Civil Protest, Policing, Moving Forward

[MattR]

@TAHAWK and @Eagledad, you make some really good points, but I'm not trying to contradict them.

There are two ideas here. First, one of the reasons the adults glom onto eagle mills and advancement is because that's the biggest, shiniest thing around. It's well laid out and easy to follow. As Tahawk mentions, the patrol method is not very well described. So it's not seen and therefore ignored. Maybe it should be more visible. Second, one thing I like about the advancement model is that there are stages of development, or growth in Eagledad's terminology. It doesn't have to be check boxes. There is a notion that only eagle counts and I really dislike it. I'd much rather see all the ranks be more challenging and that First Class is a respectable place to stop at. Anyway, the idea of having some defined stages might really help. It might help the adults see that there's more to scouting than advancement.

So, while teaching of outdoor skills can be improved, the teaching of leadership skills can be improved even more. Related to this is teaching adult skills. In all of these I think having levels of skills to master would be much better than the one and done model promoted by BSA.

 

24 minutes ago, yknot said:

Kids today are not taught to work in a team or in a subordinate position to anyone else, they are taught and raised to do what they want and what works for them.

I always thought mastering teamwork was the first step to developing leadership. Having a new PL try and lead a patrol with little teamwork skills is just a recipe for frustration.
 

 

[MattR]

51 minutes ago, David CO said:

Moderators have been letting this off-topic topic go on for some time now.  Have they not noticed, or are they greatly relieved that we are no longer talking about the riots and they don't want to spoil a good thing?  

It's not a matter of relieved. I asked if we should act at least as well as what we expect from our scouts and nobody contradicted that idea. Now everyone is acting scout-like and after 20 some pages of people spilling their frustration we've gotten back to something more optimistic. If you want rules and boundaries I'll give them to you but I was hoping that acting scout-like was enough of a description.

[walk in the woods]

1 hour ago, yknot said:

Kids today are not taught to work in a team or in a subordinate position to anyone else, they are taught and raised to do what they want and what works for them. Tahawk mentioned trauma. The trauma I'm talking about is when you've got a room full of kids taught that their individual rights, opinions and interests are what are most important and not anyone else's. The loudest rule the room; the more laid back hang back in misery and quit.

I think you've identified an effect but might be missing the cause.  I was never "taught" those things either.  Growing up my mother, and every mother in town, kicked their progeny out of the house by 9am all summer weather permitting.  We met up at the ball park, played baseball, or whatever we decided to do.  There wasn't an adult in sight, no structured rules, so we figured it out on our own.  Older kids looked out for the younger because their dad said look out for your kid brother.  I'd argue we've taught kids to be dependent on adults and we tend to ostracize the natural leaders instead of letting the kids figure it out.  We adults have come to prefer compliant kids rather than the energetic and we've taught them to be meek.

[yknot]

1 minute ago, walk in the woods said:

I think you've identified an effect but might be missing the cause.  I was never "taught" those things either.  Growing up my mother, and every mother in town, kicked their progeny out of the house by 9am all summer weather permitting.  We met up at the ball park, played baseball, or whatever we decided to do.  There wasn't an adult in sight, no structured rules, so we figured it out on our own.  Older kids looked out for the younger because their dad said look out for your kid brother.  I'd argue we've taught kids to be dependent on adults and we tend to ostracize the natural leaders instead of letting the kids figure it out.  We adults have come to prefer compliant kids rather than the energetic and we've taught them to be meek.

That's my point. From the comments on this board, its clear we were all raised that way. I was free range. I roamed the neighborhood and local woods with a large pod of kids. We had drama, crises, fights, danger, you name it. We worked it out among ourselves. No parent involved. No parent even knew unless someone squawked. We learned how to interact with each other. We had bigger families and learned how to handle sibling relationships and responsibilities. Kids are not growing up with those opportunities and skills anymore and that's why I think it might be useful to look at whether scouts needs to look at ways to teach those skills. The current patrol method kind of assumes kids come to us already having some of those skills but from what I've seen, they do not. Simply throwing them into the fire or the deep end of the pool without any kind of road map and hoping they figure it out is possibly one reason why we lose so many 10 and 11 year olds. It might be worth looking at.  

[walk in the woods]

5 minutes ago, yknot said:

That's my point. From the comments on this board, its clear we were all raised that way. I was free range. I roamed the neighborhood and local woods with a large pod of kids. We had drama, crises, fights, danger, you name it. We worked it out among ourselves. No parent involved. No parent even knew unless someone squawked. We learned how to interact with each other. We had bigger families and learned how to handle sibling relationships and responsibilities. Kids are not growing up with those opportunities and skills anymore and that's why I think it might be useful to look at whether scouts needs to look at ways to teach those skills. The current patrol method kind of assumes kids come to us already having some of those skills but from what I've seen, they do not. Simply throwing them into the fire or the deep end of the pool without any kind of road map and hoping they figure it out is possibly one reason why we lose so many 10 and 11 year olds. It might be worth looking at.  

Ah okay.  Seems like a great argument for killing the NSP concept.

[Troop75Eagle]

39 minutes ago, yknot said:

That's my point. From the comments on this board, its clear we were all raised that way. I was free range. I roamed the neighborhood and local woods with a large pod of kids. We had drama, crises, fights, danger, you name it. We worked it out among ourselves. No parent involved. No parent even knew unless someone squawked. We learned how to interact with each other. We had bigger families and learned how to handle sibling relationships and responsibilities. Kids are not growing up with those opportunities and skills anymore and that's why I think it might be useful to look at whether scouts needs to look at ways to teach those skills. The current patrol method kind of assumes kids come to us already having some of those skills but from what I've seen, they do not. Simply throwing them into the fire or the deep end of the pool without any kind of road map and hoping they figure it out is possibly one reason why we lose so many 10 and 11 year olds. It might be worth looking at.  

I set out the experience from the 80’s that seems a little different than what I’ve been reading.

[TAHAWK]

4 hours ago, MattR said:

@TAHAWK and @Eagledad, you make some really good points, but I'm not trying to contradict them.

There are two ideas here. First, one of the reasons the adults glom onto eagle mills and advancement is because that's the biggest, shiniest thing around. It's well laid out and easy to follow. As Tahawk mentions, the patrol method is not very well described. So it's not seen and therefore ignored. Maybe it should be more visible. Second, one thing I like about the advancement model is that there are stages of development, or growth in Eagledad's terminology. It doesn't have to be check boxes. There is a notion that only eagle counts and I really dislike it. I'd much rather see all the ranks be more challenging and that First Class is a respectable place to stop at. Anyway, the idea of having some defined stages might really help. It might help the adults see that there's more to scouting than advancement.

So, while teaching of outdoor skills can be improved, the teaching of leadership skills can be improved even more. Related to this is teaching adult skills. In all of these I think having levels of skills to master would be much better than the one and done model promoted by BSA.

 

I always thought mastering teamwork was the first step to developing leadership. Having a new PL try and lead a patrol with little teamwork skills is just a recipe for frustration.
 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, yknot said:

I agree with you. I think difficulty in navigating the patrol method could be a possible reason why so many kids leave scouting within a year or two of crossing over. There is no road map on how to do it and most of the recent crossovers I've seen have been traumatic. The patrol method is based on the idea that scouts come into the program with some basic skills. However, it's pretty accepted that today's kids do not have the opportunities to develop the same kinds of interpersonal skills that are so necessary for the patrol method to work. My school district, for example, no longer assigns group projects because kids cannot handle conflict resolution and consensus building. Most kids today, and more importantly their parents, also do not accept peer leadership and yet it's a cornerstone of the patrol method.  Troops that have really excellent adult leadership who can model these behaviors and monitor appropriately from afar can do well with it but not every unit has those skills.

So I think looking at whether this a program area that could be given more structure might be really useful. 

 

Almost no Scouts are exposed to The Patrol Method from what I have seen here since 1981 or seen from out-of-council units at summer camps in seven states during that period.  And I looked, asked, and discussed what I saw and heard.  "Andy" agreed with this observation, as did the employee in change of training at National  in 2014. 

I have no idea why, for example, agreeing on a menu for a weekend campout should be "traumatic," especially with adults as teachers and coaches - unless the adults and the kids  are especially incompetent for some reason(s).  If the pancakes are burned, there is an opportunity for constructive evaluation - and nobody dies.

Adults in Scouting should be able to guide the Scouts with questions: "Will you be able to keep the hamburger from spoiling until Saturday dinner?"  The untrained may not know how to "lead" the leaders in this fashion.  But training has been deemphasized, at witness the steadily reduced time allocated.                    

The decline of interest in training at BSA is a good reason to expect poorer performance.  But BSA is inbred - a conversation largely internal and among the "deaf."  I have encountered three "professionals" in the last decade who could adequately explain The Patrol Method.  Our current Council SE certainly cannot - not remotely.  He found the entire notion of Scouting being patrol-centered very strange.  "Where did you get that idea?"  I sent him a statement, with historic and current sources, and never heard from him again - except when begging for $$$ or a change in my will to leave everything to Council.

Wood Badge does not devote five minutes to explaining The Patrol Method, saying it teaches " by example."  So BSA is using the "DGE"  approach to teaching?  HARDLY.  Wood Badge does not "guide" or  "enable" the trainee,  Instead, the remote authors of the Syllabus, through the  "ADULTS (Staff) exert near total control.   So much for 'EDGE" or Wood Badge teaching . The Patrol Method.  Perhaps only "Enable" is left - more like "You're on your own.".  Of course, good Staff may surpass the Syllabus - heresy in our council, where no sentence or word not in the Syllabus is to be uttered by Staff, even is response to a direct question. 

[From this point to end I copied and pasted into a new area as plain text (not rich text)]

Find this in Wood Badge: 

“nless the patrol method is in operation, you don’t really have a … Scout troop.” B.S.A., Scouting.org (citing Baden-Powell) (currently on line at Scouting.org, 09/08/20 https://scoutingmagazine.org/2014/12/help-youth-leaders-build-scout-led-troop/

 "Independent, Distinct and Autonomous Patrols
Patrols need to stand on their own. They need their own identity. This extends to every aspect of the program. When camping each patrol has their own area, their own food, their own leadership and their own program."

“ Scouting happens in the context of a patrol.” B.S.A., Scoutmaster Position Specific Training, (09/08/2020)

“Your … Scout troop is made up of patrols, with each patrol’s members sharing responsibility for the patrol’s success.”  B.S.A., The Boy Scout Handbook, 13th Ed. (2016) at  p. 25

HOW DOES ONE "KNOW" THAT SCOUTING DOES NOT "WORK" "THESE DAYS" WHEN ALMOST NO ONE HAS BEEN TRYING IT FOR DECADES?

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN I ATTEMPT TO CREATE A "REPLY."   SEVERAL HOURS OF THIS SO FAR . AND I DID NOT UNDERLINE THESE WORDS EITHER.
[End of mod]

Edited September 9, 2020 by MattR
SOFTWARE FAILS -see post from MattR below

[MattR]

@TAHAWK, I see what you mean. I fixed your post. This is what I did.

First, I removed the double quoted post from myself. I have noticed that in order to get rid of one of those blocks there has to be regular text after it. Put the cursor in the regular text and then backspace until the block is deleted. If there are two blocks one past another, a few blank lines can be put between them by creating blank lines past the last block and then moving that block down into the middle of the extra lines. To move a block you can hover the cursor over the block and you'll see a plus sign. Drag and drop that to move the block. This is not the easiest but it's what works for me.

Next, I got rid of the underlines. I suspect there are extra <div> sections that you can't see that have the underlines in them. If this makes no sense then ignore it. However, to fix it I copied and pasted sections of the underlined text into a new area. PLEASE NOTE: there are two ways to paste text. The default is rich text. Select plain text instead. I believe that removes the <div>s. Again, not great but html editors seem to be notoriously bad. Hope that helps.

If you want me to make any other changes to your post let me know.

[TAHAWK]

Thank you.

ACLU staffer fumes at University for accepting Nick Sandmann [as a student], calls it a 'stain' on the school.

An American Civil Liberties Union official in Kentucky chastised Transylvania University over the weekend for accepting Nicholas Sandmann as a student, calling the move a "stain" on the institution.

Sandmann made headlines back in January 2019 when a Native American activist stood in front of the teen and began chanting in his face during a pro-life rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. Sandmann, who was wearing a MAGA hat at the time and is a supporter of President Trump, held his ground and smiled at the man as he continued to talk in his face.

“Does anyone else think it’s a bit of a stain on Transylvania University for accepting Nick Sandman [sic]? I’m sure it’s a “both sides” defense, but it’s pretty counter to their mission and another instance of there not actually being equal sides to an issue,” ACLU’s Samuel Crankshaw said in a Facebook post, according to The National Review.

The comment has since been taken down.

Following the confrontation back in 2019, outlets such as CNN and The Washington Post were accused of purposely casting Sandmann -- and his fellow Covington Catholic students -- as the main aggressors with misleading reporting. Both outlets ultimately reached a legal settlement with Sandmann after he sued them in court for $250 million.

Sandmann made headlines back in January 2019 when a Native American activist stood in front of the teen and began chanting in his face during a pro-life rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. Sandmann, who was wearing a MAGA hat at the time and is a supporter of President Trump, held his ground and smiled at the man as he continued to talk in his face.

 “Does anyone else think it’s a bit of a stain on Transylvania University for accepting Nick Sandman [sic]? I’m sure it’s a “both sides” defense, but it’s pretty counter to their mission and another instance of there not actually being equal sides to an issue,” ACLU’s Samuel Crankshaw said in a Facebook post, according to The National Review.

 The comment has since been taken down.

Following the confrontation back in 2019, outlets such as CNN and The Washington Post were accused of purposely casting Sandmann -- and his fellow Covington Catholic students -- as the main aggressors with misleading reporting. Both outlets ultimately reached a legal settlement with Sandmann after he sued them in court for $250 million.

The defamation suit sought damages for the "emotional distress Nicholas and his family suffered" in the fallout of the network's reporting -- and lawyers for Sandmann have said they will target other major outlets who reported on the story in the same way.

An assistant professor and diversity scholar at Transylvania Unversity, Avery Tompkins, shared a comment on the post before it was taken down, calling Sandmann's “public behavior and rhetoric atrocious and uninformed," adding that the young student must accept his [Thompson's class  lectures] ... as gospel, The National Review reported.

“We can’t not admit academically qualified students due to their political and personal views," he said. "If he ends up in my Intro class, fine. He might learn something that is actually based on research and evidence."

Tompkins added that Sandmann is part of groups that hold “anti-intellectualist views” and would see the professor "as part of some liberal brainwashing machine, but signing up for Transy and my class means he is required to learn that information, even if he disagrees.”

The professor continued: “If he were to cause problems by being disruptive, trolling, or engaging in unethical behavior of any kind, I would immediately document it (just like I would for any student doing the same thing)…and he would just be putting himself in a position for me to file a conduct report.”

Tompkins later issued an apology saying, “I want to apologize for my mistake in singling out a student and any misunderstandings that arose from that.”

“One of my favorite things about working at a liberal arts institution is that our community has diverse perspectives,” he continued. “All students, faculty and staff are able to engage in civil discourse with those whose views may be different from their own, and to learn about those views in an academic setting. I value and support these conversations with students, and I know that students value these conversations with their peers as well.”

The university said in a statement to National Review on Tuesday [September 9, 2020] that it would be reviewing the situation and that “Transylvania, like nearly every campus, is composed of those holding the full range of viewpoints.”

 

Note that the story does not identify the ACLU unit with which the anti-free-speech advocate is affiliated, merely that he is "in Kentucky."  Not does it say that the anti-free-speech advocate is authorized to speak for anyone other than himself.  It will be interesting to see if his posture is specifically disavowed by anyone at any ACLU unit.  I believe his position is squarely contrary to the national ACLU position:  https://www.aclu.org/other/freedom-expression-aclu-position-paper  But some local and state ACLU chapters are far away from the national organization regarding freedom to express any view they dislike.

The immediately previous President of Transylvania, Seamus  Carey, proposed in 2017, contrary to the national ACLU position, "passing a law" to make "hate speech a crime." He possibly was unaware of the the human right of free expression, protected by the First Amendment, and specifically held to protect "hate speech" by the federal courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).  Carey also defunded the Transylvania U. school newspaper before leaving for Iona, where he quickly hired Rick Pitino as head basketball coach. Multiple scandals had resulted in Pitino's termination from the head coaching position  at NCAA powerhouse Louisville.  Pitino wins.  EDITORIAL CONTENT:  Hail victory!

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2020 by TAHAWK

[David CO]

Well I'll be.  There really is such a place as Transylvania University.  I thought you were joking at first.  I'll bet they have a lot of night classes.  

Edited September 9, 2020 by David CO

[BAJ]

8 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

Wood Badge does not devote five minutes to explaining The Patrol Method, saying it teaches " by example."  So BSA is using the "DGE"  approach to teaching?  HARDLY.  Wood Badge does not "guide" or  "enable" the trainee,  Instead, the remote authors of the Syllabus, through the  "ADULTS (Staff) exert near total control. 

This is an interesting point — having just gone through the revised curriculum, I mostly agree with you, though the program did have some elements that I think attempted to do this.  There wasn’t that much explaining of the patrol method in great detail, but some of the activities did try to get the ideas across.  And I think part of the issue is time constraints — I’ve only done Weekend 1 at this point, but there was a lot in there and not a lot of extra time.

Thinking about this, I am struggling a little with how I would change things.  I get the patrol method, even though I was less of a free range kid than some here (and was also a scout that was advancement-focused even when I was a kid, no parental pressure required.  They do exist.). But it seems like there isn’t a ton to “explain” (admittedly simplifying some here to avoid too much typing) — the scouts are a group, they need to work together to solve problems and make decisions, their youth leaders need to (learn how to) facilitate that process and get the group to function together, rinse and repeat, and leaders need to butt out and let the scouts try, as needed fail, rinse and repeat.  The problem is truly communicating that to adults who don’t intuitively  see the issue with being more involved, solving the kids problems for them so they have “fun,” etc.  I had the advantage of a really good trainer in my SM-specific training which I did in person rather than online... which I think helped a lot.  I have no idea how one would successfully communicate these ideas in web videos and PowerPoint slides.

To really “teach” that at something like the patrol method at WB what it almost needs a difficult task that the group of adults involved has truly never done before (since a group of scouts together is doing a lot of things they haven’t done before) and the troop guide doing what a good scout leader would do as they figure it out — asking questions that help the group think it through, standing back and resisting the urge to “help” etc.   And then, once done, a discussion with the WB patrol about why they did things that way, how that had affected how the patrol approached the problem, etc.  The challenge is — given at least my WB class had people with vastly different experiences and scouting tenures, what that “difficult task” would be.  It may be that we will get something more like this on Weekend 2, so perhaps I am speaking too soon.

For the scouts, I could definitely see an element of rank requirements for planning and executing tasks or little projects as a patrol — where at the lower ranks the requirement is describing how the group approached the problem and the role the scout played, and at the higher ranks it is about how the scout contributed to guiding others or (for the PL) leading the effort.  Scouts in positions of responsibility could fulfill similar requirements to draw on members of their patrol to help execute tasks, where there could be more explicit thinking about how the small team worked together.  This would be a different flavor for requirements — now they are essentially individual tasks/activities (though some must be done in the group/patrol context like “cook for your patrol on a campout”) the framing is still very individual.

We do a little of this in SM conferences — where one of the topics we always cover is how the patrol is working, the role of the scouts in different activities the patrol has done, etc.  So, even without explicit requirements, there is at least that venue as a way to reinforce the patrol method and patrol functioning.

[Eagledad]

15 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

Ah okay.  Seems like a great argument for killing the NSP concept.

Yep, I believe this one addition to the program is the greatest killer of Patrol Method. NSP was the beginning of a National's push for age based patrols. Aged based patrol took out the older scout roll models and replaced them with adults and Troop Guides that taught the new scouts with school house style teaching instead of continued observation. NSPs also encouraged adults to push leadership responsibilities on the 10 and 11 year olds that were typically older scout roles. Most youth don't have the maturity for leadership until 14, so the adults were unknowingly dumbing down their program to something boring to scouts 14 and above..

 

3 hours ago, BAJ said:

To really “teach” that at something like the patrol method at WB what it almost needs a difficult task that the group of adults involved has truly never done before (since a group of scouts together is doing a lot of things they haven’t done before) and the troop guide doing what a good scout leader would do as they figure it out — asking questions that help the group think it through, standing back and resisting the urge to “help” etc.   And then, once done, a discussion with the WB patrol about why they did things that way, how that had affected how the patrol approached the problem, etc.  The challenge is — given at least my WB class had people with vastly different experiences and scouting tenures, what that “difficult task” would be.  It may be that we will get something more like this on Weekend 2, so perhaps I am speaking too soon.

 

A word of caution; after National change the membership policy in 1990 to allow women as troop leaders, they found the unintended consequence of inexperienced adults using WB as a template for their troop Patrol Method. WB at the time was advanced teaching course designed for experienced leaders. It used the Troop Patrol system more for the convenience of putting the adults in manageable groups. IT WAS NOT intended to teach Patrol Method. BUT, the inexperienced adults took the Patrol Method to heart and tried to duplicate it in their own troops. The problem was that the course had many applications that weren't typical to a troop program, like the staff eating their meals with the patrols. Scouts all of a sudden found themselves preparing and eating all their meals with adults. Certainly not what was intended for patrol method.

But the real harm that was causing scouts to bail on the troop was the adults directing the patrols to follow the WB program exactly as they experienced it. Thus taking the decision making process away from the scouts. It was causing enough problems that National scraped the Leadership teaching WB course and replaced it in 2000 with a general Leadership Team Building course. Not the same thing at all. BUT, the point here is that inexperienced adults will likely not understand the objective of Patrol Method with only two weeks experience and instead force their experience on the scouts, which is missing the point of patrol method's intention.

From my years of working with and training Scouters, I found the biggest hurdle for adults to get over with the Patrol Method is simply trusting that it works. The idea that scouts learning to make better decisions simply by making bad decisions is a lot for todays adults  grasp. I was asked to observe a brand new troop of 40 scouts. The troop was led by 3 women brand new to the troop program. After six months, the women were still leading the troop Opening ceremony because they couldn't grasp that their 11 year old scouts could lead it by themselves. While that example is a little extreme, it gets to the heart of the problem with MOST troops, and that is they don't trust their scouts to make good decisions. And that is the point, scouts are supposed to be allowed to make bad decision in the patrol because that is safe place to learn from the decision. Adults just wont let it happen.

I tried many activities and programs to change the mindset of new adults without a scouting experience and nothing really works better than them just observing Patrol Method in action. Once the see it, they start to get it, but that is not and instant way to change their perception. Basically what you want to do is get adults away from being a parent and instead be a mentor. A lot more difficult than it sounds.

15 hours ago, yknot said:

That's my point. From the comments on this board, its clear we were all raised that way. I was free range. I roamed the neighborhood and local woods with a large pod of kids. We had drama, crises, fights, danger, you name it. We worked it out among ourselves. No parent involved. No parent even knew unless someone squawked. We learned how to interact with each other. We had bigger families and learned how to handle sibling relationships and responsibilities. Kids are not growing up with those opportunities and skills anymore and that's why I think it might be useful to look at whether scouts needs to look at ways to teach those skills. The current patrol method kind of assumes kids come to us already having some of those skills but from what I've seen, they do not. Simply throwing them into the fire or the deep end of the pool without any kind of road map and hoping they figure it out is possibly one reason why we lose so many 10 and 11 year olds. It might be worth looking at.  

This is not a bad idea, but I think the intention is for the wrong reason. New Scouts struggle because they are taken out of their comfortable environment. 

My wife and I traveled Europe a few years ago and found myself really stressed before the troop just worrying about the language. We travel a lot, but the difference in cultures and language were a big concern for me. But as in all changes from our comfort levels like job changes, location changes, school changes, we have to adapt with experience. 

Our pack gradually adds responsibility to each age group to help them mature. I remember asking our new 2nd year Webelos to lead the Pack Flag ceremony. One scout was terified with the idea. After talking to him without change, we let him stand at the back of Den while they performed the ceremony. As the year went on, I watched him stand closer and closer to the present until at the end of the year before crossing over, he volunteered to led. 

I learned a lot from that experience. But, what really made an impression on me was meeting with my SPL after he had been running the troop for 2 Months. I asked him out for pizza so I could give him a pep talk on how to improve. When I asked him how he was doing as SPL, he spent the next 20 minute bragging about how much he had grown from the experience and all the dreams he was confident in trying. I was floored. I was the recipient of a pep talk on how to let a scout grow confidence by experience of little steps.

History has proven that new scouts are going to have anxiety joining a new troop because that much of a cultural change is scary for most normal youth. The anxiety will always be there. But, what we can do is temper the anxiety by reinforcing that they are in a safe place. Youth leaders are actually confident in keeping them safe on campouts. Making wrong decisions about anything is OK because they will not only learn from the bad decision, their comrades in the patrol will help them through the uncomfortable experiences. 

Building a program that gives new scouts an experience that builds confidence in the troop isn't easy for troop leaders to learn, but it reflects in other parts of the program because Patrol method is really about building a scout confidence to take the next step into an area out of their comfort zone. It is a life skill that will benefit them the rest of their life.

The method and techniques for building confidence are worthy discussions. But the methods and techniques should be about making building blocks to higher level experiences that challenge the scouts without discouraging the scout to consider quitting. It's a life skill we want to develop. 

 

Barry

Edited September 9, 2020 by Eagledad

[SSScout]

All kids (ALL kids) want to belong to a gang. A club.  Whether that gang creates something or destroys something is the question.   That gang of kids in the vacant lot (not too many of them left) that shagged a bat and chose up teams is one such.  The gang that self forms and because they all came from the same country is another (Sharks? Jets? ). The older kids are looked up to by the younger.  The younger learn how the game is played by watching the older kids.

MS13?  Scouts?  What really is the difference between the two? Who got to the kid first?  

The Patrol Method works, and it HAS to work without the interference of adults.  That is the problem with the New Scout Patrol.  Where is the continuity?  I was in THE Eagle Patrol for six years !   Loyalty was endemic . We passed on responsibility because we saw it modeled by the older Scouts AND the adults.   The chance to EARN rank was just that, a chance, up to us.  The hikes, campouts, summer camps were opportunities to learn, practice skills, and earn the ranks.  The adults MADE the opportunities, they did not require we use them.  We had a choice thereby.   

The previous discussion seems to be about the idea that often, today's Scout doesn't have the chance to fail, the choice is already made for him/her.  You HAVE to succeed, it is required.  The skills are taught, the MBs are schooled, the campouts aren't so much about getting out and  seeing if you read that part of the Handbook for Boys (!) about keeping warm in cold weather (mom wil make sure I have my mittens, right?) as they are about earning (earning?) First Class by year one.....

What was it the 2nd grader said?  "It's not FAIR ! !"   How'd he know that? 

[TAHAWK]

"Where is the continuity?"

In my last three troops ,  most kids in a NSP were from the same den.  Over time, some scattered on their own initiative, but most stuck together so long as they were active in the troop.  That period lasted longer in the first troop - which tent camped each month.  The second troop didn't really camp out and turnover was fierce.  The last troop camped almost every month, but as  ad hoc "patrols." organized by the adult who served as SPL in fact.  This was the troop that had "no time" for patrols.

[TAHAWK]

To what are we moving?

A Rhode Island professor with a history of incendiary comments against conservatives is under fire this week for stating in so many words that the fatal shooting of a Patriot Prayer supporter during rioting Portland last month was morally justified.

 Loomis stated: “[Reinoehl, an ANTIFA member by his own account] killed a fascist. I see nothing wrong with it, at least from a moral perspective.”