The real problem

[Eamonn]

It seems to me that we spent a lot of time and effort not fixing real problems.

Scouts don't attend Troop meetings so we come up with some sort of a policy or rule.

The Patrol system at weekend camping events doesn't work, because not enough Scouts turn up. So we don't use the Patrol method.

I just don't see this.

If Scouts don't want to turn up for the weekly Troop meeting, having a rule or a policy isn't going to improve the Troop meeting. If anything the policy is going to lead to the Scout leaving and when that happens all the good that we might be able to do is lost.

The Patrol method is the backbone of what Scouting is about, camping events are the class room where Scouts find out about how it really works.

When we see something isn't working, we need to start asking questions not re-writing rules.

The big questions normally start with "Why?"

If we don't start asking why and making changes we are going to keep on getting what we got!

Eamonn.

[Beavah]

Yah, sure.

 

Around da bigger towns in our district, one of the reasons is that all of the other youth activities charge more and have strict rules about attendance. So in the parents' and the boys mind, it's important to be sure to make those events, because attendance is required, otherwise you don't get to play, or you don't earn your Red Belt, or...

 

The Boy Scouts is the only team that doesn't have any requirements or expectations for attendance, so naturally it's the least valuable, and at the bottom of the list.

 

Not sure that gets us anywhere about teachin' character.

 

So don't be beatin' on the kids too hard for wantin' their troop to have requirements like all their other activities. But yah, sure, keep your eyes open and your wits about yeh lookin' for other reasons for the problem too, eh?

 

 

[Eamonn]

"Not sure that gets us anywhere about teaching' character"

I'm sorry I don't see it that way!

We don't teach character, or better yet we don't help young people make ethical choices, but imposing strict rules.

These other organizations where you "don't get to play, or you don't earn your Red Belt, or... " don't have the same mission as we have.

It seems all to easy to lay blame at things that are not working as they should on the very people we are trying to serve.

If our Scouts and their parents don't see Scouts and Scouting as being important.

We have to look at the reasons why.

I don't see cost being a factor. In fact quoting one of our Sea Scouts from what he posted on the Ship's Group page:

"Canoeing on the 17th:$20

Camp Blue Heron:$300 (for those going)

Quarterdeck Training: $10 (or more)

Sailing Date:$45 (or more)

Add Philadelphia to this $45

Add Whitewater to this $45

Add Rock Climbing to this (if we go) $30

THAT'S NEARLY $500!!!!!"

So Scouting isn't cheap by any means!

Some one in another thread stated that we can only serve those who want to be served. I can go along with that to some extent, but I'm left asking myself "If they didn't want what they thought we had to offer, why did they join in the first place?

Which brings me back to asking are we delivering what we promise?

I have to admit at times I think the BSA has gone a little over the top with all this talk about Leadership and I'd like to see more skill training for the adults, but that's another topic.

We as adult leaders need to be thinking about what real leadership is.

I don't see long lists of rules and policies as leading. Our real role should be influencing the group to accomplish a mutually agreed-upon task while advancing the group's integrity and morale.("getting the job done and keeping the group together.")The group remains in existence only as long as these two needs are being fulfilled. The leader is not the same as the boss. The following poem says it well:

 

The boss drives group members; the leader coaches them.

The boss depends upon authority; the leader on good will.

The boss inspires fear; the leader inspires enthusiasm.

The boss says "I"; the leader says "we."

The boss assigns the task, the leader sets the pace.

The boss says, "Get there on time"; the leader gets there ahead of time.

The boss fixes the blame for the breakdown; the leader fixes the breakdown.

The boss knows how it is done; the leader shows how.

The boss makes work a drudgery; the leader makes it a game.

The boss says, "Go"; the leader says, "Let's go."

 

--Author unknown

The leader helps the group meet the needs of the individuals.

No two members join for exactly the same reason. The leader helps knit the individuals into a cooperating group. The leader helps them all to see a common reason, a common goal that is mutually desired, and he delegates responsibilities among the individuals so they can see how their efforts will lead toward reaching the goal.

The leader helps the group realize the purpose for which it was created. The leader helps the group:

Define the purposes for which it exists.

Keep its activity within the defined purposes and goals.

Find alternative ways of attaining their goal.

Grow to a more progressive organization in its own eyes.

Clarify the responsibilities of its officers and members to carry out the program.

Evaluate itself--why it exists, where it is headed, how much progress it is making.

Once we can grasp a real understanding of what leadership is we go a long way to fixing the real problem and stop trying to lay the blame on others.

Eamonn.

 

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by Eamonn)

[Beavah]

THAT'S NEARLY $500!!!!!"

 

Yah, dat's less than an 8-week season of youth hockey up here, eh? But in that 8-week season, the parents and the boy will see real progress in skills and fitness and fun. Yeh get real progress if you have to come out and attend all the time and work hard. Not just patches, either. Faster on the ice and a better slapshot, and some real team spirit.

 

For kids to feel the progress of gettin' better, and for parents to see it, the kids have to participate regularly enough to grow. If you offer that, parents find it worthwhile to pay bigger $, and kids find it worthwhile to pay with their time. It's funny that we have "fitness" as one of our aims, ain't it? Who in da world thinks a boy can develop fitness on one outing a month and a parlor meetin' a week? Or worse, on one outing every 3 months and a parlor meetin' when nothing else is goin' on?

 

I think with scoutin' as a drop-in activity, we become more like occasional babysitting. Parents pay for it, and they get junior away for the weekend doin' somethin' worthwhile, but if there's anything else available, well... those things are commitments, and scouting isn't.

 

So real leadership might be lookin' at the many youth activities that are attracting kids - the bands, and the robot clubs, and the sports teams, and the school newspapers.... and talking to kids about why they attend and what they get out of them, and looking at the level of commitment required to get that. We may learn something. Are we really providing the same value as the other options out there? Or are we stuck in the 1920-50s model, when there wasn't competition?

 

 

 

[CA_Scouter]

"Scouts don't attend Troop meetings so we come up with some sort of policy or rule."

 

Yes, we do. I have 21 Scouts in my troop, about 20 who attend regularly ( we have really good attendence). I have one scout who sparsely attends meetings, but conveniently shows up the Monday before most campouts. He does not participate in the planning, attend skilbases, shop for food, help arrange transportation, etc. He generally does not pay much attention when he does attend, and is a discipline problem most of the time( nothing major, just lots of little nits, but it gets exhausting ).

 

Basically, his Mom (single Mom) drops him off for a weekend of free babysitting.

 

I don't see anything wrong with our troop meetings, nor do I see anything wrong with imposing a modest attendence requirement for participation in events. BTW - this attendance requirement came from a request of the PLC, not the adults!

 

If we had a situation where we had lower attendance with multiple scouts, I could agree with this post, but we've currently got a 90-95% attendance average! WooHoo!

 

 

 

 

[campcrafter]

Big E

 

I think you have worded "The Problem" well. I'm writing this hurriedly so I apologize in advance if it seems like rambling.

 

As I have discussed previously the troop we crossed over to has problems. Finally tomorrow night there will be a parents meeting. This thread gave me two really good questions to bring up - that should be obvious but I hadn't thought of.

 

1. What do parents expect their son to get from scouting?

 

2. What do the boys expect from scouting?

 

Unlike sports or band, Scouting is multifaceted and works on the whole boy. While sports can develop leadership skills, Scouting makes a point of it and therein lies part of the problem as I see it.

 

If we spend too much time training so-called leadership skills rather than outdoor skills, we are not offering the promise. Boys join scouts for adventure and get instead a Tony Robbins seminar. No wonder they leave.

 

Sports offers more discipline. There is a finite set of rules and positions and time limits. Scouting is very open ended. It takes more work to set up and run the game. We are failing here.

 

I think if we get back to basics, teaching and developing the outdoor skills the leadership will happen as in sports. As it did in the early years. B-P didn't teach management of learning at Brownsea, he taught how to build fires and make a comfortable ground bed. And sent those boys to teach others. That's what boys want.

 

We also have to realize that not all boys will be leaders. And contrary to what most believe the requirement is not a Troop Leadership position but a Position of Responsibility. A Scribe does not necessarily have to be a leader but he must be responsible, as does a good citizen.

 

Rambling complete, will probably have more later

 

CC

 

 

[AvidSM]

Low attendance is a problem a campouts; when not enough boys in one patrol attend, that patrol cannot function.

 

I've got some boys that I don't see all spring due to little league. Others are absent due to football, band or a school play. I see nothing wrong with these activities. As long as they don't over do them, they are wholesome and worthwile.

 

These boys are making choices about what to do with their time. Part of that choice is the attendance policy of the activity. Miss a little league practice and your on the bench for the next game. Miss more that two play practices and you lose your role.

 

Scouting is open ended and flexible. It allows each boy to get out of it what they put in. The fact that there is no bench or left field in scouting is a benefit and a detriment at the same time.

 

What frustrates me, is that over their lifetime, these boys will get so much more out of their scouting experience than any other activity you can name. And yet, they still choose baseball and the rest.

 

My troop can put together the best program ever, but I just can't compete with manditory attendance.

 

 

[campcrafter]

Hypothetical question -semi related question.

 

Could one charter a unit that was limited in number - say a troop that allowed no more than 18 boys. Or could you have a unit that only allowed new members who were voted upon by the existing members of the troop?

 

If you did this could you then enforce an attendance policy? Especailly if you were doing cool stuff and had a waiting list of boys who wanted to join?

 

YES I know this is elitist, but just for sake of discussion, what do you think?

 

cc

[EagleInKY]

I actually know of a scout troop that did this with boys crossing over. They decided one boy from a particular den didn't fit in and voted to not allow him in. The boy was heartbroken. He had some emotional issues already to deal with (he's a foster child), and then had this dumped on him. I felt very sorry for him. I also felt that the boys in that troop (and their leaders) acted in the most unscoutlike manner that you possibly could.

 

Now, your idea was around keeping numbers small. Which isn't altogether a bad idea. But I'm afraid it could lead to situations like the one I just gave.

[campcrafter]

EagleKY

 

Yes and that is the boy who needed scouting the most.

 

But what about the SM making the decison after "tryouts" and picking the troop? Sports say that not everyone gets picked for the team and it is a life lesson.

 

PLEASE NOTE I am NOT promoting this just discussing and prefer sports programs where everyone gets to play.

 

But would it be OK to limit the size of the troop and not allow new members until an opening occurred or you had enough on the waiting list for a new patrol?

 

(By the way I believe it was policy in the early years of BSA to limit troop size to 32 - 4 patrols of 8 scouts each - of course no such thing a SPL then)

 

E - didn't mean to hijack the thread - just rambling hopefully in a circle back to the fact that a troop must use the patrol method or they are not really scouting and if they are using it scouts will show up to support and be part of the team(patrol)

 

cc

[Venividi]

AvidSM wrote:

What frustrates me, is that over their lifetime, these boys will get so much more out of their scouting experience than any other activity you can name. And yet, they still choose baseball and the rest.

 

I started out agreeing, but the more I thought about it, I see it as a matter of perspective as to which activity a particular boy will get the most out of.

 

Since you referenced baseball as an example - participants learn the importance of teamwork; Trustworthy: that they must be able to be trusted by their teammates; loyal: to the team by coming to practices and working to increase personal skills for the benefit of the team; helpful: the team benefits when individuals help each other ... on down the line with the possible exception of reverent. I see the potential for character, citizenship, and fitness growth in team participation. Many of the methods are reflected: adult association, leadership (through naturally emerging leaders on the team), uniform, probably some more.

 

So perhaps the experience that an boy gets the most out of is the one that he is most interested in to the extent that he invests himself as an active participant (as opposed to an occasional participant).

 

As an observation, I see signs that sports get the same type of drop off in participation as the boys enter and pass through high school as well. In our area, park district soccer and baseball are big and draw a lot of participants at the grade school level, but paricipation levels start to drop through middle school, and drops precipitously in high school. Those were most interested in improving their performance make the high school team or find a club team to join that challenges their skills. To bring this full circle, those that are most likely to make the high school or club level teams are those that participated in the most as they were building skills. And were required to attend practices, but probably didn't mind, because they wanted to be there anyway.

 

One more thought - there are a lot more role models in sports. Not just professional; also the high school athletes are very visible in the community, and held in high regard. They wouldn't get the same respect if they had not developed their skills through practice; i.e., if the high school team was comprised of members that skipped practices and didn't play. as a team, they would not be seen in the same light as role models.

I am trying to draw an analogy here with outdoor adventuring: high school kids that participate in rock climbing, backpacking, whitewater canoeing, etc. would be seen as roll models to a certain segment of the younger population if they had sufficient visibility. Car camping is alluring at to new scouts, but they rapidly learn those skills and cease to be challenged - and many then tend to drift away. So perhaps the real problem (or one real problem) is that we are not creating a sufficient number of scouts that develop high level adventure skills, and those that have are not getting sufficient publicity?

 

this was rambling, but the topic is good food for thought.

 

 

[BrentAllen]

I grew up in a Troop that limited membership - 40 boys, 5 patrols of 8. I never knew that was the situation when I was in the Troop. I don't think it was really discussed with the boys - it was discussed with the parents. We had a waiting list of boys wanting to get in. If a Scout stopped attending, he (or his parents) was/were asked if he wanted to come back, or give up his spot. This system made membership a little more valuable. My memory is that we had pretty good attendance at our events.

The boys never voted on who would be in their patrols - the adults just assigned the new Scouts to fill holes and balance them. I don't think allowing the boys to vote would be a good idea.

The adults limited the membership to a size they thought was workable, and they could equip.

 

I played a lot of baseball growing up, and there was many a campout we would head out and set up camp Friday night and stay until Saturday afternoon. We then drove back to town for an evening baseball game, and afterwards drove back to camp. My father was always either CC or ASM and was very involved, so he didn't mind. I was pretty fortunate.

[SR540Beaver]

Troop and patrol size. Over the last few years, I've been from one extreme to the other. A troop we started up had 6 or 7 scouts who were all 11 years old. Guess how many patrols we had? Yep, one! The PL did double duty as SPL. His official position was PL, but he planned and ran the meetings to the best of his ability as an 11 year old Tenderfoot. Talk about hard to function at troop meetings or campouts when only half the patrol showed up!!! Fast forward to today and a different troop with 63 boys on the roster. We have 5 patrols. Take out the SPL and 3 to 4 ASPL's and 4 Troop Guides and you end up with roughly 50+ scouts to spread between the 5 patrols. Our troop decided to make patrols with a size of around 10 scouts because it is rare to have all 10 show up all the time. Even if only half of them show up, the patrol can still function with 5 to 6 members present. While a regular scout doesn't really have an attendance requirement, the elected boy leadership is expected to attend all but one meetings and campouts over his 6 month term. This is known up front and boys who are obligated to other activities are urged to run during their off season if they want credit for their POR.

 

I have heard of some troops limiting their size due to logistical problems due to rapid growth and space, equipment and adult leadership limitations. Crossing over 20 new boys to our troop did put a strain on us equipment and space-wise. Our dedicated room at the churh is just about maxed out and not "everyone" at the church sees that as "their" problem. The pastor who just left was pretty supportive, even if not everyone in the congregation was. The new pastor is very pro-scouting however. If push came to shove and we needed more space, I beleive he would work ot make it happen.

[campcrafter]

Brent

Seems like you grew up in a well run troop. That seems the logical way to limit troop size and I believe ( and it is only my belief no evidence other than your example) that it would help with active participation dependeent of course on there being a worthwhile program.

 

SR

 

So wouldn't you say that the success of your troop has been in part due to the fact that you used the patrol method, even when you only had one patrol?

 

cc

[EagleInKY]

Our troop practices the "try before you buy" concept with recruits that come from outside of our pack. The reason is that you just don't know the boy, the parents, or anything about them. So, we tell them to try it out for a couple of months, go on a campout, and if it doesn't work out, there's no harm done. They'll get their money back (dues and joining fees) and we'll encourage them to try another troop. That hasn't happened, but we have had a couple that visited a couple of times and decided to go elsewhere.

 

Veni - I do think that sports often allow a boy to develop many of the same values we promote in scouting (trust, loyalty, physical fitness, etc.). But it differs in that there is not a moral foundation and that it is tied to a specific skill. In other words, if you don't have the skills to play baseball, you can't do it. Scouting offers a plethora of activities, so we can accomodate boys with a variety of skills (or lack thereof).

 

I had a parent last year who wanted his son to be Mr. Baseball. He missed scouts constantly because of practice, games, etc. He wouldn't sign up for summer camp because there was a chance he might make an all-star team (he didn't). When he found out he didn't make it, he suddenly wanted to go to camp at the last minute. We jumped through hoops and they paid the full price and got him in. I talked to the dad about how scouts was a team, just as his baseball team was. And we counted on him to participate and be committed, at least to some degree. The dad vehemently disagreed. Scouting, in his mind, was purely and individual activity. In other words, it was all about the individual pursuit of Eagle. He didn't see any need for loyalty to patrol or troop. They were just their to accomodate his personal, individual needs. As you can imagine, this boy didn't make it through the first year. Rumor is that he is slowly slipping down the depth chart in baseball and will not likely be in it for too many more years - certainly not likely to make the high school team. It's unfortunate that dad's big dreams have destroyed his son's opportunity to really do something fun.