Why Punish the Youth?

[OldGreyEagle]

I was going to spin this thread off from another one, then I wasnt able to figure out which would be most appropriate. If not the one on merit badge councilors, perhaps the one on Boards of Review, or others.

 

The issue is as I see it a trend to take failures of the program out consistently on the scout. For example,

The Board of Review is the Quality Control point of the program, we want to be sure the scout knows his stuff, if he doesnt, he doesnt get pasesd. OK, where is the corrective action towards the person who errantly signed off the requirement in the first place? That is hardly if ever mentioned. Why not come down as hard, or harder on the person who caused the issue in the first place?

 

The assigning of Merit Badge councelors, ok, you know this guy is a zero, you wont accept him as a councelor. What is being done to remove him from the list? If he is as bad as all that, other troops know it, why does his name remain? Why punish the scout for the transgerssions of an adult.

 

A scout doesnt do "squat" for his position of authority and admits it. He also says he was never given direction, guidance or had any expectations for that position given to him. The Board of Review says we cant pass you because you didnt do anything and the scout does something else for his POR. What is done in the troop. Are job descriptions written? A monitoring system put in place to assure this doesnt happen again?

 

I agree with what Beavah posted somewhere, we dont want to give "social promotions" because all that does is reinforce to the promoted they can slide through and makes the scouts who worked hard feel cheated. But as much as we come down on the boys for their "own good" some adults need to be sat upon because of the damage they are doing to the youth.

 

The standards we espouse for our youth have to be demonstrated by our adults or we are just hollow uniforms.

 

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[evmori]

You make some valid points, OGE.

The problem people who created the problem need to be dealt with. In the case of a poor MBC, the DAC should be informed. That is their job. As a SM, don't use that counselor again. In the case of sign-offs of requirements that weren't completed, this needs to be taken up with the person who signed off. In the case of a Scout not doing anything for his POR, this is a two-fold problem. 1st, the SM for not ensuring the Scout was doing his job & 2nd with the Scout for not asking the SM for help or guidance.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[scoutingagain]

I agree rank advancement should reflect the actual completion of the requirements. However, the issue of holding the adults accountable is somewhat problematic from a practical standpoint.

 

For example, the SM who signs off on a POR when the scout has done nothing. The Board can tell the scout what he needs to do to complete the requirement if they wish and delay advancement. The scout is held accountable for his actions or in this case in action. There is a consequence.

 

What consequence should the Board impose on the SM? A volunteer, who spends his time scouting in good faith trying to help with the boys? Suspend his tenure as SM for 3 months? or the time is takes the boy to complete his requirement? If so, do you have another adult, ready, willing and available to commit the same amount of time and dedication the SM does? Will the SM comeback after being suspended?

 

For better or worse advancement decisions are made by volunteers and as a practical matter, disciplining volunteers, most of whom really are, working in good faith, is just not that easy.

 

I admit I don't have an answer, but will be listening.

 

SA

[anarchist]

OGE,

 

(god I love this guy!)

 

you are very very muchly right on on this subject!

 

We are in process of correcting this issue right now...

multifacted problems have complex solutions.

 

The easiest is M.B. counselors...as a troop we encourage the use of "outside" counselors...from the district list. When we get feedback that one is a "zero" he is dropped from our copy of that list...and since the scout comes to the Sm for a list of counselors he is the gate keeper..we don't control district but we control our list...

(IMHO merit badges at summer camp and merit badge days should be totally trashed or totally reworked...they are almost always (at best)- terrible jokes).

 

Bad sign offs and poor Scoutmastering is another problem.

With our recent crop of New scouts (and a new scoutmaster) As a committee we started seeing a "host" of poorly trained scouts...everything, it seemed, was put in short term memory...excuses were made for "learning" problems and eager troop guides (and NSP ASMs)-the SM, (nice guy...but relatively new to scouting) was taking scouts "word" that they had done the work...and actually running the SM conference like a one on one BoR.

 

PoRs are tougher...we have the material that tells the boys what there jobs are but unless the SM is willing to act it is hard to correct...This year has been a tough one for us...new SM, Five Eagles ( super patrol) aging out and a new crop of young scouts (and parents) wanting to advance without effort. We have recently allowed the reorganization of patrols and an out of sequience election of new PLs due to a "creaping malaize" that was dragging the program down.

 

The committee felt the PLC was ineffective and the SM (new guy) was not being as 'forcefully guiding' as he needed to be...Now part of this was due to his being (literally)- afraid of stepping on some 'dads' toes as he "instructed" the PLC in doing their jobs or even being 'present'...He let too many things slide...His patrol ASMs were way too 'hands off' and his SPL was practicing "deligate and forget"...allowing "failure" was an option...no matter what the cost.

 

The committee had a major melt down and stopped BoRs until the program boys (and gals) "cleaned up" the act. First we called a committee meeting with the SM so he could rework his techniques and program. Then we had a meeting with all of the ASMs to be sure they understood the issues and the requirements of being a ASM. As a troop, we stopped allowing sign offs by mid level scouts...All sign offs had to be approved by the SPL or an ASM or delegated with the SMs approval. No more squiggley initals and illegible dates...full name and date of party signing off are now required...if it can't be read...it is not a sign off...by demanding a legible signature we have the ablity to stop "social advancements", the parties on both sides of the 'transaction' understand that there are consequences. WE have taken the terms "learn", "show" and "demonstrate" to heart- no more "first instance" skill sign offs...(i.e. for knots- teach, demonstrate, then students teach and then must demonstrate at two subsequent meetings or camps...)WE are not adding or subtracting...we are simply requiring that they learn the stuff and demonstrate they know the stuff...that they are professing to know.

 

And in the end, OGE, "A Scout is Trustworthy"...the young men must accept the ownership of the truth (or the lie) of presenting themselves as worthy of the rank they are seeking...Our most difficult job may be in leading them to understand this...

 

the job is never over...it starts anew each year...

 

anarchist

[MaScout]

There are many valid points made. I agree that the Scout should be held accountable for HIS actions (or inaction). However, if something happens that is NOT his fault, he is not the one who should be punished.

 

What to do about that pesky SM? No, you can't really "punish" them. But you CAN talk to them. Get the SM & Committee on the same page. Often it is just a matter that the SM doesn't know the expectations or how to implement them. How can the committee or ASM's help him/her meet those expectations?

 

I'm glad OGE started this thread because I wanted to respond to several other threads, but didn't know where to start...

 

Our Troop has close to a 100% success rate at BoR's. But that is because they are PREPARED before they go there! The skills are learned and reviewed several times. Sometimes the new scouts are perturbed because they "already did that" requirement. We explain that it says LEARN, not just do it once. During the SM conference, they review the salient points with the SM. Sometimes the young ones really don't remember what they did for a service project...they did it, but everything is so new and "busy" for them, it all kind of runs together. What does it hurt to remind them to look at the note in their book? It usually all comes flooding back...

 

It is the SPL & SM's jobs to make sure the Scout knows and performs his POR. That happens. We train for all positions. If a Scout isn't performing, our SPL is right on it and relieves him of his POR, replacing him with someone who will do it.

 

We've only had a few notable "delays".

 

Our boys are asked to be in uniform for Conferences. Once, a Scout showed up for a BOR without a neckerchief. (Troop standard is NOT required.) The board delayed the rank based on "Scout Spirit". The SM reminded them that the troop doesn't require it. They said they thought they should. SM visited with the adults and reminded them they aren't to change policy midstream, and how unfair this was to the Scout. After review, they saw the fallacy of their actions and advanced the Scout.

 

One time we had the SM conference for Eagle, then the candidate stole $300 (no decimal points) from the SM. That caused a considerable delay. When things got righted, he had a 2nd SM Conf, followed by BOR. This was NOT just a 3-week delay!

 

One other time, a lad showed up for a campout with a hangover. There was a SM Conference/Board of Review held...but not for rank advancement! Got that cleared up, too.

 

MBC's -- we are certainly in a different position. Our Troop recruits and trains virtually all the MBC's we use, so we have QC in place. (Our District is too large to utilize District much.) At summer camp we encourage them to take MB's not available locally, like basketry or leatherwork. We are fortunate to have an AWESOME shooting sports program at our local camp (run by a retired State Patrolman). Since that isn't one that is easy to do individually, they are encouraged to attend that one. We discourage them from working on required merit badges at camp. MB University's here are almost unheard of, but when they do occur, are much smaller than the ones you all describe...we have QC in place first because of smaller numbers, but we also require attendance at least twice -- once to start it, time to work on it, and the second visit to complete it.

 

Social promotions should not happen. Scouts should be held accountable, but not be punished for sloppy adult behavior. Adults should be held accountable. Problems should be corrected before they become an issue, but how do you know what the problems are before they become a problem? Where are the lines? What to do, what to do?

 

Oh, so many problems...wish the solutions were as easy to come up with. But if we all keep working with the boys' future in mind, keep bouncing ideas off each other, keep fighting the good fight, we WILL make a difference!

[Beavah]

Nah, I think we've got it wrong if we view not receiving a public recognition or award as a "punishment." Someone who doesn't earn an Emmy or a Nobel Prize or an Eagle is not being punished; they just haven't yet met the standards for a public recognition of that type.

 

Punishment is a consequence for negative or hurtful behavior. It is a necessary part of scouting and raising youth, but it has nothing to do with advancement. Advancement is recognition of special skill and positive behavior. That's why a boy doesn't "fail" a MB requirement or a BOR, but the counselor or board may say, "not quite yet, but we'll help you try again."

 

Other than that, I agree with OGE, eh? Da rest of the job is to do what it takes to improve the program. I'll add to the examples given.

 

BOR discovers several boys clearly don't understand some first aid requirements. BOR tells committee member who is an EMT. Committee member backtracks the signoff, explains the problem to ASM who signed off. ASM says "I didn't know that, and I bet George and Bill don't know either." Committee agrees to pay for Red Cross "When Help is Delayed" first aid re-training for all adult leaders.

 

Star BOR discovers boy who earned Astronomy MB at summer camp never really did any of the requirements. Committee immediately hooks up boy (who is really interested in Astronomy) with a local Astronomy MB counselor. Letter is sent to Camp Director, SM is told not to sign blue cards for Astronomy at camp unless he can confirm improvement. Boy is totally jazzed by his new MB experience, and does a fantastic Astronomy presentation for the troop that earns him Communications MB along the way.

 

2nd Class BOR has SM conference done by relatively new, young, ASM. Boy comes to BOR and does one of the "slouch and grunt" reviews. Boy gets sent back, ASM gets talked to on how to make sure boys understand the importance of respectful presentation and communication, SM sits in on a re-do of the SM conference with the ASM, boy returns the following week and nails it.

 

Anarchist's tale is also a great one... and emphasizes how this kind of quality control, paricularly in a larger unit and with adult turnover, is an ongoing task of service to the boys. 8/10 of the work following a deferred BOR should be done on the adult side.

[Eamonn]

" Walk softly and carry a big stick"

I'm not sure if we do it on purpose but we seem happy to ignore or even make mention of the fact that there is a big stick. I'm almost certain that those who have the big stick even know that they have it!

On paper and in all the good books we see the role of the CO, the COR and the Unit Committee.

In the real world it seems in most cases and in most areas these people are not in the loop.

The unit becomes "Eamonn's Ship or OGE's Troop.

If the CO is lucky he or she might receive a visit from the DE once a year. His aim is to get the signature on the agreement and get the heck out of there.

Maybe the Unit Commissioner will attend the odd Committee Meeting. Maybe he or she will be a wise and understanding Scouter. But maybe he or She will just be a very nice old fellow?

Many of us, -Me included thought that Bob White was being pragmatic when he corrected us on the use of "My Troop" and "My unit". I now think he made a good point!!

I have lost count of the number of well meaning leaders who have stuck out their chests and proceed to inform me about what they do with their Troop /Unit. I have stood there in total shock, thinking "Hey pal I don't know what you are in? But it sure isn't the same organization that I'm in!".

Of course in most cases unless they cross the line and a Scout/youth gets harmed or a parent makes a big fuss, they are free to carry on doing what they have been doing.

No one at the District or Council level can do very much more than try to advise, train and maybe shake their head in disbelieve.

As an individual, I like to think that I'm doing my best to understand this game. I look back and see the mistakes I made 20 years ago and the mistakes I made at our last meeting , last Sunday. Every time I think I may have "Got it" the group changes, the kids change, the leaders change and maybe I change.

While this doesn't necessarily require a total restart or rebuilding from the ground up, it does require a need for flexibility and a real need for constant reflection on my part of myself.

At times I know that I'm way too hard on myself and take the "Blame" for things that maybe were just the way they were, because that's just the way it was.

At the end of the day it has to come back to us being here to serve the youth in our programs.

It isn't about my ego. The good name of the unit, tradition. It's all about serving the needs of the youth.

We do this best when we the adults work toward a real understanding of the oath and law.

Eamonn.

[EagleInKY]

Great points Eamonn. I thought (and still think) that the "my troop" thing is not that big a deal. That is, as long as it's "my" troop and not "MY" troop. What's the difference? Well, my state, my basketball team, my school, my neighborhood, my company are all about pride of membership in an entity of some kind. In this case, "my troop" is certainly acceptible. However, when it becomes like "MY car, MY house, MY computer, etc., then it becomes an issue of ownership. It's these types of scouters that I worry about.

 

My take on the topic of this thread is that the "punishment" should go against who broke the rule. If a scout innocently goes to a MBC who does not follow the rules, I don't think the scout should be punished. The MBC should be removed from the list and no longer used by the troop. If the scout knowingly didn't do the work. For example, let's say the counselor says "we're not going to worry about this or that", then I believe the scout owns part of the responsibility. If the scout knows he was shortcutting the system, then to live by the scout oath and law, he should live up to his responsibility and complete the requirement.

[Eamonn]

My problem seems to be that most of the "MY TROOP" guys seem to think that they are doing some thing that is very grand and their additions to the program are the best thing ever.

I remember getting caught by a real FCT (First Class Twit) while I was at Philmont. The guy spent half an hour telling me about his time in Vietnam and how he puts HIS Scouts through "REAL SCOUTING!!"

He scared the beejeebers out of me. I was left feeling unsure if it was the BSA or Rambo Training.

OJ, a few years back came home an said he wanted to change Troops.

After some digging he said that all the Troop he was in did was MB work and then they just gave them away. It's really sad, while I have read that only about 5% of Scouts reach Eagle Scout rank (I've never worked out how they come up with that number??) The Troop he was in who has an outdoor program that is next to non-existent has about a 85% Eagle Scout rate.

Good luck to them if they have really done what is required. But if reaching Eagle is bigger than the program I can't help thinking something is missing.

Right now I have a couple of Sea Scouts who seem to be in a rush to advance. We are at odds to the real meaning of what the book says!! Sure they have some of the knowledge needed, but as yet have not used it. It's not like they will never get the opportunity to put the skills they have learned to use, they will. But they are used to doing the MB class thing in their Boy Scout Troops and are not used to the idea that demonstrate means more than just understand the theory of.

We still have BOR in Sea Scouting and as we are new all the Committee is new. To ensure that we get off on the right foot I will be doing a Committee Training which will cover what I hope is the correct way for our Scouts to be reviewed.

I'm a big Lad and hope that any feedback that I receive which highlights my weaknesses will help me to work on improving my performance.

Eamonn.