Question regarding "Scout Spirit" - is this being abused, or misused?

[Stosh]

I love this "patrols can't do activities on their own" line of baloney.  Two adults have to be babysitting all the time malarkey.  All one needs is parent permission and off ya go!  Used to do it all the time when I was a kid.  After we all quit scouts to join other organizations, we still continued to camp as a group.  If the boys don't like BSA policies, form your own patrol and with parent permission do your own thing like Bubble Ball, Paint Ball, squirt gun fights, and water balloon battles on a Saturday anytime you wish.  Through scouts one should have been trained in safety and outdoor skills, so pack up dad's car and have him drop the guys off at the local wilderness location and pick them up at a designated time.  The boys can even take along their electronic devices in case of bad weather or an emergency.

 

What does BSA say about that?  NOTHING!  Knock yourself out and have a good time.

 

Let's see.... a Scout turns 18 and he can do any of these things anyway.... EXCEPT if they have joined Venturing then they CAN'T!!!!   Then they have to wait another 3 more years to have fun.... as an adult.  Duh!

[qwazse]

Depends if you like watching smarty-pants adults getting come-uppence.

I like correcting adults for their own good.

I love helping youth discover real joy and beauty.

I'd like to think that @@SSF's Life scout prefers the latter.

 

I love this "patrols can't do activities on their own" line of baloney.  Two adults have to be babysitting all the time malarkey.  All one needs is parent permission and off ya go!  ...

 

Let's see.... a Scout turns 18 and he can do any of these things anyway.... EXCEPT if they have joined Venturing then they CAN'T!!!!   Then they have to wait another 3 more years to have fun.... as an adult.  Duh!

Preaching to the choir, Stosh. If this were only about being a real patrol, most definitely boys will ditch BSA, find a camp, and bring their buddies, sisters, and girlfriends. Seen it dozens of times. Handed off keys to the van more than once.

 

But, this is also about throwing down the "scout spirit" gauntlet. What gives the scout the best opportunity to show he's got what it takes to wear that patch with the pretty red heart? Challenging a couple of key adults to enable sanctioned action in a very timely fashion seems to be the most rewarding move.

[blw2]

related side question...

well then, what CAN a BOR fail a scout on during the review?

I think this is related, in the sense that moving forward, this committee needs to know what they CAN do, or what the are supposed to be doing....

[Krampus]

Preaching to the choir, Stosh. If this were only about being a real patrol, most definitely boys will ditch BSA, find a camp, and bring their buddies, sisters, and girlfriends. Seen it dozens of times. Handed off keys to the van more than once.

 

But, this is also about throwing down the "scout spirit" gauntlet. What gives the scout the best opportunity to show he's got what it takes to wear that patch with the pretty red heart? Challenging a couple of key adults to enable sanctioned action in a very timely fashion seems to be the most rewarding move.

 

But this assumes those close-minded adults 1) Share that same view, 2) Do not already have some prescribed method THEY want to see that demonstrates Scout spirit, and 3) That these same adults would allow any Scout to do other than how the adults prescribe things.

 

I agree with you and Stosh 100%, but these guys sound like control-freaks that won't allow or give credit outside anything they ordain.

 

 

related side question...

well then, what CAN a BOR fail a scout on during the review?

I think this is related, in the sense that moving forward, this committee needs to know what they CAN do, or what the are supposed to be doing....

 

It is all in the GTA. I won't bother to reprise it here for space considerations. The BOR role is clear. They can "fail' a Scout *IF* the troop has a pre-define definition of what it means to be "active" as long as it meets that third test and does not over rule the first two tests. For example, if they require 50% attendance across all meetings and events AND can prove the Scout did not attend 50%. 

 

If they do not have this predefined criteria then they must allow the Scout to explain his level of participation and cannot fail him based on meeting the litmus test in the GTA for being active.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Krampus

[Stosh]

I have always tried to follow the process of SMC where SS is discussed, all requirements reviewed and met and given the nod to proceed with the BOR.  If an issue arises in the BOR, I am to be brought in to add clarification.  As an ASM or SM my whole time I've never sat in on a BOR except the EBOR's.  I have never had a boy needing me to back him up at a BOR because if he's gotten by me with my signature on the SMC, then I'll back him up 100%  If a BOR is questioning a boy on his ability to advance, they are questioning my judgment as to him being ready as well.

[T2Eagle]

If I read the original question correctly there is somehow a vote by the committee after the SMC as to whether the scout even gets to have a BOR.  That is so wrong a process that I'm not sure whether it could even be fixed by a unit so clueless about how wrong the process is.

 

My suggestion is

1) think hard about another troop;

2) try to have a gown up conversation with the SM, Committee Chair, etc., just to see if they understand how far off they are;

3) If they're not willing to move back towards the program, get in touch with a DE and push the issue, then

4) think really hard about another troop.

[CalicoPenn]

related side question...

well then, what CAN a BOR fail a scout on during the review?

I think this is related, in the sense that moving forward, this committee needs to know what they CAN do, or what the are supposed to be doing....

 

Before I answer this question with my opinion on what a BOR can fail a Scout for, let's be clear that it doesn't apply to the OP because this is a case of a Troop Committee voting to even hold BORs, not failing a Scout at a BOR, and that is something a Committee just doesn't have the authority to do.

 

As for when can a Scout be failed at a BOR - my opinion is that it should rarely happen - like less than 1% of all BOR's of all Troops in the USA and internationally combined rare.  As Stosh so eloquently put it, when a BOR is questioning a Scout's ability to advance, they are questioning the judgment of the Scoutmaster as well.

 

The purpose of the Board of Review is to nominally review that the Scout has met all the requirements and a Scoutmaster shouldn't be sending a Scout to a BOR unless the Scout has met all of the requirements.  The best BOR's are a review of the Troop's program, and the Scout's experience.  If a PL, SPL, Instructor, Troop Guide, JASM, ASM, or SM has signed off that the Scout has learned to tie a Square Knot, I don't need to test the Scout to see if he has learned to tie a Square Knot.  What I want to know is if the Scout is having fun.  I want to know what the Scout thinks the best part of the last campout was.  I want to know what he doesn't like about the last campout.  I want to know what he likes best about the Troop and what he thinks can be improved.  I'm hoping a Scout has things to brag about - not just to the BOR but to his friends that aren't Scouts.  I want to know that the Troop is delivering exciting activities that he can talk about at school on Monday after a weekend camping trip.  That's what a BOR is for - it's more to review the Troop and a Scout's experiences with it, than it is to review the Scout.

 

What can a Scout be failed for?  For now, flat out expressing that he's an atheist - and that's about it.  I'm waiting the day when even that is no longer a disqualifier, when we all finally grow up as a society and realize that atheists and agnostics are as good and as bad as citizens as everyone else in this country and the answer of how can a boy fail a BOR is "NEVER".

[blw2]

"That's what a BOR is for - it's more to review the Troop and a Scout's experiences with it, than it is to review the Scout."

​that was my understanding of it....

​it's clearly not a retest, so I don't understand why a board's opinion of scout spirit, or anything else really matters....

 

unless there's a signature missing, or some clear miss.... I get that.

 

Guess I need to get my hands on a guide to advancement and read it for myself.

[Sentinel947]

"That's what a BOR is for - it's more to review the Troop and a Scout's experiences with it, than it is to review the Scout."

​

 

Get this scouter on the district training team stat!

 

Well said.

[Stosh]

As far as I'm concerned after my SMC, the only reason a scout goes to a BOR is to collect signatures.  If the board wants to chat a bit, fine, but if the boy doesn't get signatures, I want to hear about it immediately.  Then I'm going to have a little chat, too.

[Krampus]

As far as I'm concerned after my SMC, the only reason a scout goes to a BOR is to collect signatures.  If the board wants to chat a bit, fine, but if the boy doesn't get signatures, I want to hear about it immediately.  Then I'm going to have a little chat, too.

Exactly. If a BOR does not pass one of my guys they won't be leaving that room without a word from me.

[Eagledad]

As far as I'm concerned after my SMC, the only reason a scout goes to a BOR is to collect signatures.  If the board wants to chat a bit, fine, but if the boy doesn't get signatures, I want to hear about it immediately.  Then I'm going to have a little chat, too.

Then who checks on the SM? What if the SM is doing it wrong?

 

I'm guessing what you were trying to say is that if the BOR doesn't give the Scout the required signatures, the adults should call a meeting to understand the problem and figure out how to fix the problem and change something to prevent it from happening again.

 

There is nothing wrong with BOR when used correctly. A good SM respects the BORs responsibility and is eager to hear what the board has learned from the scout. In fact, a good SM will grow into a better SM from a good BOR.

 

A proud SM who dismisses the BOR's value or considers the board members beneath the SM's position is dangerous and sets a bad example for the Scouts. It doesn't matter how well the SM presents a patrol method program, a troop with that SM is an adult driven program.

 

Clearly the adults in the OPs troop needs some training.

 

Barry

[Eagledad]

Exactly. If a BOR does not pass one of my guys they won't be leaving that room without a word from me.

Again, what if you are wrong? Do you get to leave the room without a word from them?

 

As the SM, I have been in several meetings with the BOR after a review with a scout and sometimes the SM needs to rethink their part in the process. In a troop were the adults are trained and understand their responsibilities, the scoutmaster might need to change something. Think of the BOR and SM as a team, not adversaries. And sometimes the situation isn't caused by something faulty in the program, it is just and unusual situation that requires getting heads together to find a creative solution for the best interest of the scout. Mentally challenged scouts or scouts who transferred from other troops come to mind.

 

Barry

Edited April 8, 2016 by Eagledad

[Krampus]

Again, what if you are wrong? Do you get to leave the room without a word from them?

 

As the SM, I have been in several meetings with the BOR after a review with a scout and sometimes the SM needs to rethink their part in the process. In a troop were the adults are trained and understand their responsibilities, the scoutmaster might need to change something. Think of the BOR and SM as a team, not adversaries. And sometimes the situation isn't caused by something faulty in the program, it is just and unusual situation that requires getting heads together to find a creative solution for the best interest of the scout. Mentally challenged scouts or scouts who transferred from other troops come to mind.

 

Barry

 

Wrong about them "failing" a Scout? As SM I cannot be *if*:

• The Scout has completed all of his requirements.
• The Scout is registered with the troop.
• The Scout is in good standing.
• The Scout is active by our unit's definition (which is well known and communicated well in advance).

We go the extra step of making sure the Scout knows every requirement in his rank for which he is being reviewed and can demonstrate those skills. In the event he is sitting for Star, Life or Eagle, we review his core skills in his SMC so that he is fully prepared for any question he might get in his BOR.

 

I fail to see how the SM could be "wrong" in having a word with the BOR for failing a Scout that meets all of those criteria? That Scout meets every standard set by BSA. Now, unless the Scout dropped the f-bomb and flipped off the board, I see no reason they would fail such a Scout.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Krampus

[Eagledad]

.

That Scout meets every standard set by BSA.

 

Who interprets the standard?

 

So you think the SM is never wrong. That is a very dangerous prideful attitude. You must feel the BOR is a waste of time.

 

BORs used to be done by the Scouts. Why do you think the BSA changed the policy?

 

Barry