My BSA, right or wrong

[johnponz]

Beavah,

 

1. You are comparing advancement to PORs which is an improper comparison. If a Scout decides not to work on a particular advancement requirement, he is hurting no one but himself. Maybe the Scout is more interested in just having fun than advancing. That is ok in my book. As far as the POR, if the Scout is not properly performing his duties than he is hurting the troop as someone else is doing his responsibilities or they are not getting done.

 

2. No one is talking about removing a Scout because they are not liked. We are talking about removing a Scout because they are not doing their job. These are 2 different things.

 

Now a question to you, dont you think the Scout deserves the opportunity to know where he is falling short, and the opportunity to improve rather than spend 6 months in a POR only to be told at the end that the time doesn't count for advancement. It is certainly the leaderships responsibility (youth first and adults in an advisory role) to tell the Scout that they are not performing and to try to help bring their performance to a satisfactory level.

 

Waiting until the end and telling the Scout sorry you did not perform is the lazy, cowardly way out...hmmmmm 'ey

 

[Beavah]

Yah, johnponz, it's a false dichotomy, eh? The choice isn't between either removing him or waiting until the end before talkin' to him. That's not the way Scoutin' works. That's why the advice which was given briefly in memos for a few years (about adults having to remove a boy from a POR) was so poor, and why it was rescinded by the new G2A, eh? Yeh have to think about how all the Methods fit together.

 

First, yeh have to bring in youth leadership, eh? So the SPL works with and mentors the PL who needs it, and the ASPL mentors da Quartermaster who needs it.

 

Then yeh think about Adult Association, and how the Scoutmaster or an ASM might do some guidin' and mentoring.

 

In the end, though, it's a better lesson for both him and his patrol if the Patrol Leader is removed by his patrol members choosing a new patrol leader, eh?

And it's a better lesson for both the Quartermaster who is not performing and for the SPL and ASPL if the SPL and ASPL remove the Quartermaster.

 

I'd save removal-by-the-Scoutmaster for cases where a lad is caught bringing pot to a campout, eh? Stuff that is a serious behavioral issue that merits a firm adult response.

 

Advancement Method is different, though. In Advancement, we reward kids for workin' hard and learning and showing Scout Spirit and being responsible. That's the way it's designed to work, eh? Positive reinforcement only. A boy can keep workin' on stuff as long as he likes, but he only "passes the test" when he reaches the positive goal - when he actually shows Scout Spirit, serves actively, and is responsible. So just because he held a position for 2 months as PL and was removed by his patrol, and then 2 months as QM and was removed by the SPL, does not mean that he has met the requirement for Star Scout.

 

Nor does it mean that a lad has to be removed, eh? Yeh might have a Quartermaster who doesn't do anything for a couple of months, and then the SPL and ASPL have a serious sit-down with him and he starts to get it together. It takes another couple of months of the ASPL workin' on him with da help of the Scoutmaster before he finally starts showin' real promise. Has he met the requirement? Of course not. Da requirement is serve actively in a position of responsibility for four months, eh? He hasn't done that yet. But he's learnin' and growin' so just like the Tenderfoot and the fitness requirement, he can keep workin' until he gets it.

 

The boy learns more from being allowed to keep workin' at it, and the SPL and ASPL learn more from havin' to keep workin' with him.

 

Beavah

 

[johnponz]

I think we agree. I just do not like to see a Scout spend 6 months in a POR with no one telling him he is not doing a good job, and then at the end of the 6 months be told that his time in POR does not count. This is the kind of situation National is trying to avoid with their rules regarding this subject.

[Beavah]

I think we agree. I just do not like to see a Scout spend 6 months in a POR with no one telling him he is not doing a good job, and then at the end of the 6 months be told that his time in POR does not count.

 

Yah, that would be sorta goofy. But I think it's mostly a fiction. Leastways, I've been around since da days of single-celled organisms and I've never seen that happen, really. Mostly what happens is that the lad stumbles and bumbles and is talked to, the lad keeps makin' excuses and promises, and the leaders (youth and adult) are tryin' to work with him and keep givin' him extra chances and more benefit of the doubt. Then at the end of the time they realize he's really not done much beyond makin' promises and excuses.

 

Then sometimes the parents get in a snit, and the boy gets caught between his parents and the troop leadership, and like boys do he tells his parents that the troop leadership was picking on him or he was really trying or whatnot. So the parents start makin' a fuss. What National is tryin' to avoid with its "rules" is getting so many phone calls.

 

The point is that for Advancement Method to work best, it has to reward positive behavior and achievement, not reward the absence of negative behavior, and not punish negative behavior. So yeh get an award for workin' hard and doin' good things, that's how we reinforce character. Yeh don't get any award for not doin' much, but yeh don't get punished either. Yeh get coached, cajoled, perhaps some positive peer pressure. And if yeh do somethin' wrong, that gets addressed quietly but firmly by your youth and adult leaders.

 

B

 

[johnponz]

I actually had a SM try to do what I describe in my district. We provided some coaching to the SM, and the Scout and their parents decided that he would spend another 3 months in the POR before the time would count. These are the type of mediated solutions that have to happen sometimes. It probably would have turned out differently if the Scout was hitting the age out deadline, but I am glad he was not.

 

Generally, common sense rules in these situations, but as in any mediation situation, it is good to know what the actual rules are before you go modifying them. I really believe that most of National's rules are in effect to stop out of control troops from continuing down that path.

 

The same troop had added requirements about the hours spent on an Eagle service project because one of the fathers who was an Eagle Scout did not like the removal of the hours requirement. National really wants Eagle to mean the same if you get it in Troop 5 or Troop 500. It only makes sense to keep the integrity of the award. Troop 5 could say no service project is required and Troop 500 could say 500 hours is required.

 

The kind of standardization National is demanding (strong word-I know) is to keep a meaning to the ranks.

 

I generally try to see the good side of people at both the National and local level, and try to remember that most of the people at National are volunteers just like us trying to give of their time to make a better program for the youth.

 

[Beavah]

The same troop had added requirements about the hours spent on an Eagle service project because one of the fathers who was an Eagle Scout did not like the removal of the hours requirement. National really wants Eagle to mean the same if you get it in Troop 5 or Troop 500. It only makes sense to keep the integrity of the award. Troop 5 could say no service project is required and Troop 500 could say 500 hours is required.

 

You're jokin', right?

 

Do yeh really think that the award means the same thing between troops anywhere in the country? Have yeh ever gone and visited troops or served on a district or council advancement committee?

 

Rank standardization is a chimera. It just doesn't exist. If yeh just look at your example, number of man-hours on a service project, you'll find that in every council in the country that number varies widely by troop. Whether they "require" hours really isn't so relevant as what they "expect" in terms of da overall scope of a project. In my council there are troops that average 300 hours per project and troops that average 50 hours per project.

 

Now, if yeh really were goin' to "standardize", then in most cases yeh end up with somethin' near the lowest expectation, eh? So we'd move the average down to 50 hours. Or, as in this case, we eliminate da expectation.

 

"Standardization" in a volunteer community leads to least-common-denominator approaches, eh? Yeh see that trend toward lowest-common-denominator in threads on Scouter.Com all the time, eh? Like the never-ending set of threads about how lads can't be expected to actually handle food safely, or even explain the basics of safe food handlin' for different items.

 

My experience is that ends up being the opposite of "keeping the integrity of the award." And honestly, I've never heard a national staffer talk about keepin' the integrity of awards. Not once, and that's in quite a few years. They are focused on other things.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

I know it's a fine point...but chimeras do exist. They're pretty interesting too. ...go ahead and roll your eyes...

 

My solution to all this: go back to the days before the project was required. All this strife over that requirement is taking the fun out of it.

[johnponz]

I am talking about the principle not the application of the principle. Of course National wants Eagle to mean the same thing no matter where you get it. That is the business principle and definition of "quality."

 

Alas, we agree again. It does not work that way in practice, but it is what the policies are aiming for which is why you have the sentence about not adding or subtracting from the requirements.

 

[Twocubdad]

The problem, John, is the guidlines are working counter to just that. I think standardizing the ranks to ensure they keep their meaning is great. Unfortunately, the standards national is instituting is precisely what is taking the meaning OUT of the ranks.

 

And you provided the perfect example. When you sat down with that Scout to negotiate a solution to his POR issue, he could have taken the national policy and told you to go suck eggs. YOU added to the requirement (gasp!) by requiring the Scout to hold his POR for nine months. (I'm waiting for our friends here to clean you clock for such an aggregious violation of policy.) Of course I would say you subtracted from the requirement by only requiring him to really do the job for three. But we all know which side of that argument the national advancement folks come down on.

 

In our troop, from time to time we have the sort of negotiations you describe. Your approach is absolutely the right way to handle a non-performing POR. You coach the kid, you work with him, you let him know what he's doing wrong and you give him the opportunity to do it right. But you don't give him credit for the job until he earn it. National's direction to remove him AND give him credit for time served not doing the job is NONSENSE! I can't imagine a worse way to handle the situation. Nothing is gained, nothing is learned.

 

The great sin which national wants to cure -- rogue, ogre Scoutmasters sitting at the end of the 6 month term giving thumbs up or down to PORs -- is poor Scoutmastering, but it is better than national's supposed "cure". Clearly allowing a Scout to coast through a POR for 6 months with no coaching or corrective action then telling him at the end he's not getting credit is a crappy way to do business. As bad as that may be, I'm willing to bet most SMs have some justification for denying credit for the POR. And I promise you, in most cases, in their hearts of hearts, the boys KNOW the sort of job they did or didn't do. In many cases it the PARENTS who refuse to accept that Dear Sweet Thing did a poor job or no job and push the issue.

 

I'll also bet the truely out-of-control SM who arbitrarily approves or rejects PORs are out there, but I further bet they are very rare. So let the advancement folks do their damn jobs and deal them.

 

And that's my real suspicion in all this that national advancement folks don't want to or dont' have the resources to deal with those parents or the truely out-of-control SMs. So they've created this cockamamy policy which totally cuts the legs out from under the vast majority of good Scoutmasters and local advancement folks like JohnP, who REALLY KNOW THEIR SCOUTS, want to deliver a great program and help boys become upstanding young men.

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello TwoCub,

 

 

Wouldn't a better solution be to trust your leaders? Give the SM discretion on approving what has been done and give the district or council advancement committee authority to overrule a SM acting in an unreasonable way?

 

Personally, I'm not much in support of a LOT of elaborate, detailed rules. Who can keep track of all that?

 

It seems to me that the heart of Scouting are leaders being guided by the Scout Oath and Law, not a complex web of legalized rules.