What would you change first?

[AlFansome]

While surfing the web checking out area troops for kicks (slow day at work!), I found a troop that takes quite a few liberties with the BSA program as written.

 

In particular, it's documented that:

 

- Before working on his Eagle Project, a boy must:

Be a Life Scout;

Be a Patrol Leader or a member of Staff;

Be at least 15 years old;

Have completed all merit badges required for Eagle; and

Receive the Scoutmaster's approval to proceed.

 

- Merit badges must be earned as follows:

earn 1 while Tenderfoot (and must be non-Eagle required)

earn 2 while 2nd class (First Aid + one non-Eagle required)

earn 5 while First class (Cooking, Camping, 2 required, 1 elective)

earn 6 while Star (Pioneering, Cit.in Comm, 2 required, 2 elective)

earn 7 while Life (4 required, 3 elective)

 

- Leadership requirements: (for example)

While a Star Scout:

Give at least 2 skill instructions; or

Give at least 1 skill instruction and serve as a Patrol Leader on a campout; or

Serve as a Den Chief for at least 6 months.

 

- Tenure between ranks is 6 months for T-1-2, 12 months for S-L and 18+ for Eagle

 

- Attendance requirements: can't miss >3 meetings or more than 2 of the required campouts in 6 months or else no advancement. For PL, SPL, ASPL...all campouts are required.

 

- COH held twice per year, June/December along with 1 ECOH for all Eagles per year (since most Eagles on same schedule anyway)

 

From all accounts, the troop is "successful" with 60+ scouts, has been around forever, has had the same SM for 34 years, is very connected to the chartered org, and has produced 250+ Eagles in 40 years. Their attendance and participation is obviously high, and uniforms are ubiquitous (as are some interesting temporary insignia locations). Hard to tell exactly, but the Patrol Method to some extent is being used and by the length of the list of MB counselors, it seems that most parents are an MBC for something (sometimes 5+ badges).

 

My point here isn't to bash the troop since they're in another district and I don't know anything more about them other than what's on their web site.

 

However, what I'd like to throw out to the forum is the following:

 

If you were dropped into the middle of a troop with this culture as a leader (SM, CC, or Adv. Chair), what would you change first (if anything)? What things would you continue to do? What are the worst and best things that are going on?

 

Has anyone had experience with a troop such as this? What was your experience like?

 

If you'd like to debate the wording of rules, procedures or the "right" way to do something, please take it to another thread. I think that it's pretty clear that the BSA advancement program (as written by BSA) isn't being followed, and I think that it's also clear that there are already enough arguments on this board about whether that's OK, not OK or in between.

 

Personally, I'd like to get insight into how folks deal with units that they feel need to be re-oriented and what things would be more important to deal with first.

 

 

 

[frank10]

I expect they leave a trail of kids that don't measure up to their standards.

[NeilLup]

Hello Al,

 

At the risk of incurring some extreme flames, do you believe that the citizenship, character and fitness of youth is being improved in this unit? If so, is there not a tremendous temptation to say "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!!"

 

If not, then before doing anything else, I would identify the ways in which I felt that C,C and F were not being improved and try to figure out what to do to address that.

[nolesrule]

Is such a gross violation of BSA advancement policies teaching good character?

[Bob White]

Having led a troop that followed the program and knowing what was being done incorreectly it would be difficult to drop me unwittingly into this mess.

 

If I was being asked by the CR to become the CC, I would first explain to him or her all the things the unit was doing in violation of the Advancement program and its policies. I would ask if it was the CR's intention to get the unit back on track. If it was, I would explain that this would invlove the re-training and possible replacement of key adult volunteers and ask if the CR was willing to weather that storm. If he or she was I would take the postion knowing that the Scoutmaster would have to accept the change that was about to happen or we would have to relace him or her.

 

If I was being asked by the CC to be the Scoutmaster I would have a similar conversation. If I were going to be the Scoutmaster the CC and the rest of the committee would have to agree that I am the director of the advancement program, and that several things are going to be changed quickly to follow the BSA policies and program, and if they were not willing to do that I would not be accepting the position.

 

If I were offered the advancement chair I would refuse. As that position was no role or authority in effecting the needed change.

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Beavah]

Yah, I'm not as fond of becomin' king and makin' fast changes, eh? That's a recipe for taking a successful troop of 60+ boys with a good CO relationship down to a troop of 10 boys in a hurry. Or bein' ushered to da guillotine!

 

I have seen many units like this, eh? A long-term scoutmaster like this one tends to shape a program particularly to his/her liking over da years, as other people come and go. They tend to be charismatic men (and women) who have a lot of support in the CO and community. Procedures are predictable and well-communicated. Yeh tangle with 'em at your own peril. And, in fairness, the boys adore such men, there is often good use of adult association (but not always patrol method), and da kids are usually fine examples of character, fitness, and citizenship. High standards tends to produce that kind of thing.

 

I think as a commish I would go visit, go on a couple of campouts, watch some meetings, sit in on da committee, maybe on a couple BORs. My first question would not be what to change, it would be what is good here that needs to be kept and built on?

 

They're usin' advancement, but not perfectly, OK. What about da other seven methods? How are they on Adult Association? Patrol Method? Uniforming is pretty tight as units go, that's good. How are they on youth leadership? Ideals? Outdoor method? I reckon if they're doin' pretty well on most of da methods of scouting and achievin' good things for kids, I'm not goin' to get too fired up over a kinda over-the-top Advancement specification. All units have somethin' to work on!

 

So in workin' with a unit, I wouldn't start with weaknesses, I'd start with strengths. Praise those, and use 'em. "What's good that we can make great together?" should be da cry of any new leader in a troop. Never "what's broke that I can tell yeh to fix?".

 

Then, along da way, I think I'd quietly start tryin' to relax da death grip of regulation they have on the Advancement Method, eh? Whittlin' at it, not takin' an axe to it. Problem when yeh take an axe to it is it creates hard feelings and such ("You didn't earn a real Eagle like I did...").

 

Honestly, though, da bigger problem is that usually when a long-timer SM like this fellow dies or retires, such troops founder. Rather than focusin' on their use of advancement, I'd want to focus first on their depth and continuity of leadership in preparation for that day. And maybe, just maybe, it's time for "Scoutmaster emeritus" .

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Bob White]

See the problem here isn't about the Method of Advancement it is about improperly changing the requirements for advancement so that the scouts in this troop are forced to do requirements that are different than what the BSA has designed the advancement requirements to be.

 

Beavah suggests changing slowly, so that scouts advancing now have to do the all wrong elemements, and ones who advance, let's say, in 3 months have to do most of the wrong requirements, and scouts who advance in 6 months only have to do half of the wrong requirements, and scouts who adavence in a year only have to do a few of the wrong requirements....etc.

 

You do not correct scouts being cheated by removing the illicit obstacles a little at a time. How does that possibly help the scout?

 

If you found a bully stealing your son's money would you say, "tell you what, for next month you only steal 75% of his money, and then the month after that steal half his money, and then the month after that you can steal 25% of his money...

 

You think Scouts will quit the troop if you say, "I am really sorry but you have been made to do more requirements then actually exist, I think many of you have probably completed you next rank already, or are very close to it. So during the next week we are going to review everyone's advancement records and get you the recognition you deserve. From now on the only requirements you have to complete are in your Boy Scout Handbook. If you have any questions please call me."

 

Why in the world would they quit???

 

Scouts deserve to have these unwarranted stumbling blocks removed at once not a little bit at a time wouldn't you agree?

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Eagle92]

BW,

While the younger scouts may like the changes, it can cause some resentment among the older ones. I remember when BSA did away with Skill Awards adn time requirements between Tenderfoot, Second Class, and First Class ranks. I was one ticked off scout and so were my buddies. We thought, and some of my adult colleagues today who were part of that era in Scouting, that the "new" requirements diffused the skills and did not allow a Scout to learn one set of basic skills before moving on to the next one. Also we thought that the removal of the time requirements didn't allow for the younger Scouts to mature. Heck when you see a Scout jump from Scout to First Class after joining in may and attending a week of summer camp, when it took you a little over a year, you feel resentful. And you may lose some of those olde Scouts.

 

While I've never been in a troop that was set in its ways, when I became a pro, I was placed in a district that was set in its ways. Since I had been a district scouter for 3 years prior to becoming a pro, I rushed in and tried to get everything according to national right away. BIG MISTAKE. There are reasons why things had been done and it took me a while to realize this. In order to make any change and improve the district, I had to pick and choose my battles. When I left, the district was far from perfect, but it had been improved. Heck when I returned 4 years later, it still wasn't perfect, but each of my 6 successors made some improvements.

[Nike]

Well, as a parent I wouldn't be terribly eager to join this unit based on the attendance requirements alone. I really don't want a Troop that demands doctor's notes like the school does. As for the MB requirements that have been superimposed along the way, they make sense as a set of skills and might be a good troop program on their own. However, what about the Scout who transfers in as a Star and never earned Cooking? Is he "demoted?" Is he less of a Star Scout? Is his advancement held up until he does earn it?

 

As a prospective CC, I'd start asking, "Oh? Where does it say that in the book? Doesn't it say niether subtract nor add?" I'd also point out the strengths and weakness I saw in the troop while talking with the CoR, the IH, and SM. If they didn't agree that some things weren't going according to the national program, I wouldn't take the position.

 

As an Adv Chair, I would only take the position if the proper requirements were to be followed henceforth.

 

Lastly, I'm sure this SM is the picture of health, but what happens if something happens to him? Is he training his replacement? Does he even acknowledge the need for one?

[Bob White]

Eagle 92

I agree that some scouts might be angry but they are going to be angry at the person who broke the rules and made them do the improper requirements not at the person who steps in to help them. They more likely will be relieved and quite pleased.

 

What do you think would happen if you gave each scout his choice? Tell them they can each choose to either keep doing the extra work or just do the BSA requirements. Which do you suppose they would pick?

 

Doing the wrong thing longer is never a good idea.

 

 

[evmori]

Very skewed interpretation of just about everything!

 

Change is in order. I would start with the merit badge part & work up from there. Those who have completed these outlandish requirements won't have to any longer & those just starting will complete what is required for rank by the BSA.

 

What a mess!

[NeilLup]

Hello Nike,

 

As Beavah as said, I've seen a number of units like this over the years and have seen similar situations in training, etc. If you question what they are doing and ask "Oh? Where does it say that in the book? Doesn't it say niether subtract nor add?", their response is "This is how we do it." You can prove who killed Cock Robin all you want and, in my experience, these leaders will not change.

 

So, frankly, it then becomes the question of whether you want to use your valuable resources changing this unit or trying to help other units which don't have any advancement, aren't going camping, etc. Which is going to do more for youth? Plus, this kind of unit commonly has a lot of members, brings a lot of kids to camp, possibly contributes significantly to popcorn and FOS and is doing the kind of things, from a participation and support point of view, that we would like all units to do.

 

So it is not uncommon to decide that discretion is the better part of valor and wait until the leadership changes at which point one can be there to try to pick up the pieces.

 

 

[shortridge]

"Tenure between ranks is 6 months for T-1-2, 12 months for S-L and 18+ for Eagle."

 

If I'm reading this right, to me, this is the second-most egregious item on this list. That means a Scout could not join at 15 and earn Eagle. The latest you could join is at 14. Ridiculous!

 

But the number one offender is the overall intense focus on Eagle achievement that this unit promotes. Earning Eagle is not the goal of the Scouting program. Each Scout has to bushwack his own path. If that means not earning Pioneering or never serving as a patrol leader, so be it!

 

"Boy-led" refers not just to leadership positions, but to a boy's own leadership of his Scouting journey. Eagle is an individual achievement. It's not a standard by which a troop is judged. It boggles my mind that a troop could operate like this with apparent impunity.

 

If I were taking over as SM, I'd trash everything.

 

The troop's had the same Scoutmaster for 34 years? That just might be the core of the problem. New blood can sometimes be a really good thing.

[BulldogBlitz]

"But the number one offender is the overall intense focus on Eagle achievement that this unit promotes. Earning Eagle is not the goal of the Scouting program. Each Scout has to bushwack his own path. If that means not earning Pioneering or never serving as a patrol leader, so be it! "

 

 

the current BSA advancement guidelines seem to encourage quickest route to first class.

 

the troop listed above would be decent, if no one ever transfered in, or started later than 11. advancement is not required - heck, i took two years to make it to second class. most of the requirements that this troop has taken the time to spell out SHOULD be accomplished within a normal framework, i think. a star scout that has never taught a skill? if there is camping one weekend a month (and summer camp), a scout earning first class in this troop would have camping, cooking, and maybe a few other of the outdoor MBs. as long as the troop is doing well, and has longevity, there isn't much of a reason to break the cycle.

[Eagle92]

I think some of what I said may have been misinterpreted. I do not condone this unit's activity. They do need to follow the rules. But you cannot rush into the situation and change things overnite. Change takes time, and with something that has been set for a long time and apparently working, at least in the leaders' eyes, it will be an uphill battle to change things.

 

I personally like uphill battles

 

Again change muist be gradual and explained WHY it is occuring, otherwise you will lose scouts, parents, and leaders.