Program Adaptations

[Beavah]

Yah, dan, like I said, "slippery slope" is a Straw Man argument, eh? It's a logical fallacy that someone uses to smear another person's argument rather than address the points. "If someone puts an 'Untrainable' patch on their uniform for humor's sake, then where does it end? Jeans? A shirt of their choosing? It is just a slippery slope that leads to adults going to events with no clothes at all!!"

 

Funny, except der's some that actually believe that, eh?

 

What we see in this thread is all kinds of different interpretations and adaptations by good Scouters. Some count fractions of a pullup/pushup/situp as "improvement." Some count improving in any of the activities as "improvement", even if da kids get worse on other activities. Some may substitute modified pushups or pullups, so that kids can experience greater improvement than if they were held to the original activity. And some insist on concrete improvement in each activity as stated (which seems to be the clear intent of the requirement, before we start readin' like defense attorneys). Goin' back to da original thread, some stick to 30 days, and some are more flexible.

 

What does all that mean in real life? It means you can go from troop to troop and find them all doin' different things. The experience their boys are havin', and the requirements they have to fulfill for Tenderfoot, are not the same! Ohmygosh! We are on the slippery slope to total anarchy!

 

Reality is that I have every confidence that the good scouters here run delightful programs. While I disagree with some of their interpretations/adaptations of the requirements personally, I support them in their efforts. If a parent of theirs came to me in person or on this forum and complained because they allowed a fractional pushup as "improvement" and he thought that was "just wrong" and "on the slippery slope to no requirement at all", I would support the unit and the Scoutmaster.

 

Because that's what it means to be Loyal, Helpful and Friendly. Even when I personally disagree.

 

[dan]

I did not see anywhere on this thread where anyone said they would not count a partial pull up. I may have missed it though.

 

I think I read where someone say that they would allow the requirement to go from a pull up and 30 days later change it to a pull down and pass the scout.

 

So are you saying no matter what a unit is doing you will support them?

I think you are wrong on this. It would be more Helpful to guide them to run a BSA program. This can be done by being Loyal, Helpful and Friendly and not wishy washy.

 

I like my information straight and to the point.

[MollieDuke]

I have been reading several articles in many places lately about the fitness of today's youth for other reasons than Scouting. However, this post reminds me of a situation coming up for the second time within one of the groups I work with. Previously, we had a young man who was overweight as was his entire family. The father was actually having many health problems--serious ones--due to his weight. The son was having trouble making this exercise part of his life even for 30 days because of his at home lifestyle which was mostly couch potato. He wouldn't "do" the requriement. Well, prior to the father being diagnosed with weight induced health problems, the family was asking us to "just pass him on that requirement" as he was "disabled" by his weight. He was actually "disabled" by his unwillingness to work on this for 30 days. This troop didn't pass him until his father after diagnosis worked out with son for 30 days (and beyond) and after that, they both were glad they'd not passed son without the requirement being done. NOW, same troop/different family is having a crossed over Webelo coming from another pack who is in the same boat...inactive, unwilling, etc, but this time, the parents have been in a Pack whose motto is "move 'em all along together whether they did the requirements or not" and have expressed the will expect the same treatment in this Troop. As advancement coordinator, I've advised this group to have a new parent meeting with all the leadership involved and stress the following of the guidelines and all that, and not passing this child on ANYTHING he's not shown he can perform as per the guidelines in the BSA literature.

 

While this particular troop is behind doing things the BSA way, I look back to the overweight father and son who worked together to see that they were a healthier family. What good are we doing today's youth by not showing them HOW TO WORK for something, be it fitness or a MB? I think the main thing is that while it's a physical impossibility for a 200 pound 6th grader to do 10 pull ups in most cases, it IS possible for them to go from 100% impossible to 35% impossible. I think that is where the point is.....WORK FOR a goal, PLAN FOR a goal, REACH A goal. If we just pass 'em on everything, what have we gained? In my opinion, it's absolutely nothing. Just my two cents, MollieD

[CalicoPenn]

Doesn't it all just boil down to one thing? Our judgement? The rules are the rules, the program is the program, but if insisting on following the letter of the rules is getting in the way of the lad's enjoying the program, shouldn't we be tilting more to the lad's favor?

 

The thing we sometimes forget to take into consideration is that every person is different, and while the rules will apply in the vast majority of time to the vast majority of Scouts and Scouters, there will always be exceptions. A kid being held up for Tenderfoot for 2 years because he can't do a pullup? What the heck are the adults thinking? They certainly aren't thinking about the boy if all they are worried about is the letter of the rules. We follow those rules the best we can, but we have to be willing to use our own judgement to decide when we can follow the spirit of the rules, rather than the letter of the rules. Our judgement prevents us from desiging our own uniforms, re-naming ranks, etc. - and if our judgement isn't sound enough to prevent us from doing so, or if we're hiding behind the rules so as not to have to use our potentially faulty (and it always is) judgement, then we don't belong in Scouting. Personally, I'd consider it an improvement if the lad's attitude went from "I hate pull-ups and and am grudgingly going to try even though I know I won't be able to do one" to "I'm going to give it my all and try to do a pull-up" even if he never succeeds in doing the pull-up.

 

There's working with the lad, and there is failing the lad. After TWO years, if the lad doesn't have Tenderfoot for any reason other than lack of interest on the Scout's part, then the adult leaders are failing the lad - and the program - even if they are following the letter of the rules. Shame on any Scouter who hides behind the rules as an excuse to cover for their failing the lads.

 

Though we may be getting to it from different directions, I think I'm with Beavah here on this one. In my opinion, its the boys that is the most important element here, not the letter of the rules. As the adults in the room, we need to trust ourselves, and one another, that our judgement won't lead us into something completely untenable. I think we have an awfully broad path to wander before we even get near the so-called slippery slope, and the vast majority of us have enough judgement not to approach that edge.

 

Bottom line, for me it comes down to this - any rule that favors the lads, I will insist that the adults follow (when the rules for BOR states No Retesting - that means No Retesting - and that means you, Mr. Scoutmaster from the 60's who is doing 2 hour BOR's for Life and testing on woodscraft skills in BOR's). If the rule is not stated in the BSA literature (made up by the adults) and doesn't favor the lad, then I will call you out on this so-called rule. If a stated BSA rule prevents an otherwise good kid from advancing, I will find the wiggle room to see that the lad gets a fair shake (remember the Eagle candidate that was prevented from having a BOR because the DAC gave the go ahead for a project via e-mail but didn't sign the paperwork as required? The DAC followed the letter of the rules. The Council Advancement Chair followed the spirit of the rules instead of the letter of the rules and the Scout got his Eagle).

 

Calico

 

[CNYScouter]

I know this has been discussed before but I think we are trying to compare apples to oranges to bananas.

 

I see a big difference between Program interpretations, Program adaptations (tweeks) and Program modifications.

 

Program interpretations

Areas like the Tenderfoot requirement discussed here on what improvement is or what Scout Sprit is or what active is will all mean different things to different people.

As pointed out one unit may see the physical requirement more important than another and see improvement differently than another.

I do think that after 2 years a discussion is in order if a Scout is being held up in Advancement because of this.

 

Program adaptations (tweeks) These all ways that I have either seen or have heard about that Troops use to implement the Uniform Method:

 

1) ASM gives any Scout in full uniform a candy bar.

 

2) Honor Patrol competition where a patrol gets points for every Scout in full uniform.

 

3) Troop Tradition If you join this Troop everyone wears a full uniform. It has been this way since anyone can remember. All Adults and Scouts follow this.

 

4) SM stands at front door of meeting place and sends any Scout home not in full uniform.

 

There are no guidelines that state that any of these are the right way or wrong way but clearly the last one is not really in line with the BSA program.

I would hope that a UC would have a discussion with a unit that does this and suggest ways that better follow the program.

 

Program modifications Having a Scout serve on a BOR.

 

The guidelines are pretty clear about who can sit on a BOR. No SMs, ASMs and anyone sitting on a BOR must be over 21.

I also think that a UC would have a discussion about this with a Unit/CO.

 

Using the Program modification example what would you do if after meeting with a COR/CO and unit leaders you got the following responses:

 

Scenario 1) Very close to what I am hearing from many units/leaders, at least around here.

 

COR/CO: We dont have much to do with the Troop and are Hands-off with any thing with the Troop. Anything they do is OK by us.

Unit Leaders: We just found it easier to do it this way than to follow the guidelines.

 

Scenario 2) I think this is closer to the point Beavah is trying make (and closer to what the LDS church has done)

 

CO/COR: We as a CO feel that to better fit our mission a Scout should be reviewed by one of their peers and we think that having a Scout sit on a BOR does just that.

Unit Leaders: We are following our COs guidelines

 

I think in the second case the CO has thought about this and has made an educated decision and this should be respected.

 

But in the second case the UC should offer to work with the Unit Leaders to better understand the BSA program to get them to follow the program.

 

With the "slippery slope" argument I dont think it necessarily means that

If someone puts an 'Untrainable' patch on their uniform for humor's sake, then where does it end? Jeans? A shirt of their choosing? It is just a slippery slope that leads to adults going to events with no clothes at all!!"

 

But does make it easier for a unit to justify that if one modification is OK that the next one and the next one are OK also.

 

This doesnt mean that a unit is not turning out Scouts with Bad character but does make a difference between a unit that is running a "good" Scout program and one that is running a poor Scout program (which could be a topic in itself).

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Lets assume for a moment that there are Christmas cookies for all of those that have been good. This is the rule taught in the current training program.

 

Troop A has four boys and the SM has not been to training, so they give them to the four boys and the SM. This is neither a tweek, an adaptation nor a modification. This is ignorance of the good cookie rule. Their CO has registered a past Scout to make the required five but doesnt tell anyone. This is an intentional breaking of the rule but it is hard to find, plus the CO wants a Troop.

 

Troop B has six boys as well but the SM went to training back in the good old days. He decides that he should eat all of the cookies. This has no tweeknees to it either. The SM is hungry and is running an old program. He knows better and his Scout belt can not be let out one more inch. He would do well to attend training.

 

Troop C has five boys and the SM has been to training. His CO believes in the goodness of all, so they share the cookies equally in spite of knowing the rule and because it is similar to the one learned in training. This situation could be overlooked even by the most absent of UCs. The only way that it was found out was when the UC visited and had a round of cookies with the SM. The UC could in this case consider this an adaptation and will probably just let it go.

 

Troop D has five boys and the SM is trained but their CO believes that all are bad and nobody should ever get cookies. The SM is conflicted by the rules and decides that the cookies will be declared a dessert. The SM has then met all of the guidelines and will most likely not be found out by anyone, since hiding the rational has become the standard. This is neither an adaptation nor a tweek. The reason is because the act misses the point of the good cookie rule.

 

Troop E has five boys, the SM has been fully trained and the CO is hands off. The SM tries to follow the guidelines regarding cookies for the good but sometimes gives them to everyone. He simply declares that he has seen the good in everyone. He does not eat a cookie because he is watching his weight. His Scout belt is out to the end but he fully intends on reversing the process. The UC is savvy to the SMs intentions for losing weight and will most likely not pay any attention to the strict adherence of the good cookie rule.

 

As you can see the UC should be more concerned with numbers and recruiting and with program than with cookies but he/she isn't.

 

I could go on because there are 21 letters left but I think you see my point, maybe. fb

 

[Hunt]

"Reality is that I have every confidence that the good scouters here run delightful programs. While I disagree with some of their interpretations/adaptations of the requirements personally, I support them in their efforts."

 

But I think you know that this isn't reality--in fact, some scouters run programs that are not in the best interests of the boys--sometimes only in small ways, but sometimes in big ways. I don't think the right response to that is simply to say that they are volunteers and we should support their efforts, right or wrong. Instead, we should try to help them improve their programs--indeed, that's why many people come to this forum, to find out ways to improve their programs. In some cases that means understanding how deviations from the BSA program can reduce the program's benefits. So when somebody comes on the forum and says, "We have scouts on BORs for lower ranks," I'm not going to say that it's great if it works for them; rather, I'm going to point out that this is not the BSA program AND explain WHY I agree with the BSA's approach.

[Beavah]

But I think you know that this isn't reality--in fact, some scouters run programs that are not in the best interests of the boys--sometimes only in small ways, but sometimes in big ways.

 

Nah. Never seen it. Seen BSA program elements work in some places, but fail the boys in others, though.

 

Oh, fer sure I've seen some men and women who don't have a knack for workin' with groups of teens, eh? Usually the ones who get too hung up on adult formulas and rules. I've seen Scouters who've made mistakes while tryin' to do their best. And the Good Lord knows I myself have made some doozies. I'm grateful for the understandin' of fellow scouters and parents and kids when that happens, and for their support.

 

Just like SPL's eh? They sometimes make decisions not in the best interest of the group, eh? But if we're smart, we support 'em just the same.

 

 

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Believing that there is strict standardization in Scouting is like believing in the Tooth Fairy. Training is haphazard at best and tests are not given based on any study regimen. Quality control is limited to those that vary from the program at the extreme ends. It would be uncommon to find programs that are run "by the book' rather than those that have adaptations.

 

People that come here to find answers will most likely get varied responses to their questions rather than multiple standard replies based on book quotations.

 

It is still important to try and approximate, in writing, those standards that we know to be from the book when questions do arise.

 

I would like to cite hundreds of disagreements that we have had here over any number of issues. General agreement is uncommon here in written responses without allot of people messing it all up. fb

 

[Gonzo1]

Perhaps the requirements for tenderfoot should be changed (AGAIN)!

 

Maybe "flexed arm hang" could be substituted for pull-ups.

 

Maybe "Show improvement by performing more repititions in each of the activities listed in requirement 10a after practicing for 30 days.

 

How about "riding in the back of open pick-up trucks is acceptable as long as the driver is going slow." OK, I'm being a wise guy.

 

So, how do WE, the forum members, effect change at the National level??? How can we all become part of the solution?

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

I believe changing National comes from individual units running good programs.

 

A good program is based on standards (well) learned in training and from the book(s).

 

A good program has a balance of all of the Methods of Scouting.

 

A good program will include all of the elements of a Quality Unit.

 

A good program will be year round.

 

I realize that this will cause another spin-off.

 

Good night. fb