Should BSA develop a "Classic Scouting"

[Stosh]

How many adults really expect and want the boys to lead and how many find it a lot easier just to do it themselves?  As a parent most will find it easier to simply do it themselves rather than risk the failure of the boys.  I have no idea how many times I let a "stupid" idea get traction with the boys as a learning moment for them.  One has to bite the bullet and let them fail.  The scouting environment is the place to make these poor choices and not be crippled for life.  People in general learn more from their mistakes than they do from their successes.

[Col. Flagg]

I have no idea how many times I let a "stupid" idea get traction with the boys as a learning moment for them.  One has to bite the bullet and let them fail.  The scouting environment is the place to make these poor choices and not be crippled for life.  People in general learn more from their mistakes than they do from their successes.

 

"Controlled Failure" is the term we use. We actually mention it as part of our recruiting. It keeps Bulldozer Parents from joining our unit. Our slogan ought to be, "If you can't stand to have your time wasted while kids are learning, we may not be the troop for you." 

Edited March 31, 2017 by Col. Flagg

[RememberSchiff]

All too true. Too often adults (usually TC) get frustrated by the disorganized, sluggish, and maybe lazy developing scout leadership, and take over.  Lessons lost.

[Stosh]

It's never a waste of time to teach a scout to make better choices.  This doesn't happen over-night.

[ParkMan]

The problem isn't boy led though - it's getting a consistent definition of what it is and how to implement it.

 

I often run into people who think boy led means - give the scouts something to do, a little guidance, and then let them have at it.  If it works out - great, if not at least they learned something.  It's like EDGE is really "E" and then hope for the best.  To me boy led without the "demonstrate, guide, and enable" is what causes folks like the TC to want to give up on it.

[Eagledad]

The problem isn't boy led though - it's getting a consistent definition of what it is and how to implement it.

 

I often run into people who think boy led means - give the scouts something to do, a little guidance, and then let them have at it.  If it works out - great, if not at least they learned something.  It's like EDGE is really "E" and then hope for the best.  To me boy led without the "demonstrate, guide, and enable" is what causes folks like the TC to want to give up on it.

Maybe it's too much to expect of adults today. I have been giving examples for 15 years on this forum of how to develop a boy run program based my successful experiences. Lately even scouters on this forum question my thoughts and examples. If Scoutmasters on this forum can't believe those of us with experience, how can we expect them to consider anything other than their own ideas. Is mature growth from making independent decisions really all that hard to believe!

 

Barry

[Ankylus]

The problem isn't boy led though - it's getting a consistent definition of what it is and how to implement it.

 

I often run into people who think boy led means - give the scouts something to do, a little guidance, and then let them have at it.  If it works out - great, if not at least they learned something.  It's like EDGE is really "E" and then hope for the best.  To me boy led without the "demonstrate, guide, and enable" is what causes folks like the TC to want to give up on it.

 

I agree that consistency in understanding and application are difficult here. I know of a troop that calls itself "boy led" while the SM assigned all the leadership positions in the troop, including SPL. I think that is wrong and I do not think that is "boy led". The boys just have no voice in that. But I also think that I do not have all the answers, nor am I always right.

 

The truth is, to make a program as large as and like BSA to work, you are going to have to have some ambiguity in place and trust that the volunteers will do it correctly. Will there be abuses of that trust? Yes, we talk about it all the time on this board.

 

But the alternative is generate reams of rules, regulations, requirements, and other beauracracy on top of what we already have. The amount of and irritation from national about these kinds of things is already a topic on this board, also. Imagine if they had to right everything to eliminate all the ambiguity in the program? Look what it did for MB requirements and how we already complain about that.

 

So, I think it is just something we are going to have to tolerate and understand that not everyone will agree on what that means.

[AltadenaCraig]

 

But the alternative is generate reams of rules, regulations, requirements, and other bureaucracy on top of what we already have. The amount of and irritation from national about these kinds of things is already a topic on this board, also. Imagine if they had to right everything to eliminate all the ambiguity in the program? Look what it did for MB requirements and how we already complain about that. ...

 

I'm a little more optimistic about this idea.  A few thoughts:

• Defining "classic" scouting is key.  Develop a kind of "classic scouting manifesto"  (perhaps through voting on scouter.com?), featuring several "classic scouting principles".  Here would be my first contribution to a manifesto of such principles:

"Adults do not speak unless first spoken to by a Scout"

• Establishing another "order" within scouting already has a couple of success models: "Order of the Arrow", of course, for individual scouts, but also among troops we often see institutional-level instruction.  My own council often features "Boy Scouts for LDS Troops"; something similar could be offered for "Classic" troops.

 

• I'd suggest compliance through scoring through volunteers uniquely trained in promoting the manifesto.  The success model here might be AYSO, which features oodles of training seminars for their referees and coaches - very professionally presented I might add.

At the very least, establishment of "classic scouting principles" would be a very valuable contribution.

[Stosh]

What scout wouldn't want to learn how to start a fire without matches?  What scout wouldn't want to learn about skeet shooting competitively?  What scout wouldn't want to primitive camp or whitewater canoe?  And what about first aid on a rescue level.  I would think that many of these subjects could be taught at a High Adventure level that goes beyond the S->FC and even MB level. Maybe foraging in the woods?  Anyone for nettle tea?  or dandelion salad?  Can anyone clean a squirrel, filet a fish or cook a rabbit stew in a Dutch oven? 

 

So often we comment about the program being "watered down".  Why not develop appropriate curriculum that takes it to the next level.  Beans and weenies or Beef Stroganoff?  Walking tacos or chicken enchiladas?  Cobbler or chocolate chip cookie cheesecake?  Starting fire with matches, vs. bow and drill, vs magnesium sticks, vs. magnifying glass, vs. flint and steel, vs. 9-volt battery?

 

Cooking with oak vs. cooking with pine, vs/ charcoal, vs, hickory smoking pork chops, or apple smoking chicken.

 

Monkey bridge over a real river.

 

Plop camping vs. sandbar camping out of a canoe or kayak. 

 

Is it any wonder our boys are bored to tears most of the time.  Do they even think of these things?  I'm sure many of them don't fare that well at home with a microwave. 

 

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with modern technology, but if the power goes out, do the boys starve or eat better than when the lights are on?

Edited April 6, 2017 by Stosh

[MattR]

The truth is, to make a program as large as and like BSA to work, you are going to have to have some ambiguity in place and trust that the volunteers will do it correctly. Will there be abuses of that trust? Yes, we talk about it all the time on this board.

 

But the alternative is generate reams of rules, regulations, requirements, and other beauracracy on top of what we already have. The amount of and irritation from national about these kinds of things is already a topic on this board, also. Imagine if they had to right everything to eliminate all the ambiguity in the program? Look what it did for MB requirements and how we already complain about that.

 

So, I think it is just something we are going to have to tolerate and understand that not everyone will agree on what that means.

 

I don't think tolerating lousy training is so great, mainly because we've been doing that and it's not working. At the same time, scoring something that's subjective will just encourage people to game the system. So I understand where you're coming from, I just don't like it. But maybe there's another way to look at this.

 

For any change there needs to be some passion before any rules or guidelines. Passion leads to understanding. Understanding leads to being able to use the guidelines. Look at JTE. We gots rules. What we don't have is an understanding of the underlying ideas that, to be honest, are very subjective. My guess is that JTE has not budged many units to better usage of the methods of scouting. There is just no way to create any understanding in this situation with rules and guidelines. Telling someone that they have to have regular PLC meetings might just result in time for the PLC to regularly hang together and watch stupid youtube videos.

 

Back to passion. Passion is what makes the world go around. In scouts it's the passionate scouter that will fix a unit. But it also has a dark side. Look at this forum. People on this forum bleed green because they care. They care so much that it seems that they can take any silly little thing and turn it into an argument. This forum is not unique. I've seen lots of scouters quit in anger. Probably a lot that used to be on this forum as well. This passion has also driven parents with no experience in scouting away from scouts.

 

This dark side, in my opinion, is one reason why the documentation is so bad. Look at advancement and religious principles. Lots of passion there so we end up with very lawyerish documents. At the same time things like the patrol method are just flat out ignored because, well, there are different ways to do it so why pick one. Pick them all by not describing anything. It's kind of like just letting the scouts do what they want. Some guidance is needed.

 

Here's my idea. Scouters really enjoy telling stories. Stories are also a great way to illustrate ideas. Start with the aims and methods and create a set of ideas that cover them. For each idea write a bunch of stories that illustrate different aspects of that idea. If there are different ways of doing things, or different challenges based on the size of the troop or what it's like then put in more stories. An important idea is that the stories need to be real. If something worked then go ahead and put it in. But hunches are best left out. Think of it as a set of case studies in scouting, only a lot more fun. In the process of having fun while reading the stories, some scouters might learn a few things, and hopefully gain some passion of their own. Put the important stuff up front and then it's okay to slowly read it.

 

If this all sounds too far fetched then consider the Bible. While there are rules and guidelines there are a lot more stories. It turns out there are no simple rules or guidelines for how to create a community but there are many stories describing how to do it. Communities can be age based or mixed

 

But that's just my opinion.

[TAHAWK]

I've seen it taught. Most choose to ignore it.

No official BSA syllabus teaches it - not for decades.  Not in the handbooks for Scoutmasters or Patrol leaders.  Aspects are mentioned in passing, but more time is given in SM basic to the relatively unimportant "three types of patrols" as is given (absolutely none) to the critical annual patrol planning conference.

 

You may get a course at a "University of Scouting" or "Baden-Powell Institute"  - if someone wants to do it.  See, the Patrol method -- our most important method - is effectively optional.

 

Think I'm wrong?  List all the official consequences for the adults if they refuse to allow the Patrol Method.  Must be consequences for ignoring our most important method, right?

 

We'll wait.

[Back Pack]

That's my point. In my area we have an old Scouter that teaches PM. Most who take the course simply think it's nice. Many never try to implement it. Despite getting a road map on how to. I wish BSA would teach it.

[TAHAWK]

BSA - here and there- still says all the right the words, as it says many other things.  But there is no pressure, recognition, condemnation, reward - nothing to create a positive or negative incentive - nothing to show it means it.

 

The "funny" thing is that the few troops who use it here have robust membership, fantastic outdoor program, service projects to be proud of, and good advancement that comes out of their program.  They supply the lion's share of district and council event SPLs and NYKT staff.

 

 

They are greatly admired - but from a "safe distance."  I mean, you wouldn't want to actually do that, would ya'?  Meaning what you say and doing what you say would be dangerous stuff !

[qwazse]

RT break-out discussed "boy-led" last night. I think it was a fairly frank discussion with nobody feeling like there was a party-line they needed to tow. A venturing crew joined us, and I was pleased that one of the young women felt comfortable enough to chimed in on how they operate with their advisor.

 

The good news: A wide spectrum of approaches. Some scouters have fully boy-run CoH's; others, the boys make presentations to pitch their preferred "big-trip" for everyone else to vote on; others are diligent at herding adults away from the scouts and allowing "controlled failure."  My mantra of the pinnacle scouting experience being hiking and camping independently with your mates got lots of nods of agreement. Other scouters had some very good visions like the ones mentioned above.

 

The bad news: Only in a minority of troops does the SPL govern who has the floor at all times. Very few scouters grew up with a CO who granted a room for each patrol and a troop where adults were rarely seen and less often heard. The ideal of 300' separation between each patrol and the adults was alien to all. One seasoned scouter capitulated to the "good reasoning of the times" that independent patrol overnights were a thing of the past.

[Eagledad]

As the local patrol method activist, I have always blamed National's lack of training for the lack of patrol method in the districts. But the problem is worse than that, Patrol method is just not part of National's concept for a successful scout program.

 

When we humans have to provide activities with little or no guidance, we develop those activities using reasoning based from our own personal knowledge and life experiences. I used to teach boy run and many adults just wouldn't, or couldn't, comprehend the idea of developing character by giving boys the independence to make choices for how they participated in their small community we call patrol. Adults are driven by ambition and the ambitions of parents is giving their kids the best advantages. Everyone here will probably agree that the first question about your troop by visiting parents is something to do with advancement. That is not typically the first order of priority on their son's list. But don't misunderstand, parents are being normal, it's the patrol method program that doesn't fit in the normal way of things.

 

The only way to push a trend is to provide overwhelming information to sway adults away from their personal Instincts on the subject. For that to happen, direction has to come from the top and and have support all the way don't to the program users. I don't see National showing that kind of support for patrol method.

 

Our troop started at its inception a very traditional patrol method program only because the two main adult leaders who started the troop had traditional patrol method experiences as youths. There was no support at the district or council levels for our out-of-norm program. They did, however, start to show an interest when membership grew from 16 to 60 in three years. However, outsiders looking in still had a hard time believing in the simple concept of patrol method. We kept getting pressure to conform to Nationals 3 patrol structure (NSP, Regular Patrols, Venture Patrols) AND also divide off the oldest Scouts into an adventure crew. Being open minded, we tested the waters of some of the suggestions, only revert back when they didn't prove out.

 

We helped and guided anyone who wanted a program like ours, but that is a rough road for any unit without district or council support. Especially when the adults don't have any patrol method experience as a foundation for their decisions. Without experiences and knowledge, adults tend to fall back on their parental instincts of giving their kids a program that apeals to adults. Advancement based.

 

I'm not saying it's hopeless, but patrol method is a lot of work. Of course the rewards are worth it, but looking back, I realize a patrol method program requires some passion to maintain positive momentum.

 

I believe scouting forums can be a great source of support for adults who want a patrol method troop, but im seeing more and more skepticism and resistance these days from even experienced Scoutmasters. The traditional patrol method program is becoming more rare every day. I often wonder if my sons are the last generation to experience it. That being said, I hope to be a source for patrol method for a good while. I still have the passion, and I guess that's why of love this scouting stuff.

 

Barry