Rush to eagle rank

[fred johnson]

Spiffy put-down' date=' but please eschew name-calling and .... [/quote']

 

That is a very one sided statement.

 

Many of us are tired of hearing the put downs directed the other way. Eagle mill. Paper eagle. Heck, "boy led" is usually a put down too because it's usually used to describe why their own troop is better-than-thou and avoid the other troop ecause they are a bad troop.

 

Too many unworthy scout leaders toss cheap shots over the bow without realizing just how hurtful they are to others that are working just as hard and fulfilling the exact same BSA requirements that all BSA leaders have put their name to fulfilling.

 

​I am 100% comfortable using "bitter old goat" because it is dead on target. As long as it's within the BSA program and the leader are working to run a good program, if you don't like what another troop is doing, then set your own standards within your troop and keep your mouth shut. Anything else is rude.

 

If you disagree with BSA requirements, then talk to BSA. Discuss how to run a position. Fine. How to run a merit badge. Fine. But using terms like Eagle mill, paper eagle or not boy led when a troop is running a BSA program and you want "something more" is just rude.

[Stosh]

And so we have all these people on the forum complaining about Eagle Mills, Paper Eagles, and Boy-Led programs with all kinds of problems of their own. If everyone were to keep silent, there would be no shared learning going on. What works for one troop might be a total disaster for another, but if what I'm doing isn't working, it would be nice to find out what others out there are doing. While I promote Boy-Led, Patrol-Method, there are others out there that .... well don't really promote Adult-Led, Troop-Method, but have gotten stuck with long standing tradition along those lines. Well between the two extremes there is a ton of grey area. If one lives in one part of the grey area and wants to move to another area, who's got the map and compass for that? Where does one go to find out if the grass is really greener on the other side of the fence? Just remember the greener grass on the other side of the fence will probably need more mowing than the weed patch one lives in now.

 

Can this glorious idea of Boy-Led, Patrol-Method backfire? Sure, when the parents step up and complain that their unmotivated son isn't advancing and the only excuse given is that the SM expects too much leadership from the boys, yes, then you have a problem when the new CC throws the SM under the bus, and replaces him with another adult that immediately has more ASM's than boys. Then there's the Silver Beaver SM who spent 20+ years running a tight Adult-Led, Troop-Method program that a few parents got wind of the Boy-Led, Patrol-Method and flat out canned him in a heartbeat. Or the troop that folded because the only person that would step up and run the troop was a Boy-Led, Patrol-Method SM and the troop was traditionally a Adult-Led, Troop Method troop and they would rather have no troop than a Boy-Led troop.

 

We're all swimming in shark-infested waters here. People are offering up a ton of floatation rings with the hope of pulling you to safety, but if you will only grab on to a pink ring with a grey rope, or you don't like the guy on the other end of the rope, you might have to wait awhile.

Over the past 30 years I have seen a ton of different troops out there and yet it only represents a small portion of scouting in the world. I would prefer everyone keeping the course and ignoring those who would seek to silent the dissenting voices out there. I for one want to hear them.

 

Stosh

[fred johnson]

Here in the south we would just smile and say' date=' "well bless your heart" and move on. All you can do is run your program and not worry about the rest.[/quote']

 

Agreed. And that's how it should be.

 

 

 

... they all turned and stared with their mouths opens. Finally one guys said' date=' "well I never saw that coming." Later, when they started comparing notes about this kid's Eagle project, what he (hadn't) done for a POR and how his troop, that they earn 6-8 merit badges at camp every year and that the troop spoon-feeds classes for the rest, my guys could believe it. When he left they couldn't wait to tell me all about it. (Of course, I knew how the troop operated.) They kept telling me, "we could never get by with that."[/quote']

 

 

Moments like these are great times to mimic behavior we want to see out of our scouts and help the scouts see the bigger picture and be bigger than the sigutation. THAT'S CHARACTER. Specifically ...

 

- Being petty and resentful is not scout like.

- Nit picking others is not scout like.

 

- Helping others is scout like.

- Cheering on others is scout like.

- Doing YOUR best is scout like.

 

 

 

Kids always know the score.

 

Fully agree. That's why I think it IS important to have winners and you don't need a trophy for everyone. We are at our best when we help scouts learn to be the bigger person and not to focus on resentment or being slighted. I get excited when I see scouts that lose congratulating others scouts and really mean it.

 

[fred johnson]

... If everyone were to keep silent' date=' there would be no shared learning going on. ... I for one want to hear them.[/quote']

 

I'm fine with that. Glad for discussion. We do need to see how others work and so on. We continually need to learn to run better troops.

 

But so so so often ... there is very little discussion and just bitter old goats chewing their cud.

[Eagledad]

Maybe back in the day POR's represented character and/or leadership, but today, discussion seems to revolve more around how the boys are working hard to get advancement credit with the least amount of effort when it comes to these POR's. Kinda makes one wonder just how much and what BSA has evolved into.

 

As I've said before, around 75% of volunteers never had a youth scouting experience. The BSA has evolved toward adults being ignorant of the youth perspective of scouting. Nobodies fault, but how do we fix that?

[Stosh]

 

As I've said before, around 75% of volunteers never had a youth scouting experience. The BSA has evolved toward adults being ignorant of the youth perspective of scouting. Nobodies fault, but how do we fix that?

 

It's a fine line in today's society the SM has to follow.

 

Whereas all the boys will need POR for advancement, the vagularities of the requirement leaves the whole can-of-worms in the SM's lap. Not only that it leaves a huge bull's eye on his back as well. So Little Johnny gets elected SPL and knows Jack about what to do. Well, leadership and character would expect him to step up to the plate and learn the job. But that's not in the requirements, so we harangue and plead and bribe and threaten and whatever else we can do and the best you get is deer-in-the-headlights look. So for 6 months he's in like Flint and doesn't have to actually do or prove anything, just serve in the position. If at the end of the 6 months the SM does not check off the box and Little Johnny gets his self-esteem stroked, the parents step in and pull the trigger. Now the SM and parents duke it out while Little Johnny sits back and waits for his reward. Where's the character building and leadership development built into that process?

 

So I tend to drift from the line in the sand, and draw flack as the one developing Stosh Scouts. I tell them up front that I expect the boys to prove to me and the BOR that they have actually done what was necessary to fulfill the POR. Well, every boy can define what that is in their own manner (character) and then go out and actually serve in the way they want (Leadership) and when all is said and done, they have evidence to prove they actually DID SOMETHING! I really don't care what it is, as long as it is SOMETHING! Each progressive POR will expect them to come up with something a bit more in order to keep from getting tagged as sluffing off. Last POR you did ABC and now with this new POR you didn't even do that much, what's up with that? The onus of evidence is with the scout. It has nothing to do with me, their parents, the BOR, or even the program, it's what they think is necessary to be done and then step up and actually do it so that when the SMC rolls around one has something to talk about besides them not doing anything. But like I said, the onus is on them. I can coddle the boys and their self-esteem, or I can expect miracles. I'm always surprised that even some of the time I do get the miracles and that is a major dose of self-respect from the boy which is far more valuable than self-esteem. But most of the time, I'm willing to settle for a job well done or even adequately done for some of the boys.

 

Stosh

[TAHAWK]

Well, fred, it was one-sided, as it was directed to you. Unlike some, I have not found that name-calling advances discourse, including on those occasions when I have done it.

 

In this case, the only camps I have identifed are those on the side of the angels - refusing to be advancement mills. The only specific unit I have referenced as an advancement mill is the one with which I currently work as SA. And calling someone who obviously has some mileage on them "old" is a very spiffy putdown as it is undeniable. Not a goat however. An Owl or Honorary Beaver, Eagle, or Bear.

 

I take it you feel personally disparaged by someone's - anyone's - comments about "paper eagles," a term I have never used; "Eagle Mills," a term I think I have used about my own troop; or "boy led troop" (a description I never use about my troop - but hope to some day).

 

It's easy for me to say, but surely that feeling, if ever justified, should not be a reaction to posts on a forum by total strangers. No matter what is said, say "Bitter Old Goat" for example, the sun will rise tomorrow. In the marketplace of ideas, labels have little weight except with those whose opinion should be a matter of indifference to you. Not a tit or jot of your good work in Scouting is subtracted by a direct or inferred unfair criticism of you or your unit on this forum, not that I believe I have done that. I know nothing about your troop.

 

If "others" - say your unit - are meeting the "exact same" requirements, any complaint is unjustified - a cheap shot. That unjustified complaints are made is just the way it goes. I hope that does not preclude respectful suggestions of alternatives within the range of Scouting.

 

I had the impression that the criticisms in this thread. express or implied, were based on a perception that requirements were not being met.

 

As to the existence of summer camp merit badge mills, that is the perception of the National Advancement Team of the B.S.A., the Program Director at the camp that I referenced ( but did not identify), each of the eight "counselors" that I interviewed at that camp (only two of which were, in fact, Merit Badge Counselors.), and every Scout that I interviewed. In short, it's hardly a secret that the rules are being ignored is a systematic way by some councils.

 

As to declining use of the Patrol Method, that such is the case is the impression of what was called the National Training Team (Now something like "Learning Delivery" team) and every single one of the dozens of district and council commissioners with whom I have communicated on the topic. Older, rather than younger, Scouters tend to notice the decline of Boy Scouting, as opposed to this other thing, not becuase it was once perfect but because decline has occurred over time. It's worse thann is used to be. Recognizing the problem, B.S.A is working to solve it by changing training materials.

 

That leaves the theme of meaningless tenure in PORs, the rule in "my troop" as the SM is also SPL and all the PL's. (And yes, we have had civilized discussions, and we now at least have patrols, patrol meetings, PLC meetings, boy input into planning. Baby steps.) All I can judge is that some Scouters believe POR's are about advancement, not exercising responsibility. I reach this conclusion because a majority of SM's at roundtables in five different districts in three different councils agreed by show of hands that POR's were all about advancement. B.S.A., my councils, and my districts, have a lot of grund to make up to correct the misunderstanding of POR's.

 

If anyone is being negative about a unit that meets all the rules, then I violently agree with you comments - just not the "old" part. Error is not confined to the experienced. In the alternative, I suspect that Bitter Old Foxes are at least as bad as BOG"S.

 

If I read you as opining that one should "mind your business":by way of ignoring what goes on outisde a single unit, it is my business. Some of us wear other than unit "hats" in Scouting. SA is just one of mine.

 

To the extent that I "want more," from B.S.A., I do communicate with B.S.A. - now that the new Chief promotes communication between paid and volunteer Scouters. Mostly, I try to help them see ways to have B.S.A. Scouting actually do what we say we do. We should at least be trustworthy.

 

We, none of us, are the absolute font of received Scouting wisdom. I did not intend to offend you.

 

[Eagledad]

 

It's a fine line in today's society the SM has to follow.

 

Whereas all the boys will need POR for advancement, the vagularities of the requirement leaves the whole can-of-worms in the SM's lap. Not only that it leaves a huge bull's eye on his back as well. So Little Johnny gets elected SPL and knows Jack about what to do. Well, leadership and character would expect him to step up to the plate and learn the job. But that's not in the requirements, so we harangue and plead and bribe and threaten and whatever else we can do and the best you get is deer-in-the-headlights look. So for 6 months he's in like Flint and doesn't have to actually do or prove anything, just serve in the position. If at the end of the 6 months the SM does not check off the box and Little Johnny gets his self-esteem stroked, the parents step in and pull the trigger. Now the SM and parents duke it out while Little Johnny sits back and waits for his reward. Where's the character building and leadership development built into that process?

 

So I tend to drift from the line in the sand, and draw flack as the one developing Stosh Scouts. I tell them up front that I expect the boys to prove to me and the BOR that they have actually done what was necessary to fulfill the POR. Well, every boy can define what that is in their own manner (character) and then go out and actually serve in the way they want (Leadership) and when all is said and done, they have evidence to prove they actually DID SOMETHING! I really don't care what it is, as long as it is SOMETHING! Each progressive POR will expect them to come up with something a bit more in order to keep from getting tagged as sluffing off. Last POR you did ABC and now with this new POR you didn't even do that much, what's up with that? The onus of evidence is with the scout. It has nothing to do with me, their parents, the BOR, or even the program, it's what they think is necessary to be done and then step up and actually do it so that when the SMC rolls around one has something to talk about besides them not doing anything. But like I said, the onus is on them. I can coddle the boys and their self-esteem, or I can expect miracles. I'm always surprised that even some of the time I do get the miracles and that is a major dose of self-respect from the boy which is far more valuable than self-esteem. But most of the time, I'm willing to settle for a job well done or even adequately done for some of the boys.

 

Stosh

 

 

What I read is that stosh scouts perform better at PORs because they are given expectations, is that right?

 

Barry

[Stosh]

 

What I read is that stosh scouts perform better at PORs because they are given expectations, is that right?

 

Barry

 

Nope, they are given training and then they can do whatever they want. The only expectation is that they do something that will justify the advancement requirement. That is spelled out in the training. They are given the tools to do the job and what they do with them is up to them. It's really not my problem, it's theirs, as are all the rank advancement requirements.

 

"I tell them up front that I expect the boys to prove to me and the BOR that they have actually done what was necessary to fulfill the POR. Well, every boy can define what that is in their own manner (character) and then go out and actually serve in the way they want (Leadership) and when all is said and done, they have evidence to prove they actually DID SOMETHING! I really don't care what it is, as long as it is SOMETHING!"

 

I don't believe I said they perform better, as you think I said, I'm just saying it is expected that they at least perform. And from the comments of others on the forum, I'm thinking there are a few SM's out there that would be happy with getting that much out of some of their boys, too.

 

Stosh

[charmoc]

Many troops I have been associated with provide leadership training, and they have their super performers, the average and the ones who do the minimum if at all. Expectations are identified and communicated, but once 4 or 6 months have passed, and if we are following the GTA, it’s a done deal.

So what makes your troop leadership training work so much better than the rest? What is you recipe for success?

 

[Stosh]

I find that leadership training and management training are not the same thing. I tend to focus on the leadership training and my boys seem a lot happier with their successes.

 

Stosh

[Eagledad]

 

 

I don't believe I said they perform better, as you think I said, I'm just saying it is expected that they at least perform. And from the comments of others on the forum, I'm thinking there are a few SM's out there that would be happy with getting that much out of some of their boys, too.

 

Stosh

 

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to give you and opening to explain how your style is different from the example you presented. Your answer is training. All troops train stosh. Personally I don't know how scouts can perform a duty without knowing what their duty is. I'm very confused why you seem to shy away from expectations. We all have expectations all our life.

 

Most adults who struggle with leadership development today don't struggle with expectations, they struggle with accountibiltity. It’s easy to say we train them then send them off in the woods for six months and wait to see what happens. But I know that isn’t how it works. Those of us who have been there and done that have styles and techniques for developing a program the gives scouts’ Maximum growth. What does stosh do to get maximum growth.

 

Without using personal examples or experience, how would explain your preferred style of leadership development. Maybe a little less vague than train them than send them off without any expectation.

 

Barry

.

[fred johnson]

"I tell them up front that I expect the boys to prove to me and the BOR that they have actually done what was necessary to fulfill the POR. Well' date=' every boy can define what that is in their own manner (character) and then go out and actually serve in the way they want (Leadership) and when all is said and done, they have evidence to prove they actually DID SOMETHING! I really don't care what it is, as long as it is SOMETHING!" [/quote']

 

Josh ... I fully support expecting scouts to do something with positions of responsibility. That is good.

 

I'm less comfortable with the short phrase when you wrote you expect boys to prove to you and the BOR that they have actually done what was necessary to fulfill the POR.

 

BSA has made it very clear that lack of performance needs to be addressed early and NOT at the end of the term.

 

BSA GTA page 28 section 4.2.3.4.5 When Responsibilities Are Not Met ... "If he is not meeting expectations, then this must be communicated early."

 

BSA GTA page 28 section 4.2.3.4.5 When Responsibilities Are Not Met ... "If it becomes clear nothing will improve his performance, then it is acceptable to remove the Scout from his position. It is the unit leader’s responsibility to address these situations promptly. Every effort should have been made while he was in the position to ensure he understood expectations and was regularly supported toward reasonably acceptable performance. It is unfair and inappropriateâ€â€after six months, for example to surprise a boy who thinks he has been doing fine, with news that his performance is now considered unsatisfactory. In this case, he must be given credit for the time."

[Stosh]

As I have mentioned I draw a strong distinction between Leadership and Management. In today's world the focus is on "getting the job done." and that involves such things as performance evaluations and accountability. Those issues are all Management concepts, not leadership. Unfortunately that is why a lot of boys struggle with POR's and leadership because they get trained in Management which is often miss-named as "Leadership". NYLT is mostly demonstrations of skills and tasks that need to be done. That's management.

 

Management styles such as Theory X and Theory Y where one demands compliance out of those doing the work (Theory X) or coerces compliance out of those doing the work (Theory Y) both assume that the task is more important than the people doing it. The "One Minute Manager" that came out many years ago, basically does the same thing, but at least recognizes the value of the people doing it and respects that.

 

So now we have the scout trained in Management getting the nod for SPL. He has before him a responsibility task of "running the troop". It is spelled out as Lead the PLC, MC COH's, and a whole variety of different tasks. So with a burst of energy he approaches those tasks with the demeanor of a traffic cop. Sure traffic flows smoothly as long as everyone does what he says. But the moment anyone does not do what is expected to accomplish the task, things fall apart. It's a tenuous position for most people to be in, let alone a fledgling new SPL. I see train wrecks in these boys' futures.

 

So then we have the Servant Leadership people coming foward in the early 1970's with a new concept on Leadership instead of management. It's focus is not on getting the task done, but instead of leading people who want to follow and thus the tasks will get done.

 

As part of my SM minute last week, I asked the boys what Tenderfoot Requirement #9 was. Two piped up, "Take care of your buddy!" I then asked, why was that important, and they answered, "Because it's the first step in being a good leader."

 

Yes, I could have a classroom setting of teaching leadership, but it isn't really conducive to videos and flip-charts. Instead for every service project the boys do, is it ever questioned why they are doing it? For those that say they are doing it to get credit for advancement, they are really focused only on themselves and their own success. They are managing their performance and their success. People really don't "follow" people like that because they make very poor leaders. On the other hand the boy that does it because it helps other people, is getting a lesson in true leadership. "Help other people at all times!" is what leadership is all about. What are the management tasks of helping other people at all times? Who cares!! The tasks aren't important, the people are!

 

A good manager will point out what is necessary for the worker to do to accomplish a task. The worker is just a cog in the machinery necessary for getting the job/task done. Life is good as long as the worker follows directions correctly.

 

A good leader will draw people to him that want to help. Not to help the leader, but have the leader lead them into the tasks knowing he has their back and will do everything he can to help them be successful.

 

A patrol leader that constantly is making sure each of his boys is successful, will he himself be successful! The focus is on those who are trusting him to look out for them, i.e. servant to them. When they look good, he looks good!

 

Once everyone has mastered this concept of serving others (helping other people at all times) they will have mastered teamwork because there isn't just one leader on a team, they are all leaders. Sometimes they lead, sometimes they follow, but they all have the same goal of everyone else's success. I can watch my buddy's back, because he's watching mine. With that concept in mind, the boys can handle any task that comes along.

 

How does one scout learn to lead? HE DOESN"T! He has to have followers to be a leader. How does one garner up followers? Now that's what leadership training is all about.

 

The SPL that complains to the SM that none of the boys will listen to him and do what he says, is letting the SM know he is no leader whatsoever!

 

My one and only lesson for PL training is: "Take care of your boys." Those that do that tend to figure out leadership very quickly and do a really nice job. That's a daunting task, but if they keep the welfare of others foremost, those tasks will quickly resolve themselves as the boy develops his leadership style.

 

Stosh

[fred johnson]

TAHAWK - Yeah, I do feel personally insulted by those terms ... and I feel BSA is insulted ... and I feel that good young men recognized by BSA are insulted by these terms. They have no place in discussions by good heart'ed scouters.

 

Eagle mills, merit badge mills, paper eagle etc etc etc are cowardly personal attacks hidden by distance and they are mean spirited reflecting bitterness and resentment.

 

If it gets my dander up, it's because I've seen way too many scouts directly DAMAGED by adult leaders that feel justified to violate published BSA policies and create their own program.

 

===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====

 

The first damaged scout was 16 and ready to give up on BSA advancement because he was in month five and cycle six of getting an Eagle project approved. I saw his paperwork box. It was fine at the first copy. With that first copy, he would have done well giving LEADERHIP and SERVICE and been successful with his project. I'm betting by revision #2 his project plan was up to their standard.

 

... BUT ... The district Eagle committee kept asking for meaningless additions. I expoded when he was bounced in cycle six because they wanted him to add a map to the local hospital to his project book.

 

... When adults violate the good faith of youth, adults need to get involved and that's when I got involved. I took it to both the district committee chair, the district exec and the council advancement committee. His project was approved immediately after that.

 

From what I saw ... the district Eagle advancement people were staffed by scouters who had their own agenda and their own special higher standards. It had nothing to do with BSA requirements. It had to do with their wanting the scout to "appreciate", "value" and "earn" his Eagle rank. And, they wanted the approval process to be challenging and to weed out unworthy scouts. IMHO, they did not think he or his project were worthy of Eagle and they could not find a reason to say no. So, they just kept bouncing him.

 

===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====

 

I've also sat at district and council meetings where scouters don't care enough about who they are offending to just such terms. When I hear the tone of their words ... the same words I hear on this board so often ... it reflects bitterness and resentment. And it reflects that it is time for them to move on.

 

===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====

 

Scouts in my troop are proud of their advancements, the merit badges they have earned and their scout rank. Some MBs are easy. Some MBs are hard. Some MBCs are good. Some are not. Also, scouts in my troop are also proud of their earning Eagle.

 

So when you say eagle mill or merit badge mill or paper Eagle ... you are insulting my scouts and I hope I have time and energy to come out aggressively. If an adult leader has any role, it's to support and defend their scouts. You use these terms and you are insulting my scouts. It's my job to defend them.

 

================================================

 

I'm fine with addressing specifics so that we can all learn and grow. I'm glad to let BSA requirements be the bad guy while I support and help the scout.

 

Just avoid the derogatory stereotypes.