Scout Spirit... Redux

[Kudu]

I propose that the BP Patrol System requires as talented of a SM as the BSA system for equal results... If the adult doesnt know how to achieve that in one program, he wont get it in the other.

 

On that we agree.

 

I will further state that a SM in the BSA program can do just as well in the BP program and visa-versa because it doesnt matter how the program is set up, if the SM understands the goals, he/she will get about the same performance because the minor differences of program dont have much effect on the basic philosophy of a boy learning from his experiences of independent thinking and moral choices made during scouting activities.

 

If it doesn't matter how the program is set up then you must agree that the BSA's Eight Methods of Scouting are of no real importance, but the Adult Association Method, which strips the Patrol Leader of his authority over Tenderfoot through First Class advancement and sets up adults as both moral and technical judges of a Scout's Advancement is not, as you say, a "minor" difference.

 

For instance, when GernBlansten proposed that we just chalk up scout spirit as an ideal to be reached, as defined by the scout and coached by the leadership, you derided this Baden-Powell idea (Scouting as education not instruction) as "the Lord of the Flies method" and said "I think when we get to the point that adults don't judge the scout's behavior, there is no reason for a SM anymore".

 

In Baden-Powell's game, the "reason for a SM" is as an ELDER BROTHER who must influence the younger brother only through the sheer encouragement of his own good example, he is NOT the BSA PARENT figure who judges the Scout's behavior by taking Advancement away from the Patrol Leaders and holding it hostage to his judgement.

 

So, that being said, an acceptable method to boost fellow scouters seeking leadership guidance is quoting from successful leaders.

 

Baden-Powell and Green Bar Bill qualify as successful leaders.

 

However the author looses integrity when the dialog is interlace with insults, rants and negative comments toward other people or other programs. It goes without saying a negative style of discussion doesnt live of up to any definition of the Scout Law and Oath of any Scouting program of which Im familiar....

 

Hit the "send" button on that classic example of the BSA "Adult Association Method" a little too quickly there, Barry?

 

"SCOUTING IS A GAME for boys, under the leadership of boys, in which elder brothers can give their younger brothers healthy environment and encourage them to healthy activities such as will help them to develop CITIZENSHIP" (Baden-Powell, Aids to Scoutmastership, emphasis in the original).

 

Kudu

 

[BrentAllen]

I'm probably hijacking a thread again - if so, my apologies.

 

Kudu, you talk about boy-lead and where the "power" is. I think we to define what exactly the "power" is you think the boys should have, but don't. Planning their calendar? Training the other boys? Passing off on achievements?

 

Before answering, consider B-P's answer to the question about how many boys should make up a troop.

"The numbers in a Troop should preferably not exceed thirty-two. I suggest this number because IN TRAINING BOYS MYSELF I have found that sixteen was about as many as I could deal with - in getting at and bringing out the individual character in each. I allow for other people being twice as capable as myself and hence the total of thirty-two."

 

Looks to me like the SM is conducting the training, through Adult Association.

Also, back to my other post - you stated the SM should chose the best candidate for leadership, instead of letting the boys elect their own. You argue this is just a popularity contest, but I would argue the SM appointing the PL takes "power" and boy-lead program out of Scouting.

[John-in-KC]

Sue,

 

First, keep going Beaver Staffer Girl!!! We're listening, and we have your back.

 

When does son end term of POR? I've seen parent/boy SM/SPL combos before, it's hard for both to step out of the role. Have you considered designating mentorship of him as SPL to your lead ASM?If he chooses to step aside, there are good lessons to be taught to the Troop in doing so (witness what we are discussing vis a vis your CC).

 

On the Scout you mentioned: Any issue which risks denying, or even delaying an Eagle is something worth talking about with the volunteers who support you: UC, Dictrict Advancement, and COR. My DAC has told me stories over the campfire of when he has removed away advancement authority for a Scout from a Troop, had someone else do the SM conference, someone else do the EBOR, and voila, a new Eagle. The more you can do to clearly show the situation and its challenges, the better things will be should anyone go beyond you and make an issue.

 

It's one of those WB basics yet again: Use all your resources.

 

We don't know the volunteers in your District or Council. We know you report your perceptions pretty clearly. We've seen your joys and your struggles.

 

Keep the faith and draw on the tools we got at Gilwell Field.

 

John

[Beavah]

Yah, SueM, with that additional information I have to say... yeh should listen to the other good folks in your neighborhood who have experience. If a lot of parents and other scouters are saying this boy is a real problem who is harming your program, then there's a consequence for that. A parting of the ways. Your time and energy is best spent on other boys, eh? Plus, that's often the right lesson in character that the boy needs. Choices have consequences.

 

Two other thoughts.

 

Yah, first, I generally find that former SM's make poor CC's if it's too close in time. Different skill set is needed; too hard to avoid slippin' into the SM role. You can help by suggesting some CC-like projects for him - fundraising for capital equipment, managing paperwork, representing the troop in service to the district and such. Try to give 'im somthing that can be his.

 

Second, don't you be pullin' your son out for a break or workin' at home or any of that stuff! Too easy to be projecting your own fatigue on to him. Like as not, he won't need much of a breather, and there can be a positive cache to being a former SPL. What he does has got to be his choice, never forget.

 

Yah, I'd steer him toward Troop Guide, eh? Seems like a position where he can grow to another level of success.

 

Beavah

 

[Kudu]

 

Beavah writes:

 

Yah, that was quite a thread hijack there, eh?

 

Beavah, tis you enya fella' ruffians that hijacked the thread, eh?

 

OldGreyEagle quoted all of the references to Scout Spirit that tell the Scout that "unlike most requirements for Scout ranks that can be measured by other people, how well you live the Scout Oath and Scout Law in your life, is something for you to judge," and then he asked how then can a Scoutmaster decline to sign off a scout on Scout Spirit?

 

Everyone danced and sang, "YES!! YES!! We must sit in judgement of a Scout's Spirit!!!!!! If we don't the Advancement Method is meaningless, eh????"

 

OldGreyEagle re-framed his question and asked, "A scout comes to you with the quotes I initially posted, he wants to know why the book says one thing about Scout Spirit and the Troop does something completely different. What do you tell him?"

 

Everyone danced and sang, "YES!! YES!! We must sit in judgement of a Scout's Spirit!!!!!! Judge it this way, or judge it that way, but if judging him doesn't work then throw the hooligan out!!!!!!!!"

 

OGE, the answer to your question is very simple: the Scout's Troop uses the "Adult Association" and "Advancement" Methods (the adult-led Troop Method) rather than B-P's "Progressive Training in Scoutcraft" within the Patrol System where a Scout is measured by the Patrol Leader ONLY for his mastery of Scoutcraft, not for the quality of his Spirit.

 

"The secret of getting good results in character and reliability in a boy is to expect much of him and to trust him with responsibility. But I do not say teach him to swim by throwing him into deep water and expecting him to be able to make his way safely. You must, as a first step, give him confidence in his own powers by helping him to develop those powers, by training him in fact, and by showing him through your own example, how to swim" Baden-Powell, Headquarters Gazette, May 1915, emphasis added).

 

Kudu

 

 

[Kudu]

BrentAllen writes:

 

I think we need to define what exactly the "power" is you think the boys should have, but don't...Before answering, consider B-P's answer to the question about how many boys should make up a troop.

 

"The numbers in a Troop should preferably not exceed thirty-two. I suggest this number because IN TRAINING BOYS MYSELF I have found that sixteen was about as many as I could deal with - in getting at and bringing out the individual character in each."

 

Yes, Brent, "in getting at and bringing out the individual character in each," which OldGreyEagle might recognize from his research as what we call "Scout Spirit."

 

Our "Advancement Method" is based loosely on Baden-Powell's "Progressive Training in Scoutcraft:" a series of outdoor skills any one of which could provide an opportunity for a sharp-eyed Scoutmaster to "educate" (to draw out from within) an individual Scout's character. There is only one point where this interaction between the Scoutmaster and Scout is formal: the "Re-Test of Scout Law and Promise," which is the last requirement for Second Class:

 

Re-test Scout Law and Promise. (Before the Second Class Badge is Awarded, the Scoutmaster will ensure that you understand the Law and Promise in accordance with your age and development, and the Court of Honour will ensure you are a satisfactory member of your Patrol and the Troop).

 

Note that the Scoutmaster ensures only that the Scout understands the meaning of the Law and Promise; the evaluation of a Scout's character (or "Scout Spirit") is never an advancement requirement in B-P's Progressive Training in Scoutcraft.

 

BSA Scouters who wish to follow Baden-Powell's example and use the BSA Scout Spirit Advancement requirements as an opportunity to discuss with each Scout his developing understanding of Scout Law in action might find the "Scout Spirit Scavenger Hunt" useful:

 

http://usscouts.org/advance/docs/spirit.html

 

Looks to me like the SM is conducting the training, through Adult Association.

 

Yes, but as you know "The Methods of Scouting" are a BSA invention and the main elements of the BSA's "Adult Association Method" are based on adults judging the Scouts (Scoutmaster Conferences, Boards of Review, and as OGE points out, usually Scout Spirit Requirements); perhaps Baden-Powell could have called his informal, individualized, and non-judgemental approach to Scout Spirit the "Elder Brother Association Method" :-)

 

Kudu

 

The object of a camp a (a) to meet the boy's desire for the open-air life of the Scout, and (b) to put him completely in the hands of this Scoutmaster for a definite period for individual training in character and initiative and in physical and moral development (Baden-Powell, Headquarters Gazette, October 1909).

 

 

 

[Eagledad]

>>he is NOT the BSA PARENT figure who judges the Scout's behavior by taking Advancement away from the Patrol Leaders and holding it hostage to his judgement.>However the author looses integrity when the dialog is interlace with insults, rants and negative comments toward other people or other programs. It goes without saying a negative style of discussion doesnt live of up to any definition of the Scout Law and Oath of any Scouting program of which Im familiar....

 

Hit the "send" button on that classic example of the BSA "Adult Association Method" a little too quickly there, Barry?

[Kudu]

>>the BSA PARENT figure who judges the Scout's behavior by taking Advancement away from the Patrol Leaders and holding it hostage to his judgement.

[ajmako]

After reading this thread so far I sort of feel like I'm at a district committee meeting--everybody talks and only half listen.

 

But of course I have to squeeze into the conversation, hopefully striking some sort of compromise between what I guess we'll call the BSA way and what my sometimes-friend;) Kudu calls the B-P way. Squeezing a few words in edgeways, it's not really difficult to make this Scout Spirit stuff work.

 

The first thing that must be done (something you'll find quoted in one of Kudu's posts) is establish the expectation. That is the BSA SM makes it clear what he expects from a Scout behaviorwise. This happens when the Scout and SM sit down to discuss whether the Scout "understands and intends to live by the Scout Oath, Law," etc. Really, if the Scoutmaster doesn't explain his expectations for the Scout--what he expects the Scout to understand about what the Oath and Law mean--the Scout's promise that he "understands and intends to live by" them could mean anything.

 

The next thing that must be done is to hold the Scout to his promise. It seems clear to me that the BSA expects Scouts to evolve a rather sophisticated understanding of the ideals. That happens from us. Remember: the Oath and Law have to mean something, otherwise they mean nothing. We have to guide him toward understanding by holding him to the high expectation we set for him. We can't let him slide on this stuff.

 

I should mention, I'm not talking about evaluating the Scout Spirit requirement at this point. I'm talking about our interactions with him during the normal course of Scouting. When he fails to be friendly, we need to call him on it. When he fails to be trustworthy, we have to help him make amends. Gradually he'll learn that we mean business with our expectations for him and he'll work his butt off trying to rise to those expectations.

 

Finally we get to the moment of truth. We sit down with him for the dreaded Scoutmaster Conference. Here's the deal, he knows what we expect from him, now it's time to really trust him. All we have to ask is: "have you done your best to live by the Scout Oath and Law in your every day life?"

 

Maybe he'll admit he could have done better. Maybe he'll confidently say yes. And maybe he'll hang his head and mumble something like "not really." That's real growth happening, and we should be able to guide him the rest of the way to a BOR. The good thing is, if we've established our expectations concerning Scout Spirit, and we make those expectations real by holding the Scout to them, chances are pretty good he'll be a lot harder on himself than the SM.

 

This, I think, is what we are supposed to be doing. We're not supposed to be using Scout Spirit as a catch all requirement for whatever our petty concerns are, or as a means to compell attendance. We're not supposed to be deciding if the Scout has demonstrated Scout Spirit in his every day life. The requirement is meant to measure personal growth, and it has to be the Scout doing the measuring. Personal growth doesn't do a Scout a lot of good if he doesn't see it himself.

 

This isn't just the B-P Way. Ask yourself, how exactly are you supposed to know if a Scout demonstrates Scout Spirit in his everyday life when you see him far less than most other people in his life do? Obviously, the only one who can make a proper determination of Scout Spirit would be someone who is with the Scout every minute of every day of his life.

 

As far as attendance and all the other stuff we sometimes substitute for "Scout Spirit," I could write a book about it, but I'll spare everyone the torture... Maybe in another thread...

 

[Stosh]

After listening to the volleys going back and forth on this issue I'll toss in my 2-cents worth as well.

 

First, there seems to be a B-P vs. BSA difference of opinion on the issue of leadership. To me this appears to be very strange because I am quite unfamiliar with Kudu and B-P's "side" of the issue. I have read only the BSA "side" of the equasion and yet seem to lean towards the dynamics spelled out by B-P. Maybe it's too many years of business analysis and thinking outside the box that lead me to this conclusion. There's very little in the BSA program that runs contradictory to the B-P program.

 

With that being said, what's the problem? I sit and watch and it seems to be in interpretations and definitions of words significant enough to draw the BSA program away in intent from the B-P style program. On the forum I have heard people define and redefine, intepret and reinterpret many issues. What seems to be happening is the old story about the blind gentlemen that were asked to describe an elephant. One man walks up and touches the tail and announces an elephant is like a rope. The next touches the leg and announces an elephant is like a tree, the third touches the side and announces an elephant is like a wall, the next touches the trunk and announces an elephant is like a snake, the next the tusk and announces an elephant is like a spear, etc. Well, as some on this forum have demanded, who's right and who's wrong? They can't all be right! From each of their perspective they are right. They have all drawn their conclusions correctly given the circumstances.

 

With that being said, one must first of all start with a common perspective, which we on the forum do not do. We insist on starting with our own agendas and work from there justifying why we do it this way or that way so that others out there don't judges us as being wrong. With such "blindness" we will never understand why someone else could conclude something so obviously different from what we see.

 

Right from the git-go, we all come from various perspectives. Some of us are in scouting because our kids are there. Others to work with youth, others for their their own edification, others out of a sense of volunteerism, others because they are "wrangled" or "railroaded" into it by others.

 

So, with that being said, first everyone must personally evaluate their own perspective and/or agenda, understand it and then work from there. There is NO common perspective or agenda we are dealing with here when discussing this issue. Once we have all agreed on that, we can move to the next step.

 

The B-P method and BSA methods ALSO have their perspectives which must be taken into account for. They are slightly different, but really not too much. Not enough to warrant the seriousness of the discussion generated here on the forum.

 

Then we must also take into account the perspectives of our society in relationship to these two methods.

 

Once we have evaluated in our minds each of these dynamics then we begin the process of common definitions. Are we all meaning and understanding the words in the same way? I am willing to say this area is the biggest problem generator for the forum. We are NOT using the words in the same way. For example: the SM is to coach the boys... By dictionary definition a coach is one who instructs and trains. Yet when we as a public see coaches they are directing and leading. Our perspective is not in line with the definition. So, when a SM coaches the boys does he train and instruct or select the players, make the decisions, direct the action, etc.? The same holds true for the word direct. Pointing out the way is far different than managing from a supervisory position. Does the SM direct or give directions?

 

How does one keep all this muddling around in perspective? Are there commonalities that allow a basis of understanding for both perspectives?

 

First of all in any organization (right down to a group of two people) some kind of leadership structure (both people can't lead or both can't follow in a group of two). So how is leadership and the flow of authority accomplished in the B-P and BSA programs? On this basic level they can from the material given, be exactly the same. Once it's interpreted and applied, all bets are off. This is where the rub comes.

 

From what I have read in the BSA program material and from what little I have seen from Kudu's explanation of B-P material, the patrol method is the preferred choice. Unfortunately there are many definitions of what "Patrol Method" is all about, thus the many discussions on this forum.

 

But I accept the perception that the patrol is the initial basis of authority in order for the patrol method words to be used by the progam developers. There are perfectly acceptable and functioning structures in our society to demonstrate this concept. From the patrol starting point to it's first line of support under them is the PLC which binds a confederation of patrols together into a supportive organization, the troop. This troop is supported from below by another level of adults who coach, train, and assist the PLC/Troop. The original intent of the US Constitution was set up this way as a confederation of states, united with a supportive federal government to offer common defense and encourage cooperation amongst the states. Since the American Civil War, that has been reinterpreted in it's reverse where the federal government basically dictates to the states. This happened without changing one word of the US Constitution! The perspective changed not the program.

 

The adult led program is just another interpretation of the BSA program which means the flow of authority originates from the adults and flows to the patrols, similar to the structure of the US military. The patrols support the troop basically and the troop is directed and supervised (gotta love those words) by the SM and his/her staff.

 

Most scouting groups fall somewhere in between these two divergent interpretations of the program. This is glaringly obvious, but where between is not, and most importantly which direction are they moving on the scale as they develop new things for the boys?

 

Is your troop kinda SM heavy-handed and wanting to move more towards patrol authomy? Does the SM run the show? Does the PLC run the show? Are the patrols authomous enough to be independent of the troop and camp/hike without troop and/or adults around?

 

If the boys are expected to be learning leadership, the smallest component of the program is the best place to start that process...the patrol. Eight of your buddies and we're going to find out the simple lessons of leadership in a safe and encouraging environment. Need help? Ask! That's what one's SUPPORT group (PLC/SM) is there for. But what if group authority flows down from the SM to the PLC to the patrol? Then there is no leadership, the patrol only follows direction and never learns to lead.

 

Unfortunately this flow of authority is something very foreign in our society and is not taught to our youth. Some of the better and brighter youth are helped in the school system, but nothing for everyone. Military does a good job, it has too, leadership is defined in terms of life and death.

 

But Scouting has a mandate to do it for all the boys. For the most part, we all have problems with it. We as adults often times don't want to look "bad" in front of our peers by having a struggling troop. So we step in and fix it. How many adults do the work and how many of the boys just follow along? We see it happening all over the place and our egos deny us the opportunity to remedy the problem appropriately. No one in our society today can really say they can trust the boys to lead!

 

A scout is TRUSTWORTHY... Well, gee, right out of the blocks! Let the boys lead, support them, encourage them, help them do their job! They are worthy of trust. As leaders we need a little scout spirit too to honor the first of the scout laws... a scout is trustworthy.

 

So with that being said, look at the B-P method with an open mind, same for the BSA method and then look at your troop and see if you are any near either of them with your development of leadership (I think B-P called it citizenship, same thing)

 

My apologies for going on so long, but everyone seems to be pretty entrenched in their own little worlds to allow for some sunshine to come in.

 

Stosh

 

 

[Eagledad]

>>the BSA has the adult-led method called "Adult Association" which is a collection of powers taken away from the Patrol Leaders and given to the adults by the adults.

[Kudu]

AJ!

 

Welcome to the Scouter.Com Forum!

 

Finally, someone who writes longer posts than me :-)

 

Kudu

 

[ajmako]

Kudu: Finally, someone who writes longer posts than me :-)

 

What? Hey, after I got a quick look around, I thought really long posts were the order of the day around here!

 

 

[BrentAllen]

Kudu writes: "I agree that human nature is the same, but what aspects of adult behavior are encouraged depend on how the program is structured: the BSA has the adult-led method called "Adult Association" which is a collection of powers taken away from the Patrol Leaders and given to the adults by the adults."

 

Excuse me, but what a bunch of hog wash!

 

The Adult Association is described as follows, at least in my copy of the SM HB: "Boys learn a great deal by watching how adults conduct themselves. Scout leaders can be positivie role models for the members of their troops. In many cases a Scoutmaster who is willing to listen to boys, encourage them, and take a sincere interest in them can make a profound difference in their lives."

 

How many success stories have we heard where a boy comes from a single-parent family with no father figure, and Scouting made a huge difference in their lives? Those kind of stories aren't going to happen without Adult Association!

 

And don't give me the "BOR & SM Conference is taking power away from the PL's" argument. The SM conference, as described in the SM HB, is a conversation to see if the boy is ready to advance. Same thing with the BOR. It is also a great time for the SM and Committee members to take a pulse on the troop - how are things going, what needs to be improved. Teaching boys how to interact with adults is a very important skill - more so than learning how to tie a square knot.

 

And Kudu, I'm still waiting to hear which B-P quotes are phony. Or do you wish to retract that statement.

[Kudu]

Eagledad writes:

 

I don't trust you Kudu

 

Your continued personal attacks are especially inappropriate in a thread about Scout Spirit.

 

Kudu