSA, and isn't one of the aims, either. It is one of the methods, but only one of eight. And, as BSA says, they're of equal importance. So, the question might be, are we holding leadership development as a method above the other 7? To ensure they get the experience and (sometimes) the scar tissue of leadership experience, are we doing it at the cost of advancement, the outdoor program, or other equally important methods?

 

I know myself that the degree to which I can watch from the sidelines varies depending on a number of factors, and I have to be prepared to provide more help if they're struggling. No big revelation there; it was covered at WB, and it's just common sense.

 

To what degree do you allow "controlled failure" to take place? Do you let them figure out the school solution themselves, or show them "what right looks like", more than once if necessary? If the SPL or a PL is struggling, do you let the Scouts live with it to teach them a democracy lesson next Troop elections, or take actions to improve or replace that leader?

 

In a nutshell, how do you balance all 8 methods so that emphasizing one doesn't detract from the others?

 

KS