Response to Stosh

[Eagledad]

Sorry, but I didn't want to hijack the coke thread anymore.

 

 

And as to the last line of the quote: NO, if done properly, there is no reason for any adult leaders to be there.

 

Stosh

 

But but you said earlier "A bit more mentoring and a lot less rules goes a long way in building real leadership among the boys". Mentoring by whom? While your statement alone is worth teaching, it is still out of context with your "no adults" restriction. No matter how you idealize youth theory, there is no getting around the Troop being an Adult program with a SM directing it. If you want to get into details, I think you will find the hypocracy of your theory because their has to be an adult somewhere in there for boys to grow, even if it is just MENTORING. But you have to remember that with experienced scouters who have been there and done that, one SM's so called mentoring is another SM's dictatorship.

 

Your whole post is based on imaginary straw men presumptions. As I said, you just don't respect the skills required to develop an eight patrol boy run troop. I'm guessing that since you can't see yourself creative enough to do it, you just can' t fathom anyone else doing it. Even worse, you can't believe a different style to boy run could achieve the same or better performance. And that is too bad because your gold nuggets of wisdom are lost in the fog of your bias. Few people will ever attempt a troop like yours because the details required get lost in the theory. It's too hard for the average new adult leader without an instruction book. But some of the ideals you use to structure the growth, like Servant leadership, are the little gems that help give struggling leaders of any troop program a small building block toward building a noble program of developing moral decision makers. I hope one day you can understand that.

 

Barry

[scoutergipper]

"Adult Association" is one of the Methods. If you don't have it, it's not a Boy Scout Troop.

 

[Stosh]

The response quote is a bit out of context, and the conclusion draw, is then more harsh than what I was stating.

 

The original context was that the SPL would be overwhelmed by too big of a troop that's why the adults where needed. However if the SPL was NOT responsible for the whole troop and was responsible for helping PL's who are helping their patrol boys, there would be no need for adults in the process. Think in terms of Kudu's patrol activity without adults, the original format of the patrol-method. We have everyone keeping all the adults away from the boys sitting around their own campfire, cooking their own meals, and the boys are 300' away doing their thing. That indicates to me that the troop is doing well because even though the adults are present, they are not NEEDED, i.e. required attendance to lead!

 

BSA promotes this idealized management style that states that under the control of the SM's directives, the SPL needs to run/control the troop. That might be well and good, but basically impossible for young adults with no training to be successful at. Thus they continually push for the 30 member troop as the "idealized" size. That's maybe 4 patrols. That which if there ever be a really good SPL, might just be able to pull it off if he's lucky. Unfortunately with all the discussion on the forum centered around SPL's not getting the job done, burning out, or whatever, it makes a lot of sense to think that the structure isn't working even in the small troops.

 

If the SPL is to run the troop, there is no need for PL's other than middle management that as we all know are pretty much a waste of time. Why should the members of the patrol answer to the PL's, it's the SPL running everything anyway. So one has a POR of no or very little responsibility assigned to the PL's. Sure they get delegated tasks, but that means they learn to follow, not lead.

 

However, if the SPL is mentoring PL's instead of running the troop, he has more time to focus his attention on the PL leadership development needs and the little stuff within the patrols is up to the PL's to deal with. That's where real leadership is developed, working at leading a small group of peers. This is why I think 3-4 patrols with one boy who's been there, done that, as their mentor backup, fare a bit better than the PL having a problem and the SPL is off tending to some troop concern such as Johnny in Patrol A wasn't around and he's on the duty roster of the patrol's supper chores. I'm think that a good SPL should be able to handle about 8 PL's just like having a "patrol" of leaders he's mentoring. Call it PLC if you wish.

 

If the patrols are 300' apart, is it the adults running from patrol to patrol keeping an eye on things or is it the SPL as he mentors and assists the PL's?

 

As a matter of fact, the 300' patrol model is extremely contrary to the ability of an SPL to "run the troop". Adults fight the 300' tradition because they can't control everything from that distance, nor can any SPL.

 

If done right, the last person one would ever want the SM to see on an activity is the SPL. By the time the PL is overwhelmed and so is the SPL on an issue, the SPL's support of last resort is the SM/ASM combo.

 

I don't have a problem with adults offering up guidance, and some kind of "vision" for the troop, but I am totally convinced that with the entrenched Old Guard, Helicopter SM's and semi, if not untrained SM's putting up their visions, the boys often don't get much of a chance to have a program of their own vision.

 

I hear on the forum a lot of concern on discipline, assumptions the scouts are going to do something wrong, or whatever negative they can think up to entrench themselves with by-laws, rules, traditions, restrictions that basically squelch any leadership development, adventure and or fun the boys might want to incorporate into their program and once they realize it "ain't gonna change", they bail, but maybe come back and tolerate it for a few months while they wrap up their Eagle.

 

I may come off pie-in-the-sky with some hair-brained, straw-man argument, idealized theories, but I don't have anywhere near the problems that seem to float around on the forum. As a matter of fact, most of the flack I get are from the parents and other leaders and very little if any from the boys. But then one will get that when they are trying to protect the boys from controlling adults that refuse to actually trust them with real leadership opportunities. My boys come to me for suggestions all the time, it's part of my duty to mentor them, but never, under any circumstances, do I ever do it for them. Basically, I have found out, they'd rather do it themselves anyway. I assume far more than the boys can ever reach. But about 90-95% of time the boys always perform well above any expectation I have for them.

 

Stosh

[Stosh]

"Adult Association" is one of the Methods. If you don't have it, it's not a Boy Scout Troop.

 

Oh, by the way, the method is adult association, not adult control. If you have a leadership program where only adults are controlling everything, one doesn't have a Boy Scout Troop either. Boys that associate with me and my hand picked ASM staff learn leadership, to me that's the purpose of the program.

 

Stosh

[TAHAWK]

 

Oh, by the way, the method is adult association, not adult control. If you have a leadership program where only adults are controlling everything, one doesn't have a Boy Scout Troop either. Boys that associate with me and my hand picked ASM staff learn leadership, to me that's the purpose of the program.

 

Stosh

 

I think I read somewhere that "adult association" is primarily adults setting the example of living the Oath and Law. And that would not be adult "control."

[TAHAWK]

The response quote is a bit out of context, and the conclusion draw, is then more harsh than what I was stating.

 

The original context was that the SPL would be overwhelmed by too big of a troop that's why the adults where needed. However if the SPL was NOT responsible for the whole troop and was responsible for helping PL's who are helping their patrol boys, there would be no need for adults in the process. Think in terms of Kudu's patrol activity without adults, the original format of the patrol-method. We have everyone keeping all the adults away from the boys sitting around their own campfire, cooking their own meals, and the boys are 300' away doing their thing. That indicates to me that the troop is doing well because even though the adults are present, they are not NEEDED, i.e. required attendance to lead!

 

Adults are needed because they have a non-delegable duty to insure that the situation is safe. It ought to be possible to fulfill that duty from a distance.

 

Adults are needed because, after safety, their primary duty is to train and coach youth leaders to lead.

 

Then there's all the other stuff adults tend to do that is not needed.

 

BSA promotes this idealized management style that states that under the control of the SM's directives, the SPL needs to run/control the troop.

That is not quite my understanding or what B.S.A. says so far as I can find. The SPL is to chair the PLC and to lead troop activities with the SM as his coach and mentor and not his director.

 

That might be well and good, but basically impossible for young adults with no training to be successful at. Thus they continually push for the 30 member troop as the "idealized" size. That's maybe 4 patrols. That which if there ever be a really good SPL, might just be able to pull it off if he's lucky. Unfortunately with all the discussion on the forum centered around SPL's not getting the job done, burning out, or whatever, it makes a lot of sense to think that the structure isn't working even in the small troops.

 

Since B.S.A. has failed to coherently tell Scouters what the Patrol Method is for over a dozen years, it is not surprising that so few Scouters follow it. I am aware of many troops where the leaders (Scouts) get no training unless they go to NYLT, and they return to their troops to be told "We don't do it that way." The message needs to be clear as to what is meant and that it is not optional.

 

If the SPL is to run the troop, there is no need for PL's other than middle management that as we all know are pretty much a waste of time. Why should the members of the patrol answer to the PL's, it's the SPL running everything anyway. So one has a POR of no or very little responsibility assigned to the PL's. Sure they get delegated tasks, but that means they learn to follow, not lead.

You are describing a troop not using the Patrol Method. You and I and others here see it routinely. It needs to end.

 

However, if the SPL is mentoring PL's instead of running the troop, he has more time to focus his attention on the PL leadership development needs and the little stuff within the patrols is up to the PL's to deal with. That's where real leadership is developed, working at leading a small group of peers. This is why I think 3-4 patrols with one boy who's been there, done that, as their mentor backup, fare a bit better than the PL having a problem and the SPL is off tending to some troop concern such as Johnny in Patrol A wasn't around and he's on the duty roster of the patrol's supper chores. I'm think that a good SPL should be able to handle about 8 PL's just like having a "patrol" of leaders he's mentoring. Call it PLC if you wish.

Sounds right to me. Good PL's mean the SPL has little stress. Weak PL's and its like herding cats.

 

If the patrols are 300' apart, is it the adults running from patrol to patrol keeping an eye on things or is it the SPL as he mentors and assists the PL's?

Never the adults unless it's a safety issue. Otherwise, its experience for the PL and patrol members. Might the SPL get within voice to ask the PL to come over for a 1-on-1 chat? Why not if it is not overdone? It's a matter of judgment that one hopes to see growing in the leader (Scout). Hopefully, what the SPL wants to take up with the PL can be dealt with later.

 

As a matter of fact, the 300' patrol model is extremely contrary to the ability of an SPL to "run the troop". Adults fight the 300' tradition because they can't control everything from that distance, nor can any SPL.

Only if "run the troop" means directly lead the patrols.

 

If done right, the last person one would ever want the SM to see on an activity is the SPL. By the time the PL is overwhelmed and so is the SPL on an issue, the SPL's support of last resort is the SM/ASM combo.

"activity" = Patrol activity? If so, sure.

 

I don't have a problem with adults offering up guidance, and some kind of "vision" for the troop, but I am totally convinced that with the entrenched Old Guard, Helicopter SM's and semi, if not untrained SM's putting up their visions, the boys often don't get much of a chance to have a program of their own vision.

The majority of SM's in this area do not let their troops near the Patrol Method. We have troops that literally have no separate patrol activities - even a few minutes of Patrol Corners. I'm happy to find a misbehaving SM who knows he is doing wrong. Until they are trained properly in what the Patrol Method is, I am not 100% sure if it is an issue of willingness. However, the "Dad Problem," as it was called fifty years ago, is doubtless still at work: "Here, let me help."

 

 

[Stosh]

TAHAWK,

 

I understand your concern/need to have adults present for safety reasons, but even then it's pretty much a non-issue. Take for example the recent thread on the 12 year-old that was killed by the rolling log. 10 Scouts/4 Adults. That's twice the adults I normally have at any scout activity. The father of the boy was a Navy physician who would have had more medical training than the average adult, or even a paramedic. And the boy was killed anyway. Of what value were the adults in this situation? None.

 

One must always be vigilant in what goes on, but in this case a good PL would be as helpful as any adult because there was nothing that could be done anyway. However, a well trained PL would have handled the situation had it been only an injury and not a death.

 

As one who stresses Safety First (#1 rule in my troop) first aid and emergency contingencies are always a high priority and after a boy attains FC, they pretty much are able to handle any medical emergency. To me that's a vital part of the program and is part of the leadership development (thinking on one's feet) that applies to these kinds of situations.

 

So if the boys are trained to do what they can, of what purpose are the adults? Adults without first aid training will just stand around and any scout on an outing can call 911 or go for help, which in this case they did.

 

A well trained patrol, out on an activity by themselves should have the wherewithall to handle these kinds of situations without the need of helicopter adults who don't really add any value to the mix anyway. If the boys are not trained well enough to handle this, they should be or all that first aid training is pretty much a waste of time. If they are well trained and proficient in leadership, what's the real NEED for adults?

 

For the most part, I see adult intervention in the troop as a mentoring resource, and not much more. Am I needed by the troop to be present? No, not as much as BSA needs me to be present for insurance purposes.

 

Stosh

[Tampa Turtle]

This is a good discussion. I agree that BSA policy is far from clear. I am coming around to the realization that the SPL in a strong PL culture troop is not much needed. Adults are the biggest obstacle to the Patrol method. Some Patrols will be terribly led and organized and the advancement of boys will suffer and folks quit and leave. I am very much in favor of 'boy led' but it is not a suicide pact--boys and adults value different things.

[JMHawkins]

I'm pretty much with Stosh on this. The whole point of the program is to give the scouts experience being responsible for themselves and their fellow "citizens." Adults carry so much inherent authority in a boy's routine world, our very presence can cause them to go passive and wait for an adult to tell them what to do. By the time a boy joins a troop, he's had five years of Elementary School to learn how to do what he's told in a group setting, and another 7 years of Middle+High School if he needs extra practice. He doesn't need Scouts to learn how to follow someone else's rules. He needs to start learning how to make decisions on his own.

 

We are experiencing a variation of this in our Troop. We started it 3 years ago, and had no older scouts. All our guys had to start learning from scratch as 10 1/2 or 11 year olds. Three years later on, the core leaders of that initial batch have emerged, put on some maturity and gained some experience, and are doing really well. The problem is, those guys tend to like to hang out together - they are a natural patrol at this point, and they now wield that same sort of authority shadow - the other guys wait for one of them to make a decision. Well, great, but it's slowly morphing us into a Troop Method troop where it's the older scouts that are stunting the patrols instead of the adults. Funny thing is, the older guys are showing some of the same frustrations with younger scouts that adults often do. They're sort of extra-junior JASMs.

 

None of this is a complaint, just an observation. We all struggle to make the program work right and none of us pull it off perfectly. But if we remember that our goal should be to help the scouts practice for adulthood, we're more likely to get closer to the mark.

[Stosh]

Some Patrols will be terribly led and organized and the advancement of boys will suffer and folks quit and leave. I am very much in favor of 'boy led' but it is not a suicide pact--boys and adults value different things.

 

With a combination of better PL selection by the boys, no terms or term limits for the boys, and a good mentoring SPL, the quality of PL's will increase. If a PL doesn't do the job after a few weeks because he got selected/elected by popularity, then he's out. Kinda like a parliamentary vote of confidence. The next guy tries it until they get a functional PL. Then the SPL directly supports development of his leadership.

 

A lot of anti-patrol-method comes from the need by adults to control everything and the SPL gets stuck in the tenuous position of follow out those control expectations. (Thus the numerous discussions on discipline on the forum, and the subsequent by-law/rules "solutions" to those problems.) These are SM's that have no intention of ever trusting his boys to develop leadership on their own. Maybe on the SM's terms, but never on their own.

 

In the past when I had a large enough troop for a valid SPL, I tried working with him to focus on PL's, but the SM always insisted on diluting his focus on "the whole troop". Basically the PL's did nothing and the SPL was swamped, but the SM retained full control of the troop. The troop produced a lot of Eagles, but the collateral damage of lost boys along the way was HUGE.

 

Gotta trust the patrol-method system and the boys that run it. It's surprising how many boys will step up and lead when they have real ownership of the process.

 

Right now I have 5 boys in a new troop. One boy has stepped up and volunteered to be PL. Nobody objected so that was that. Last week was his first ever - go it alone meeting. It went far better than I expected from a boy that was a Webelos II 3 months ago. They worked on advancement, planned an activity and had a good time. Couldn't expect much more than that.

 

No rules, no by-laws, no SM expectations, no adult interference, no problems.

 

Stosh

 

[Eagledad]

The response quote is a bit out of context' date=' and the conclusion draw, is then more harsh than what I was stating. The original context was that the SPL would be overwhelmed by too big of a troop that's why the adults where needed. [/quote'] On the contrary stosh, the quote was exactly my point and you followed through again with suggesting the SPL would be overwhelmed in a big troop. You can't help yourself, you start your post with straw men examples intended to show the righteousness of your theory. You created a box of impossibility because you don't have the experience to see how it could work. The discussion is limited by your imagination leaving the premiss of every post is to be "yours wont work, so scrape it and do it my way". This leads me to a question I have been wanting to ask since you started your new troop; are you changing anything in how you guide this troop from the last? Did you learn anything? Over the years I have concluded their two kind of adult leaders. You and I have agreed that many of our leadership styles are the same, but there is one style that sets you and I far apart. Some adults are program structure based, and the others like me are performances based. In other words, I focus on scout growth to measure troop performance. Adults who are structure minded tend to pick and build a troop program structure without changing it. I've learned over the years there is no right or wrong on which direction to take. But I have experienced that structure based programs tend to be more adult guided. Which goes back to my statement that one SMs style of mentoring is another SMs style of dictating. For example I have been around thousands of troops and I have never seen a fully uniformed boy run troop. boy run is based from giving boys the independence to learn from their decisions. And just about every boy goes through a period of self searching where they rebel against the established set patterns that they don't understand. I have talked to several SMs asking how they guide their scouts to have a fully uniformed troop. The answer is they mentor the scouts to make that choice. Hmm, ok. Yes, after working with hundreds of scouts, I am skeptical. Mentoring a choice isn't really mentoring. We of course use mentoring, but you are likely to read in my post of role modeling as the main tool for teaching scout to make correct decisions. Experts in the field say that how a person acts has ten time the influence of what we say. So then how do we mentor? Well mentoring is presenting a higher ideal with intension of focusing on value principles. Back to the uniform, there are a thousand good reason for wearing the full uniform, but is there is good reason to chose against the uniform policy? We want scouts to change their practice of making wrong choices. We don't want to force them to make right ones because the only lesson they learn from that is the adult has authority to overrule scout decisions. The reason scouting is safe is because scouts can make wrong choices without worrying of the wrath of the adults. Go back to the coke example, who is directing the scouts choice? What is the bases for their choices. For me the advantage of not setting a fixed program structure is that I have no ego or investment to box myself in when the scouts aren't growing. Because of that, I have used and experienced age and mixed age patrols. I have experience ether mixed age high adventure patrols as well as older scout Troop venture patrols. Actually I could go on and on with most of the different styles of scoutering, but you get point. I can honestly say we have done it wrong more than we did it right. Fixed structured programs aren't identified by size, average age or even funds. It's an adult directed mindset. While I have watched fixed structured programs work pretty well, they tend to be limited in scout growth. Our scouts just seem more mature. By not placing any fixed boundaries on our program, we are flexible in being creative and trying new ideas. Just while I was SM, we tried 6 different new scout programs and at least that many Troop JLT programs. The older scouts plan and run all our JLTs and they developed such a good reputation that other troops asked us to train their scouts. That kind of creativity requires an adult mind set that doesn't box in the program with presumptions and straw men analogies. The JLT program was so successful that I was invited to creat the first true boy run Council JLT Conference. So you can understand now why I believe your straw men troops only show your limitations of imagination. Not the reality of what troops CAN do when scouts are given the freedom to make their decisions and be allowed to change the parts of the program that holds them back. It's not about structure for me, it's about growth. If you want an intellectual discussion of different ideas to get high performing troops, I'm all in, I enjoy talking about scouting stuff. But if you insist in setting imaginary limitations on every subject, well the discussions will struggle to be intellectual. Barry

[Stosh]

I find it quite interesting that my experiences and insights into those experiences seem to be imaginary and straw man to you. I would seem that there are those that think there is but one way, and for the most part they aren't going to change their minds no matter what anyone else says. That's fine, especially if their troops are running well and meeting the boy's expectations. But I don't hear much of that with the concerns expressed on the forum.

 

I have worked with a lot of different programs throughout the past 40 years and find that Scouting offers the best opportunity for leadership/character development. On paper it looks good, but when translated into program reality things tend to fall apart.

 

First of all lets go with boy-led. No leadership can develop when boys are not given the opportunity to really lead. Sure, it's idealism at its finest. but when applied it works. If adults insist on retaining control over the program, the collateral damage is to the boys. It's not their program and it will never be. SM's with big egos seem to produce a lot of Eagles to brag about, but then there's the whole discussion surrounding paper Eagles. SM's that stick to the book and all of its rules and regulations run a tight ship, but the boys tend to go overboard rather quickly once they realize the sports coach is doing the same thing and the rules of the game are clear and don't change on a regular basis.

 

Then there's the patrol-method. 6-8 scouts is about all a fledgling leader can handle without burning out with overload. I see too many SPL's get their POR and then run like mad for the exits or focus on their personal attainment of Eagle then run like mad for the exit. A lot of good talent goes along with it. I see SPL burn out with mid-sized troops, I can't imagine the pressure placed on an SPL in a big troop. And I don't see many taking on SPL after they have served once. I think a lot of troops have JASM so that the boys hang around rather than trying to be SPL when they know it's a lousy job. I spend an enormous amount of time listening, especially to boys and every boy that leaves the program leave for a reason. If one listens carefully and wades through the excuses, the reasons are often times very consistent and unfortunately very valid. Just listen to the adults when they say, "How do I get my boys to...." and then fill in the blank with whatever. Does anyone ever ask them why they don't want to do it? Not very often. It's a good exercise for adults and maybe should be part of the training.

 

I do not enjoy, but have worked with church, civic and social youth groups and none of them have the focus that Scouting does. When done right, it works great and the boys accomplish some pretty impressive things.

 

I was ASM for a adult-led, troop-method program for 15 years hoping things would change. Finally after 20 years, it did, they kicked out the Silver Beaver, WB trained, FOS Council Chair, SM. No big deal, I've been booted for just the opposite reason, too much boy-led with too much leadership training for the boys.

 

40 years ago I read a book by Robert Greenleaf titled: "Servant Leadership". Sure it was pie in the sky but I understood what he was getting at. I've applied it to my leadership development with youth over the past 40 years. BSA has now even picked up on it because it's popular in the leadership development world. And lo and behold the multi-billion dollar, global industry I work for is spending big bucks teaching their managers that there is a difference between management and leadership. They have contracted with the only college in America that offers a masters degree in servant leadership just so their personnel will benefit from it. Yet every day I see the same dynamics going on in the department as I see with SM's and troops. People still have a difficult time understanding that letting go is an option and a pretty darn good one. BUT you have to be able to trust and therein comes the rub. So now go back and read my first paragraph.

 

It works if one trusts the system, idealistic as it may be. I've been there and done that and it works and there's nothing made of straw anywhere I look. There's a lot of swimming upstream in the process and there's a ton of resistance to it because for the most part, most people don't trust it will work. One might think my comments are imaginary scenarios made up of straw man insights, but I've seen and experienced it working. It's hard to duplicate in varying situations, but once everyone gets on the same page, it works really well.

 

Stosh

[TAHAWK]

Stosh,

 

The fact that adults don't always get it right does not prove that children are more likely to get it right, No guarantees either way. Still, those motor vehicle accident statistics are not a matter of opinion. Adults have at least had the opportunity of seeing how bad things happen.

 

What could have been done is not try to roll the log down the hill.

 

I appreciate your policy on training Scouts in first aid, especially at my age. However, fIrst aid does not = "handling any medical emergency"

 

And if you think risk management is not a real world issue, you are forgetting what I think you actually know about the age we live in. Any organization is suicidal not to worry about being sued.

 

It's all a waste of breath unless someone thinks we are impressing the policy decision-makers. We are on our honor to follow the rules.

 

In my time as a Scout and when I was Scoutmaster, adults who could not restrain themselves were absent thereafter. Problem solved. It cost a few Scouts in the troops, but it had to be. What BSA needs to do is etch the rules in flame and enforce the rules -- even if it costs some "wonderful" advancement mill/FOS champion adults.

 

As for terms of office for leaders (Scouts) , I was surprised when I got "back in" in 1981 to find that many thought t six-month terms were best. Six months always seemed to me to be too little time to really get good at the PL job. It's not what was done in the troop were I was a Scout or in a Troop where I was SM. APL's, used properly, can be getting real leadership responsibility. In the end, the objective is as many Scouts leading as practicable, not maximum experience for the minimum number. We are an educational program for as many boys as possible. We do not look to have only the best students take the tests.

 

Even watch the popular twit get elected knowing there would be an educational crash? I have. And it was educational. When I run into those men today, they still remember the Klondike when the food was left back in town and they were missing half the gear they needed for the events. They finished behind a Webelos den and had a hungry time sponging scraps off the other four patrols (much to the mirth of the other patrol members). They also remember the new election called by the PLC. They directly relate the lesson to their voting as citizens in local, state, and federal elections.

 

And we have "rules," Stosh, do we not? Like "courteous."

 

TT,

 

I was told as a new PL that adults were essential and the greatest threat to my authority that existed. They think the objective is a well-oiled machine, lots of advancement, perfect meals, etc. They are slow to understand that it's the process that is important - the journey. So the leaders (Scouts) need to be taught how to minimize the interference, the parents need to be trained about the limited adults role, and the uniformed adults need to be standing between the leaders and the adults - not being the biggest part of the problem as they are now.

 

Of course it will be a mess at times. They are children, not miniature adults (and consider what some adults produce.). If it's not getting better, we are not doing our job and we need to ask ourselves how to do better.

 

JM,

 

Kudu's sovereign remedy seems perfect for your situation. If the older Scouts are not present, they can't overawe the younger leaders.

 

Eagledad,

 

In 45 years in Scouting, I have not been around 1000's of troops, as you have, Only went to one Jamboree. I see no fully-uniformed Patrol Method troops today. I was a Scout in a fully-uniformed 100% Patrol Method troop. There were, back then, fully-uniformed troops that covered the spectrum from 100% adult led to troops like my Troop 43. Kids can be absolute fascists on rules, as history has shown us. The book said uniform. It never occurred to us to do otherwise, especially as the ASPL at the door would not let you in to a troop meeting otherwise after your second meeting- a rule adopted by the Court of Honor in 1909. Nor would your PL allow you in the weekly patrol meeting out of uniform, and no adults were present. Different times, I guess.

 

Also different times in that Scouting does not have "a uniform." BSA sells several different uniforms (at least 18 combinations of current issue alone). To wear "a uniform" someone would have to determine what it would be,

[Stosh]

Stosh,

 

The fact that adults don't always get it right does not prove that children are more likely to get it right, No guarantees either way. Still, those motor vehicle accident statistics are not a matter of opinion. Adults have at least had the opportunity of seeing how bad things happen.

 

What could have been done is not try to roll the log down the hill.

 

Had the parents hovered more this whole thing could have been avoided as well. I'm thinking that keeping the kid out of scouts could have saved his life as well. If he had been at home doing video games, he'd be alive today. 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing. Well, kids do stupid things. That's just the way it is. Most of the time they get away with it, occasionally they don't.

 

I appreciate your policy on training Scouts in first aid, especially at my age. However, fIrst aid does not = "handling any medical emergency"

 

It offers a ton more options to a bad situation than no first aid. After 15 years of EMT experience, I can assure you, that knowing something to do is better than not knowing anything. Having a medical understanding, even if very basic can handle any medical emergency, including, don't panic, call 911, and don't touch the person or have anyone else touch the person who doesn't know what they are doing. If there's bleeding put pressure bandage on it. Keep them warm if possible. Basic first aid can handle any medical emergency

and can hopefully buy enough time for emergency professional to get on site.

 

And if you think risk management is not a real world issue, you are forgetting what I think you actually know about the age we live in. Any organization is suicidal not to worry about being sued.

 

I can sue you for anything I wish, at any time. I can even sue you for divorce. I can't win, but it's going to cost you $$ to defend yourself anyway. Take it from me, former EMT.... Good Samaritan Laws? Nothing but a joke. Just ask any doctor today how much malpractice insurance they carry.

 

It's all a waste of breath unless someone thinks we are impressing the policy decision-makers. We are on our honor to follow the rules.

 

In my time as a Scout and when I was Scoutmaster, adults who could not restrain themselves were absent thereafter. Problem solved. It cost a few Scouts in the troops, but it had to be. What BSA needs to do is etch the rules in flame and enforce the rules -- even if it costs some "wonderful" advancement mill/FOS champion adults.

 

A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them.

 

Every war criminal uses this as a defense, I was only following orders. This is what happens when everyone is a follower and no one is a leader.

 

As far as RULES are concerned, why do they call it the "GUIDE to Safe Scouting"? Kinda makes one wonder, doesn't it?

 

As for terms of office for leaders (Scouts) , I was surprised when I got "back in" in 1981 to find that many thought t six-month terms were best. Six months always seemed to me to be too little time to really get good at the PL job. It's not what was done in the troop were I was a Scout or in a Troop where I was SM. APL's, used properly, can be getting real leadership responsibility. In the end, the objective is as many Scouts leading as practicable, not maximum experience for the minimum number. We are an educational program for as many boys as possible. We do not look to have only the best students take the tests.

 

Take a look at GBB's patrol method training. Everyone has leadership roles in the patrol, not just the PL and APL. Some of my best leaders didn't wear POR patches. As a matter of fact, in my last troop only the Chaplain's Aide did because he had been operating as such for over a year. As I mentioned in other posts, my boys accumulated 6 months POR as they wished by functioning in that role. It could be for 1-2 weeks or as much as a year or more. My Chaplain's Aide did it that way as well as one of my Den Chiefs.

 

My current PL in my new troop volunteered for the position, no one objected and so he bought the patch and sewed it on at his own initiative. That shows leadership and willingness to take on tough challenges. After all he's running the show as much as a newbie scout can handle. As far as I'm concerned, he can stay in that position until he's 18. Not every leader is a PL. TG's are leaders, QM can be excellent leaders, Instructors? CA? DC? sure.... Don't limit the concept of leadership to just the guy running the show. In my troop "We are an educational program for ALL boys, We do not look to have only the SPL/ASPL's, PL/APL's take the tests."

 

Even watch the popular twit get elected knowing there would be an educational crash? I have. And it was educational. When I run into those men today, they still remember the Klondike when the food was left back in town and they were missing half the gear they needed for the events. They finished behind a Webelos den and had a hungry time sponging scraps off the other four patrols (much to the mirth of the other patrol members). They also remember the new election called by the PLC. They directly relate the lesson to their voting as citizens in local, state, and federal elections.

 

And we have "rules," Stosh, do we not? Like "courteous."

 

and we all know how well politics work in society today. Everyone gets a vote and with the majority of people in a scout unit are boys, they hold the majority and that's the whole point of why I as an adult help them to have a positive impact on society. I do not run my troops as a dictator or landed gentry of the priviledged few. The boys are responsible for making it happen and they have the authority to do something about.

 

At least my boys function and accomplish a ton of things. Yeah, they make mistakes, often times pretty big ones, but they all learn and all get multiple chances to fall on their face again, but they learn. I wish I had a nickel ever time I told a boy, "I bet you never do that again."

 

Stosh

[TAHAWK]

Basic first aid can handle any medical emergency and can hopefully buy enough time for emergency professional to get on site.

 

Certainly the good should not be defeated by the search for the perfect I suspect I had something different in mind for "handle."

 

I can sue you for anything I wish, at any time. I can even sue you for divorce. I can't win, but it's going to cost you $$ to defend yourself anyway. Take it from me, former EMT.... Good Samaritan Laws? Nothing but a joke. Just ask any doctor today how much malpractice insurance they carry.

 

And the good should not be defeated by the search for the perfect. (Good Samaritan laws only apply to doctors being good samaritans.) Certainly nothing stops suing entirely. Satan was sued in federal court.

 

A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them.

 

Every war criminal uses this as a defense, I was only following orders. This is what happens when everyone is a follower and no one is a leader.

 

As far as RULES are concerned, why do they call it the "GUIDE to Safe Scouting"? Kinda makes one wonder, doesn't it?

 

We have lots of rules, including the Oath and Law. Citing the point of the law on obedience and comparing it to defenses offered by war criminals seems a bit over the top.

 

I would be surprised if you truly do not know what the policy is about having adults, 2, present. Hardly a war crime.

 

This retired Britsh military guy wrote:

"Let the Scoutmaster remember that in addition to his duty to his boys he has a duty also to the Movement as a whole. Our aim in making boys into good citizens is partly for the beneï¬Ât of the country, that it may have a virile trusty race of citizens whose amity and sense of “playing the game†will keep it united internally and at peace with its neighbours abroad. Charged with the duty of teaching self-abnegation and discipline by their own practice of it, Scoutmasters must necessarily be above petty personal feeling, and must be large-minded enough to subject their own personal views to the higher policy of the whole. Theirs is to teach their boys to “play the game,†each in his place like bricks in a wall, by doing the same themselves. Each has his allotted sphere of work, and the better he devotes himself to that, the better his Scouts will respond to his training. Then it is only by looking to the higher aims of the Movement, or to the effects of measures ten years hence that one can see details of today in their proper proportion.

 

Where a man cannot conscientiously take the line required, his one manly course is to put it straight to his Commissioner or to Headquarters, and if we cannot meet his views, then to leave the work.

 

He goes into it in the ï¬Ârst place with his eyes open, and it is scarcely fair if afterwards, because he ï¬Ânds the details do not suit him, he complains that it is the fault of the Executive."

 

 

This still leaves us lots of room to run the Patrol Method. I do not accept that a Scoutmaster has so little control over adults that he or she must exclude them from the outing entirely in order to have the leaders (Scouts) leading.