Should the Scoutmaster be a gate keeper to the BOR

[Stosh]

I would think that the processes by which a troop "signs off" on a requirement is up to the "powers that be".

 

In my troop PL's sign off on their patrol members they "pass" and then a report is turned into the ASM-Advancement.

 

Any advancement by the PL's and ASPL is signed off by the SPL. The ASPL signs off for any TOC members (his virtual "patrol") and report it to the ASM-Advancement.

 

I as SM sign off for the SPL and report to the ASM-Advancement

 

Because we emphasize boy-led, it frees me up from a lot of paperwork to keep in contact with the boys directly. I have 24/7 access to the ASM-Advancement's database on the web, so I know where all the boys are supposed to be with their advancement. When it comes time for SM Conference, I have a record to which I can compare it to his book. If they don't jive up, the PL gets called into the SM Conference to resolve any differences. From my multiple contacts with the boy and the official SM Conference, I can make a recommendation to the CC who holds the BOR. They can accept or reject my recommendation after a thorough review of the situation with the boy.

 

Because of the web software we use, much of the activities, POR, service project hours data is maintained by the system and will sign off the boy when he has completed those. These reports are published to the scout website on a monthly basis so the boy knows his status. He can ask the ASM-Advancement or SM any time he would like to know that information as well.

 

This process seems to keep everything above board and no one really is a gatekeeper from the BOR without numerous checks and balances in place.

 

Stosh

[MattR]

A gate keeper implies failure and I suppose it depends on what you mean by failure. We built a trebuchet for the local cub camp that uses a 200 lb counter weight and can throw a cabbage 350 feet. On our first attempt the arm, for lack of a better word, exploded. It wasn't failure, it was an opportunity to improve. The new arm is a much better design and is rock solid. That's how I treat a scoutmaster conference. If a scout doesn't know his stuff then we talk about what he needs to work on and we schedule another scoutmaster conference. All but one time the scout that "failed" the first conference passed with flying colors on the second. On the other time it took one more conference. If the scouts knew that I would never fail them then most of them would never learn the material, or live up to the ideals of scouting, or do anything I ask of them. Since they also know they eventually pass, I don't lose them.

 

On the other hand I can see where the BSA is worried about scoutmasters that don't act in a scout-like manner and so they go to the lowest common denominator and say if you've had the boxes signed off then you're good to go. The Star scout thread that this thread came from is an example of where this comes from. Based on what I read, this scoutmaster isn't thinking about developing a scout. It's a really screwy troop.

 

I think the basic issue is more about training of adults than scouts. There's an adult in my troop, that actually started the troop, and I learn more from him than anyone else. My job, as scoutmaster, is keeper of the flame. It's part understanding what scout spirit is and part understanding how to motivate adolescents to learn this. I'm no expert and I'm constantly wondering if I was too easy or too hard, too serious or too laid back. I'll be honest, scoutmaster specific training does not cover this. So where do scoutmasters learn this from? Mainly the people that came before them. It's also partly from talking to other adults.

 

So, to answer your question, I think it depends on the adults involved. The scoutmaster, the committee, and the program that trains the scouts. My goal is to create a fun program so by the time the scout comes to the scoutmaster conference I don't have to even bother testing him because he knows everything.

[Eagledad]

>>A gate keeper implies failure and I suppose it depends on what you mean by failure

[Twocubdad]

Again, the discussion regarding "failure" is largely semantic. If you follow the gatekeeper analogy, there are those who have passed through the gate and those who have not. There are those Scouts who have completed the requirements and those who have not yet completed them.

 

As long as there are standards and/or requirements, someone must be charged with maintaining them. In Scouting, it's the Scoutmaster. Perhaps when we reach Scouting Nirvana all boys will meet and exceed all requirements without anyone watching. But as long as we are dealing with Scouts not Saints, someone needs to make sure the standards are met. I believe it to be a fact of human nature that some folks will always try to get by, evade responsibility or gain an advantage.

 

True, there are many ways to maintain standards or enforce the gatekeeper function, all acceptable within the program. Ultimately, though, it is the responsibility of the Scoutmaster to maintain advancement standard. He can delegate that responsibility to senior Scout or other adults, but if you follow BSA advancement policy, the buck stops with the SM.

 

 

[Eagledad]

>>As long as there are standards and/or requirements, someone must be charged with maintaining them. In Scouting, it's the Scoutmaster.