Is Boy Scouting Too Loosey-Goosey?

[dkurtenbach]

A number of recent threads raise issues that are fundamentally about the choices the troop adult leadership makes that shape the unit program. Whether it is uniform wear (or lack thereof), doing merit badge classes at troop meetings, collecting non-refundable food money a week in advance of the campout, trying to develop patrol identities, suggesting that the troop try some high adventure activities, or dealing with untrained leaders, it seems that a lot of the issues that come up (over and over again) arise because troops have so much flexibility in how they operate the Boy Scouting program. Combine that flexibility with widespread lack of training of adult leaders and widespread lack of in-depth understanding of the Program, and the stage is set for huge variations in the quality of the program offered by troops.

 

Now, we would hope that in a free market, poor troops would die off and good troops would grow and prosper. That may well happen, but in the meantime, the boys in poor troops aren't getting the program they should be getting. In many areas, there is no market because the poor troop is the only game in town. The leadership of good troops change, and they become poor troops. And because Scouting is an "extracurricular" activity, not a necessity, many boys who leave poor troops leave Scouting altogether rather than joining good troops. Many boys who could benefit from Scouting never join because they only hear about poor troops. Poor-quality troops are bad for Scouting.

 

So my question is, could we remove a lot of distractions that adult leaders face, and improve the quality of unit programs generally, by eliminating a lot of options (for example, what does the troop do at weekly meetings) and a lot of perceived options (uniforms), and pushing for a much more standardized Boy Scouting program?

 

And I am not talking about standardization in the *selection* of particular activities and camps and places to go, but standardization of the process and structure and best practices that surround and support troop activities. I realize that many troops that have been quite successful through unique or "non-Model" processes or activities would not want to change, and I would want a system that could accomodate successful variations. The point is to try to stamp out non-Model processes that are *not* successful, and install time-tested, successful structures where they are lacking.

 

Unlike many of the things we discuss here and in other forums, tightening up the Boy Scouting program wouldn't require any changes to the program itself. What it would require is a "cultural" change -- from one where troops feel free to interpret the Program (within very broad parameters) to suit themselves, to a culture in which every troop uses and practices the same set of fundamentals and the only real differences are the size if the troop, the meeting day and location, and the mix of campouts and activities.

 

Dan K

[Hunt]

It seems to me that BSA walks a tightrope with regard to how prescriptive to be. If it establishes too many requirements, it will get harder to get volunteer leaders. On the other hand, as you point out, if it's too loose, there may be some bad units. Personally, I think they are about right. My guess is that there are a minority of bad troops, a minority of troops that are really getting the best out of the program by following it carefully, and a majority of troops that are doing a reasonably good job of delivering a valuable Scouting experience to boys.

You might look at youth sports as an analogy. Only a small minority of parents are willing to get involved in "travel" teams, which require meetings, extensive training, multiple jobs (like hydration manager, sportsmanship coordinator, tournament manager, and on and on)--very tough to get volunteer, unpaid people to make this level of commitment. But for rec level sports, the coach is a dad, and maybe somebody helps him and somebody keeps score. It's still fun, and the kids still learn and play the sport. I think I see Scouting as somewhere between those two levels, and that's where I think it should be.

[OldGreyEagle]

Actually, the Scouting Program is fine, its not the program that needs to be tightened up, its the leaders who decide to run the program they want rather than the one thats written. Its the maverisk troops off doing stuff in a scout uniform thats the problem, not the official policies, they dont need to be changed, they need to be followed. That idea of the BSA Accredited Troop looks better and better. If you want to do your own thing, fine, you just wouldnt be acreddited.

[johndaigler]

OGE, time and again we see that your "Accredited" idea is worth pursuing further. Have you ever put it concretely down on paper? I agree the "Quality Unit" program has a minimalist approach and gets minimal success. If we raise the bar - at least for discussion sake - perhaps the surfacing ideas will lead to improving the "QU", if not the creation of a new higher "Accredited" standard.

 

I'd be VERY interested in the process for Cub Units.

 

I'd also like to see built-in some level of appreciation for "experiential experimentation" as opposed to blind following of the Program status quo.

 

 

Dkurtenbach, perhaps a postive, rewarding approach will achieve your goal. In a volunteer group like Scouts, it would be pretty difficult to police requirements- without having a terrible impact on morale and volunteerism. Perhaps, as OGE suggests, if we reward the Units that better reflect the overall Program, it would motivate those Units that do not.

 

 

jd

[juris]

Dear K, Being in Scouting for 38 years, and having a Troop of 90

scouts once for three years. Let me give you some concepts which you can take and use it.1...Like scouting and your boys. 2...Choose your commitee and not your commitee choosing you. Three member commitee all you need to be legal. The rest of father and mothers don't have to be registered members, ( make them auxilary )3...Run your Troop on 10 month basis ,with monthly themes made up by your PLC , and not the BSA ones.Monthly overnights with Summer Camp for two weeks, and four day Winter Camp between Christmas and New Year. (With good cabin facity available just in case of severe weather conditions ). Pick and suggest a Senior Patrol Leader, to the PLC who you notice has the leadership qualities you are looking for, not who is easy going and popular (This is not a political election )( remember you have a veto power on any thing that concerns the troop )4...Make sure your weekly meetings are full of action, chalenge and instructions," keep it simple and make it fun "( and not only knot tying).5...Don't overload your yearly schdule with stupid activities,( as quartely camporee, food drives, highway or park clean ups, or councils financial drives and etc..)6...Raise your own money for your Troop and only give 10% to the BSA. 7...You as the Scoutmaster select Asst. S.M.'s, who you think will be compatible to the Scouting program. ( and not necerally father's) Some college and ex. eagle scouts make very good assistants) And let your three man commitee rubber stamp it,so it conform's with the BSA bylaws.8...Send your leaders to training courses, but let them only use the concepts which are workable, the rest discard. 8...Be very persoanable with your scouts and open to suggestion from all who are concerned, but choose only the ideas that you think will work. ( Scouting is not a laborotory, but a methodoly, that works if you apply it correctly)9...Conduct twice a year surveys from parents and scouts so you can improve your program.

 

WELL, THAT'S ENOUGH OF MY WISDOM, AND I WILL STOP BRAGING. YOURS IN SCOUTING. JURIS

[EagleInKY]

Wow Juris. So, what you are saying is, throw away whatever YOU don't like in the BSA program and do it YOUR way and he will be successful. Gee, I've never heard that one before. We'll just go ahead and rename it JSA (Juris' Scouts of America) while we're at it.

 

There are many strong troops out there that don't operate according to the program. Yours may be one of them. But that doesn't mean you should come into this forum with that kind of attitude. It's not bragging, it's just plain arrogance.

[johndaigler]

juris, how do we reconcile "like Scouting" with your suggestions?

 

How do we reconcile "stupid activities,( as quartely camporee, food drives, highway or park clean ups, or councils financial drives and etc..)" with duty to God and Country, Do a good turn daily, help other people at all times, Leave No Trace, World Conservation, etc. etc.?

 

How are we to reconcile "( Scouting is not a laborotory, but a methodoly, that works if you apply it correctly)" with your obvious sense that you know more than the designers of that methodolgy?

 

When you're gone, will the next SM just redesign the Unit so that it fits his image of what Scouting should be?

 

What exactly did you say that was bragging? And what do you consider worthy of bragging about?

 

jd

[Hunt]

A few more thoughts on this.

First, it seems to me unlikely that BSA will impose much greater requirements on units--the last thing they want to do is de-charter units. I know some councils or districts have stepped up their requirements for trained leaders--have any of them actually dropped a charter because the unit leaders weren't trained?

Second, I was thinking about OGE's idea for "Accredited" units. How would they be different from typical units? It occurred to me that they might actually be "looser" in certain respects than a lot of current units--this is because they'd have trained leaders and boys, and would know that all these cockamamie rules aren't part of the program.

But to go back to my analogy of sports teams, what about the concept of an "elite" (or some other term) Scouting unit, designed for boys ready to make the commitment for this to be their primary activity--i.e., with stricter attendance requirements for participation (as you have with travel sports teams)? We really have this de facto now, but you have to delve a bit to determine if the troop you are looking at is "elite" or "rec."

[mcnally]

Juris your post is indicative EXACTLY of the PROBLEM dk brings up in the original post. YOUR dislike or disagreement with the standards and expectations of the BSA and your council contributes to the lack of uniformity across troops, and in character development. I'd be willing to bet that your bitterness infects not only your adult volunteers, but the boys in your troop as well. And THAT's sad.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Well, sounds to me like Juris has built himself a very successful program for the youths in his area; it's just not a Boy Scout program.

 

Which brings up the interesting question that started this thread. How far can you stretch the rules before it's no longer really a Scouting program? Do you have to dot every 'i' and cross every 't'? If I follow the program to the letter, but don't where the official BSA uniform socks, have I failed to delivery a quality program? ( Ok, a stretch, but you get the idea).

[OldGreyEagle]

I wrote up a brief outline and sent my Troop Accreditation idea to my SE who shared it with the Council President and Commisioner, to say I was laughed off as a crank would be an understatment. The Council COmmisioner, who I am not sure read any of it, said that the Quality Unit took care of what I was talking about, which of course it doesnt, The President, a nice guy with no unit scouting experience, he followed the COmmisioners thinking, so its dead, but still a good idea.

 

[dkurtenbach]

I agree that a positive, rewarding approach is the way to go, and I think a prestigious, "Good Housekeeping Seal" or "UL Listed" type recognition would be a wonderful development that could really contribute to the cultural change. Can you picture a Webelos parent at a troop visit telling the Scoutmaster, "Well, we were told we should only join an _accredited_ troop."

 

Frankly, I'm less concerned about mavericks who deliberately deviate from the model program -- at least they generally have the energy to try to make their wrong-headed ideas work. I'm more concerned about the folks who are stumbling around wasting precious time and energy trying to re-invent the wheel simply because no one has impressed on them the importance of using the wheel they have already been provided. A lot of those folks *are* trained, but are trained to believe that every troop is unique and it is okay for troops to do things in different ways and that they should do things that work for them. That is, they are effectively told that "Here is the BSA model, but no one really uses it." That training also tells them that it is a waste of time to delve further into BSA publications and materials for answers, because they should do what works for them. Our American Scouting culture that values freedom and individuality tells Scouters that it is up to them to write their own unit program. So they do -- with wildly inconsistent results. Yes, a lot of good Scouting gets done, but it could be better; and a lot of poor Scouting gets done.

 

It seems to me that what is needed is to:

(a) Emphasize at every opportunity the benefits to be gained if units stop wasting the energy and resources of volunteers on issues that are already covered by time-tested "best practices" and instead focus that energy, freedom, and individuality in the area where a troop needs it most -- outings and activities.

(b) Emphasize that the program really does work -- that the "model" was developed by volunteers, that it has been developed and tested in the real world over many decades, and that with rare exceptions, the troops that will be most successful and will come closest to achieving the Aims of Scouting are the troops that most closely follow the BSA program model and build on it (and, by the way, if you have something that works better, let's get it into the model).

 

Dan K

 

 

[Eagledad]

>>The Council COmmisioner, who I am not sure read any of it, said that the Quality Unit took care of what I was talking about, which of course it doesnt,

[Student]

Mr. DanK's initial post mentioned that in a free market poor troops would die off and good troops would grow and prosper. This will of course happen to the extent that information is easily and publicly available about these troops, so that families could join or move from weak to strong troops and troop leaders (adults and PLC) could compare their units with their "competition".

 

Mr. OldGreyEagle's accreditation gets after this. It communicates information about the unit that wasn't previously available to potential new members. The Quality Unit designation does the same sort of thing, but it has not (at least in the councils I am familiar with) been used except as an internal metric. Is anybody using QU as a marketing tool to grow their unit? (I mention growth of the unit because it seems at this point to be the best overall measure of unit performance available, and it is certainly quantifiable.)

 

Would the easiest manner of getting this sort of information out be for units to publicize it themselves? A unit's recognition(s) could be included in recruiting materials and messages. Of course, the weak units will often not see such messages--after all, the leaders of such unit either do not care or are unaware, and certainly are not engaged in conversations such as this one. But potential new members and Scouts in weak units might. An aggressive unit with a strong, dynamic program is more likely to get such facts out to the public than a withdrawn, withering unit. Perhaps we should be doing this deliberately.

 

(There's a corollary: Without good information aggressively going out to the pool of potential new Scouts, the reputation of one weak unit might be interpreted as the status quo--"that's what all Scout units are like"--and boys may be cut off from Scouting in its entirety.)

 

Student

[Student]

Isn't this the same issue the education folks are contending with as they debate raising school standards?