Should We or They Be Embarrassed; or Both?

[Nike]

Asking at every BoR "What does the Scout Oath and Law mean to you?" is a great idea.

[PaulSafety]

Asking at every BoR "What does the Scout Oath and Law mean to you?" is a great idea.

Agree - its a step in the right direction, and i appreciate your input on an important topic affecting personal growth, adult association, advancement, and character development.

 

I also recognize that this type of discussion is part of T-2-1 requirements and is typically handled as the last step of advancement, and done during the start of the scoutmaster conference. (i.e. Tenderfoot #11 -- Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath (Promise) and Scout Law in your everyday life. Discuss four specific examples of how you have lived the points of the Scout Law in your daily life.)

 

When do we (older scouts, adults, handbook, etc.) present the scout with the information needed to process, understand and master a requirement like Tenderfoot #11? I suspect that some troops could easily fall into a trap of simply expecting them to figure it out for themselves. The trap is that we wouldn't expect them to figure out plant identification on their own, or how to dress a wound on their own. Further, there's more about those topics in the current handbook than on the oath and law.

 

Hmmm.

 

I've seen this happen early in my 'adult" participation in the program -- while serving on a BOR, a boy is asked about meaning of oath and law, shrugs his shoulders and stares at his shoes, mutters, 'ummm, I guess the oath is something we say to remember to be good scouts" and gets a hearty congratulation from the BOR leader. I attempt to ask a follow up questions, and get shut down by the BOR organizer. The boy was passed and I had a long discussion afterwards with the BOR team. Eventually, we got better, but they were afraid to send boys back from a BOR over "idealist" issues when they were progressing in knots and fires. I ended up having to take these concerns to the direct contact leaders as a concerned father. It can be an uphill battle when it ought to be seamlessly included in the presentation of the program. That's why I'm searching for ideas on how to better incorporate character development.

[DuctTape]

Asking at every BoR "What does the Scout Oath and Law mean to you?" is a great idea.

Agree - its a step in the right direction, and i appreciate your input on an important topic affecting personal growth, adult association, advancement, and character development.

 

I also recognize that this type of discussion is part of T-2-1 requirements and is typically handled as the last step of advancement, and done during the start of the scoutmaster conference. (i.e. Tenderfoot #11 -- Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath (Promise) and Scout Law in your everyday life. Discuss four specific examples of how you have lived the points of the Scout Law in your daily life.)

 

When do we (older scouts, adults, handbook, etc.) present the scout with the information needed to process, understand and master a requirement like Tenderfoot #11? I suspect that some troops could easily fall into a trap of simply expecting them to figure it out for themselves. The trap is that we wouldn't expect them to figure out plant identification on their own, or how to dress a wound on their own. Further, there's more about those topics in the current handbook than on the oath and law.

 

Hmmm.

 

I've seen this happen early in my 'adult" participation in the program -- while serving on a BOR, a boy is asked about meaning of oath and law, shrugs his shoulders and stares at his shoes, mutters, 'ummm, I guess the oath is something we say to remember to be good scouts" and gets a hearty congratulation from the BOR leader. I attempt to ask a follow up questions, and get shut down by the BOR organizer. The boy was passed and I had a long discussion afterwards with the BOR team. Eventually, we got better, but they were afraid to send boys back from a BOR over "idealist" issues when they were progressing in knots and fires. I ended up having to take these concerns to the direct contact leaders as a concerned father. It can be an uphill battle when it ought to be seamlessly included in the presentation of the program. That's why I'm searching for ideas on how to better incorporate character development.

I think you touched on the solution earlier. The SM minute and the boys leading by example. Both are a result of the SM. First the SM minute should be a yarn about how a boy demonstrated a scout's character. No discussion, just a story with an ending like "A Scout is Trustworthy". Kind of like Aesop's fables.

 

The boy led example is also a result of SM actions through PL training. The SM trains the PL's by leading by example. The PLC meetings/outings should model how the PL can make more explicit the living the scout oath and law. An easy way is to expect a reflection minute at the end of every meeting/outing for the PL to explicitly acknowledge a time when one of his members acted scoutlike. Ex: Tommy demonstrated Cheerful when he was on KP duty and he not only did the job but did so without complaining and with a smile on his face. He could also encourage the other patrol members to acknowledge their peers at this time. When patrols report at flag, they could also include one "living the scout oath" acknowledgement.

[Eagledad]

Great question Paul, the aim of character is one of my favorite discussions. Ignoring of course adult role modeling being a critical part of the aim (can't have a half uniformed adult asking a scout why isn't in full uniform), character development is getting the scouts to evaluate their "decisions" with the traits of the law and oath. Scouts make hundreds of decisions during scout activities, so we adults have a lot of opportunities. And most of the time adults don't have to say very much because the answers are obvious. Is a scout wearing flip flops in camp when the policy is no opened toed shoes? What about cussing? Even talking while someone else has the floor is obvious in it's right or wrong. A simple question of which law is being challenged is all a person needs to ask then move on without waiting for the answer. What I learned working with many hundreds of youth is getting them to develop habits of making right decisions on small stuff has a direct relationship on making right decisions on the hard stuff. Something as simple as brushing ones teeth every morning because mom ask you to. I tell the scouts often that developing good decision habits take practice, but they start with the smallest decisions. The uniform policy is easy in our troop because we use direction from the Scout Handbook. That way their is no confusion from one scout's opinion to the next as well as no confusion with adult opinions. So the choice of an adult or scout making a right or wrong decision is obvious and starts at the beginning while getting dressed. the key to the Aim of Character development is getting the scout to challenge himself to change. Motivate him to want to make right decisions. Get him in the practice of asking himself if he made the right choices. As I said, scouts make hundreds of choices a day in the scouting activities, so they have a lot of opportunities to practice. But without a doubt "leadership responsibility" pulls on charter decision making the most. We humans tend to make our worst decisions under stress and nothing in the scout program is more stressful than the true responsibility of leading others. Especially servant leadership. Servant leadership forces us to choose between them or me. Are the choices I am making to benefit me, or those for whom I am responsible? The oath and law are very clearly servant actions, so next to the Bible, I can think of no better guides for character development. The key for adults is to point out wrong decisions, not bad decision makers. Don't react emotionally or be lecturas. Don't yell, be calm, pointed and nonjudgemental or emotional. If you cant do that, either ask another adult to handle it or wait until your anger passes and you can talk in a quiet tone. Sorry this is long, the editor is a challenge. Barry

[PaulSafety]

Asking at every BoR "What does the Scout Oath and Law mean to you?" is a great idea.

Agree - its a step in the right direction, and i appreciate your input on an important topic affecting personal growth, adult association, advancement, and character development.

 

I also recognize that this type of discussion is part of T-2-1 requirements and is typically handled as the last step of advancement, and done during the start of the scoutmaster conference. (i.e. Tenderfoot #11 -- Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath (Promise) and Scout Law in your everyday life. Discuss four specific examples of how you have lived the points of the Scout Law in your daily life.)

 

When do we (older scouts, adults, handbook, etc.) present the scout with the information needed to process, understand and master a requirement like Tenderfoot #11? I suspect that some troops could easily fall into a trap of simply expecting them to figure it out for themselves. The trap is that we wouldn't expect them to figure out plant identification on their own, or how to dress a wound on their own. Further, there's more about those topics in the current handbook than on the oath and law.

 

Hmmm.

 

I've seen this happen early in my 'adult" participation in the program -- while serving on a BOR, a boy is asked about meaning of oath and law, shrugs his shoulders and stares at his shoes, mutters, 'ummm, I guess the oath is something we say to remember to be good scouts" and gets a hearty congratulation from the BOR leader. I attempt to ask a follow up questions, and get shut down by the BOR organizer. The boy was passed and I had a long discussion afterwards with the BOR team. Eventually, we got better, but they were afraid to send boys back from a BOR over "idealist" issues when they were progressing in knots and fires. I ended up having to take these concerns to the direct contact leaders as a concerned father. It can be an uphill battle when it ought to be seamlessly included in the presentation of the program. That's why I'm searching for ideas on how to better incorporate character development.

DuctTape commented "No discussion, just a story with an ending like "A Scout is Trustworthy". Kind of like Aesop's fables." Just curious -- why "no discussion"? I think that one of the goals here is to assure ourselves that the boys are "getting it' -- a discussion helps bring diverse points of view to the table and helps us to hear if the boys are getting confused about issues like Thrifty doesn't mean being a cheap-o or loyal means having someone's back even when they cheat or commit a crime, etc. Popular culture is sending messages in TV, movies, etc. that may not agree with the Oath and Law -- do we discuss popular movies and show good versus bad examples? Just brainstorming here. Thanks for contributing to the conversation!

[PaulSafety]

But without a doubt "leadership responsibility" pulls on charter decision making the most. We humans tend to make our worst decisions under stress and nothing in the scout program is more stressful than the true responsibility of leading others. Especially servant leadership. Servant leadership forces us to choose between them or me. Are the choices I am making to benefit me' date=' or those for whom I am responsible? The oath and law are very clearly servant actions, so next to the Bible, I can think of no better guides for character development. Barry[/quote']

 

Barry you might enjoy this article -- http://troop113.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/servant-leadership-in-the-21st-century-waxing-or-waning/

 

[DuctTape]

Asking at every BoR "What does the Scout Oath and Law mean to you?" is a great idea.

Agree - its a step in the right direction, and i appreciate your input on an important topic affecting personal growth, adult association, advancement, and character development.

 

I also recognize that this type of discussion is part of T-2-1 requirements and is typically handled as the last step of advancement, and done during the start of the scoutmaster conference. (i.e. Tenderfoot #11 -- Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath (Promise) and Scout Law in your everyday life. Discuss four specific examples of how you have lived the points of the Scout Law in your daily life.)

 

When do we (older scouts, adults, handbook, etc.) present the scout with the information needed to process, understand and master a requirement like Tenderfoot #11? I suspect that some troops could easily fall into a trap of simply expecting them to figure it out for themselves. The trap is that we wouldn't expect them to figure out plant identification on their own, or how to dress a wound on their own. Further, there's more about those topics in the current handbook than on the oath and law.

 

Hmmm.

 

I've seen this happen early in my 'adult" participation in the program -- while serving on a BOR, a boy is asked about meaning of oath and law, shrugs his shoulders and stares at his shoes, mutters, 'ummm, I guess the oath is something we say to remember to be good scouts" and gets a hearty congratulation from the BOR leader. I attempt to ask a follow up questions, and get shut down by the BOR organizer. The boy was passed and I had a long discussion afterwards with the BOR team. Eventually, we got better, but they were afraid to send boys back from a BOR over "idealist" issues when they were progressing in knots and fires. I ended up having to take these concerns to the direct contact leaders as a concerned father. It can be an uphill battle when it ought to be seamlessly included in the presentation of the program. That's why I'm searching for ideas on how to better incorporate character development.

The reason for no discussion is to allow for the story to sit in the mind of the scout and allow them to reflect upon it internally. A discussion at this point would take away from that. There is a time and place for discussion and when someone isn't being scoutlike, that would be an appropriate time. Discussion of the yarn will happen organically, it does not need to be forced. The SM minute is not a school lesson to be dissected, discussed and evaluated; it is a parable for the individuals to reflect upon internally. If the goal is ensure they are "getting it", observe their actions. If they are acting scoutlike, they are getting it.

[Nike]

We don't build character, say "Done." and are good to go for life. Our characters are constantly being challenged, confirmed, rebuilt. A troop's effort to build or re-enforce good character should be relevant to all the members, adult and youth. I dare say there are plenty of adults who should work on building better characters.

[Kudu]

Personal Growth (as a bone fide "method" of scouting that is equally important as the "outdoor program" or "boy led patrol method")

 

PaulSafety: Welcome to the forum from your anti-matter counterpart in Scouting.

 

The centerpiece of the "Personal Growth" Method when it was introduced, was the "Personal Growth Agreement Conference" with its own paperwork: the official "Personal Growth Agreement" contract. The Scout was required to list specific goals and then meet them before his next advancement. To accommodate the anticipated flood of "urban youth" who hate Scoutcraft, the goals need not have anything to do with Scouting.

 

And yes, when "Personal Growth" and "Leadership Development" were introduced in 1972, the Scoutmaster's Handbook asserted that these new "Methods" of Scouting were equally important (bold and italic emphasis in the original) to the Traditional Methods.

 

Camping was removed from the supposedly "equally important" Outdoor Method as a requirement (yes, in the ideal "leadership skills" program you could go from recruit to Eagle Scout without a single night away from home), "Real" Patrols (and Patrol Leader Training itself) were removed from the supposedly "equally important" Patrol Method and replaced with "leadership skills," and Scoutcraft (required by our Congressional Charter) was removed from Wood Badge and replaced with, um, "leadership skills."

 

So Personal Growth was introduced by those in Scouting with contempt for Scoutcraft and the Patrol Method, and lives on in the "Character and Leadership" battle cry of the BSA:

 

http://inquiry.net/leadership/sitting_side_by_side_with_adults.htm

 

 

[Kudu]

while serving on a BOR' date=' a boy is asked about meaning of oath and law, shrugs his shoulders and stares at his shoes, mutters, 'ummm, I guess the oath is something we say to remember to be good scouts" and gets a hearty congratulation from the BOR leader. I attempt to ask a follow up questions, and get shut down by the BOR organizer. The boy was passed and I had a long discussion afterwards with the BOR team. Eventually, we got better, but they were afraid to send boys back from a BOR over "idealist" issues when they were progressing in knots and fires. I ended up having to take these concerns to the direct contact leaders as a concerned father. It can be an uphill battle when it ought to be seamlessly included in the presentation of the program. That's why I'm searching for ideas on how to better incorporate character development.[/quote']

 

This is why most boys love sports and hate Scouting.

 

To begin with, a BOR is the BSA's mommy and daddy-run version of Baden-Powell's "Court of Honor" (PLC). In Traditional Scouting, the best Patrol Leaders supply the leadership skills, and the program is all about "progressing in knots and fires."

 

The "character development" you envision is like rejecting a boy's touchdowns, baskets, goals, or homeruns because he could not explain the concept of "sportsmanship" to the satisfaction of some kid's father.

 

 

[PaulSafety]

Personal Growth (as a bone fide "method" of scouting that is equally important as the "outdoor program" or "boy led patrol method")

 

The centerpiece of the "Personal Growth" Method when it was introduced, was the "Personal Growth Agreement Conference" with its own paperwork: the official "Personal Growth Agreement" contract. The Scout was required to list specific goals and then meet them before his next advancement. To accommodate the anticipated flood of "urban youth" who hate Scoutcraft, the goals need not have anything to do with Scouting.

 

 

Thanks for the welcome! Thanks for the insight -- I was 5 in 1971 so I kinda missed the significance until now. Appreciate the head's up on the context. It's good to gain perspective -- that's personal growth, right?

[PaulSafety]

while serving on a BOR' date=' a boy is asked about meaning of oath and law, shrugs his shoulders and stares at his shoes, mutters, 'ummm, I guess the oath is something we say to remember to be good scouts" and gets a hearty congratulation from the BOR leader. I attempt to ask a follow up questions, and get shut down by the BOR organizer. The boy was passed and I had a long discussion afterwards with the BOR team. Eventually, we got better, but they were afraid to send boys back from a BOR over "idealist" issues when they were progressing in knots and fires. I ended up having to take these concerns to the direct contact leaders as a concerned father. It can be an uphill battle when it ought to be seamlessly included in the presentation of the program. That's why I'm searching for ideas on how to better incorporate character development.[/quote']

 

This is why most boys love sports and hate Scouting.

 

To begin with, a BOR is the BSA's mommy and daddy-run version of Baden-Powell's "Court of Honor" (PLC). In Traditional Scouting, the best Patrol Leaders supply the leadership skills, and the program is all about "progressing in knots and fires."

 

The "character development" you envision is like rejecting a boy's touchdowns, baskets, goals, or homeruns because he could not explain the concept of "sportsmanship" to the satisfaction of some kid's father.

 

 

The "character development" you envision is like rejecting a boy's touchdowns, baskets, goals, or homeruns because he could not explain the concept of "sportsmanship" to the satisfaction of some kid's father.

 

​

 

Hey, I appreciate your feedback, but I think you're projecting a little bit when you describe what I envision as character development. I wouldn't look at penalizing a boy or crushing his spirit because he couldn't explain a concept. My follow up questions were not to belittle or attack, but to try to quietly draw out a little more that was probably lurking underneath, but in that instance, I didn't get the opportunity. The benefit of the conversation would be, I hoped, to help the youth realize that this "stuff" is important/relevant/helpful/valuable, too. (not more than knots and fires, but similarly helpful in it's own way).

 

Ultimately,my criticism is of the failure to lead and educate for clear understanding, not to fail to receive a "preferred response". Please don't paint me as a stereotype from your imagination -- that's not really very fair, and I can see that you're a great scouter who cares about the program a whole lot.

 

So how do we help youth discover and build character? That's all I asked about since the thread began with concerns about boys growing up to be men of both seemingly great and seemingly poor character -- should we assume that neither condition is a result of scouting experience, or should we think about how we can influence (in pratical terms) a stronger, more consistent outcome of men brought up through "the program" who exhibit great character in their adult lives?

[qwazse]

For what it's worth, Venturing awards and recognition program may move to a more personal growth model. I really don't know what that means because the requirements (especially gold and silver award requirements) sound an aweful lot like personal growth.

[Kudu]

I think you're projecting a little bit...Please don't paint me as a stereotype from your imagination -- that's not really very fair

Paul, This is precisely the problem with a program based on character. To you I am "projecting" and "painting" you as a "stereotype" from my "imagination," which you characterize as "not really very fair."

 

From my perspective rejecting a boy's touchdowns, baskets, goals, or homeruns because he could not explain the concept of "sportsmanship" to the satisfaction of some other kid's father, is not just "fair," but a perfect analogy to your desire to "send boys back from a BOR over 'idealist' issues when they were progressing in knots and fires."

 

 

So how do we help youth discover and build character? -- should we assume that neither condition is a result of scouting experience' date=' or should we think about how we can influence (in practical terms) a stronger, more consistent outcome of men brought up through "the program" who exhibit great character in their adult lives? [/quote']

 

There is no proof either way. Forcing boys to "sit side by side with adults" and talk about "ethical choices" might work to your satisfaction. Nobody can prove it won't.

 

That's why most boys hate Scouting. When Scouting was popular, it was a game. Most games revolve around a set of skills that have no practical value in an office. For instance, bouncing, throwing, catching, or kicking a ball through physical space.

 

That's how Scouting worked on June 15, 1916: A Boy Scout used Scoutcraft skills to move through physical space.

 

Likewise, Hillcourt's "Real" Patrol Leader used Scoutcraft skills to move a Patrol of boys through physical space.

 

With the retirement of Hillcourt in 1965, the BSA's office workers replaced the objective skills that outdoor boys like, with the subjective skills that office workers like, under the anti-Scoutcraft banner "Character and Leadership."

 

You know: "Once an Eagle, Always an Eagle."

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

http://kudu.net

 

 

 

[PaulSafety]

1911 BSA handbook; "And then the final and chief test of the scout is the doing of a good turn to somebody every day, quietly and without boasting. This is the proof of the scout. It is practical religion, and a boy honors God best when he helps others most. A boy may wear all the scout uniforms made, all the scout badges ever manufactured, know all the woodcraft, campcraft, scoutcraft and other activities of boy scouts, and yet never be a real boy scout. To be a real boy scout means the doing of a good turn every day with the proper motive and if this be done, the boy has a right to be classed with the great scouts that have been of such service to their country. To accomplish this a scout should observe the scout law." (ideals trump skills)

 

I think its reasonable to say that character and ideals have always been in the stew, not thrown in as the result of a 1960 memo or 1970 "improved scouting nightmare". We need not agree on this point and probably won't.

 

I don't require constructive suggestions or ideas on character development that meet with my satisfaction. I merely asked members of the forum to contribute constructively. If you clearly feel that character development is a waste of program energy, then why not simply move on and let those of us who feel differently try to help boys as best we can? (...because you disagree with our approach and think we're damaging the youth...OK, we get your point....)

 

Not every troop works the exact same way, nor should they -- this is the underlying benefit of diversity and tolerance -- enabling multiple approaches to flourish and create synergies that innovate when results suggest that the approach was beneficial and testing confirms that it can be replicated (it wasn't a fluke). Of course, we could also just troll around and boo-hoo anyone who tries to do their best to serve the youth in a way counter to our personal preferences, too.

 

I'm just trying to live out the eagle oath "I promise to make my training and example, My rank and my influence, Count strongly for better Scouting" but that would be an ideal, not pushing a ball through physical space, right? Oh well.