Boy led - Hypothetical elections

[OldGreyEagle]

All of the BSA literature I have read mentions the boys elect their Pl and SPL. No, there isnt a rule against it.

 

I am not sure why you would want to send a boy to NYLT and learn it's the BSA program to elect PL and SPL.

 

These forums and threads are searched by people who want information, to have a thread about appointing the PL and SPL, and not having someone point out doing so is against the program literature is not right. If troops want to continue their current practices, I wish their program well, I do think the method to be used by the authors of the program should be mentioned.

[Beavah]

Yah, but OGE, in this case da original poster is describin' a situation in which the program literature method has failed in his unit.

 

Seems like referrin' Gunny back to the program literature doesn't make much sense, eh?

 

The question is "given that elections in da troop are a blow-off, what options do I have as SM?" Unfortunately, there's precious little in the official text to draw from... so it's more like da sorta thing that yeh get answers from friends at Roundtable, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[FScouter]

I dont think OGE is responding to any specific case or question posed in this thread, rather he is countering the idea put forth that skipping elections is an OK thing to do.

 

In the Boy Scouts of America program, the primary function of the Scoutmaster is to train boy leaders. The objective is not to have a smoothly operating boy-led troop by depriving certain boys of a chance to be elected by their peers and to learn and practice leadership. If the troop or patrol elects a bad leader, the challenge for the SM is to work with and train that bad leader to do a good job. Bypassing the election and appointing the best boy just makes it a lot easier for the SM to not do his job.

 

Individual troops may do this, or may do that, but the BSA program is that the senior patrol leader and patrol leaders are elected by the boys; not appointed by an adult.

[OldGreyEagle]

Beavah, if you read the thread from its' beginning, you will see that I posted the following in my initial post in this thread:

 

"Adult leadership in Scouting is not meant to be passive, so the boys elect what most consider a real zero, what is the Scoutmaster's responsibility? To watch the Troop flounder and possibly lose scouts because of a lack of leadership or is he to meet with the SPL, lay out the positions responsibilities and expectations and then support the SPL along the way. Along the way I would expect frequent performance reviews and goal setting, if the expectations are not met, or the goals not accomplished, the scout is removed from the position, for not fulfilling the job.

 

In the situation that Vinividi details, where was the Troop Leadership? Who was mentoring the Patrol Leader, setting expectations and reviewing his performance? if the members of the patrol didnt want to be scouts, its best to just let them leave then provide a poor model for other scouts.

 

Yes. it can be hard work to train youth to perform to expectations, especially if this is a new experience for them, but it is the committment we made when we signed up."

 

 

Then there were a few posts made about how some of the Forum members don't use elections and appoint boy leaders. Since I had not mentioned anything about elections being part of the BSA program, I thought it wise to include a post in this thread that elections of the Boy Leadership is the way the program is intended to be run. I did end my second post with the sentence "I wish all units and Scouters well". Well thats what I intended to type, I think my first attempt read "I will all units well".

 

I never intended to denigrate nor chastise anyone, my only intention was and is to assure that in the future, some information starved individual does not read these posts and determine that it must be Ok if boy leadership is appointed by the adults when that is not how its written in the litierature. I never intended to direct Gunny back to the program literature. I stand by my first post as to what I would do in the situation posed.

 

I also stand by my posts explaining the BSA program's use of elections for boy leadership. If I insulted, denigrated, confused or otherwise annoyed anyone, hey I didnt mean it.

 

I wish success to all who are Scouters

 

[Hunt]

You may think you have a strong boy-led program, but if you take key decisions away from the boys, you don't really, especially if they know that they are really supposed to be responsible for those decisions. You are just reminding them who is really boss, and that will carry through into everything you do. Of course, you will find that things may run more smoothly this way, if that is your goal.

 

There may be situations that are bad enough where adults have to step in, of course, but that is very different from institutionalizing adult-run elements.

[Beavah]

Easy there, OGE. I don't think anybody was bein' insultin' or denigrating. Your chimin' in was very polite and to the point. Yah 'tis true, the current BSA literature advocates elections for PL and SPL. That's worth remindin' people of in a general way. I think that works just fine for an established, high-functioning troop with some good coachin' at the patrol level.

 

Workin' with kids, I expect we all adjust our approach dependin' on the kid. Quiet, shy kids get a different sort of encouragement than rambunctious, rowdy boys. Kids with handicaps get more support where and when they need it.

 

I believe it's da same with units. We've gotta approach each unit where it's at, with ideas to support 'em that work for right now. Units like Gunny's that have a current handicap might need more support, eh? Da literature isn't always the best for that, because it doesn't help with progression. We give people an overall, perfectly functional model, but no sense of how to get there from where they're at. Yah, and of course also no sense that some of 'em are tryin' to get to slightly different places, based on the mission of their CO.

 

I'm a big fan of da BSA program materials. Lots of good stuff in 'em. But they're meant to be adapted by units to meet the needs of their kids. No point in holdin' on to elections if they're runnin' yeh off da cliff .

 

Beavah

 

[Venividi]

Since my scenario keeps getting raised (I am glad that it is useful for discussion here), I will add a couple of things:

 

1) our unit was not willing to remove a boy from his position, even if he did nothing, even when trained, counseled, cajoled, etc. by scouters. Removing a scout had been discussed among scouters at various times, and the outcome was always to try and continue to work with the boy through his term rather than remove him, which was seen as "giving up on him", and was felt that it put him in a position to be teased by his peers, or drop out of scouting, etc. Perhaps that was wrong at the time. When I inquired in a previous thread about others experiences with removing a scout from a postion, there was only one response, so I suspect that removing non-performing scouts from their PORs is rarely done anywhere.

 

2) The ASM working with the boy was the boy's father. I have seen this combination work, where the parent has expectations of his son and communicates and works with him. (I have had the experience of working with my own son.) In this case, the father's goal turned out to be getting his son signed off for advancement as quickly as possible. He was not interested in seeing his son build skills in either scoutcraft or leadership; only in collecting awards. And that attitude was picked up by his son and the other boys in that patrol. In retrospect, the ASM should have been removed. At the time, the troop was short handed for adult help, and it was felt that poor help was better than no help, so the dad was put up with.

 

In any event, I think that Gunny's situation is slightly different. Nowhere does he state that there is not an adult scouter working with the boy. I do not think it unlikely that an SPL would be elected that found it easier to ignore the coaching from the SM than to put in the effort between meetings that is required to be prepared. I think it unfair to assume that because a boy chooses not to put in the effort, that is the scouters fault. The scouter is responsible for training and supporting the boy. That support should not normally include doing the boy's job for him, nor keep him from failing. It is the boy's responsibility to actually perform his duties. Gunny's question is what should be done when he doesn't.

 

[John-in-KC]

A couple of comments to Venividi and the Forum:

 

- It seems to me the SM is the one who signs off on a POR. If a young man is not fulfilling his responsibilities, then it's a matter of the SM having a SM conference with the young man and mentoring him. If the young man still doesn't fulfill the POR, then some tougher love is called for: Warn the young man, and his parents that if he doesn't get into gear, the SM will not sign off on completion of POR. (If I were an SM here, I'd also be alerting my CC, COR, UC, and District Advancement Chairman). If he still does not fulfill the POR, then SM has to follow through and refuse credit to the Scout.

 

From the National website: "However, unit leaders must ensure that he is fulfilling the obligations of his assigned leadership position. If he is not, then they should remove the Scout from that position."

http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/resources/mbc/rank.html

 

That allows the latitude to remove a youth for cause. Again, be careful if it gets to this point, cross-talk between SM, CC, COR, and UC is a good thing.

 

2) It goes back to what Beavah described as the "Warmy Body Syndrome." We who are Scouters cannot afford warm bodies. We want adults committed to youth. Why else are most of us still here after our young men have moved on from Boy Scouts???

[Gunny2862]

Still good thinking going on, thanks! I'm learning a lot here.

 

But I also need to point out that the thread has hypothetical in the title, for a reason.

[Venividi]

John-in-KC,

 

Yes, I understand your message. BSA gets to define the rules.

It makes me glad that I am no longer a scoutmaster. I see this as moving from using a carrot (this is part of what you need to do to get that next rank advancement that you want) to using the stick (you have to do this or else I am going to remove you from your position).

[John-in-KC]

Venividi,

 

With training, and supervision, I think the carrot part can still play for 98% of the youth.

 

To me, it's an adult in nature issue to be looking out for the Scouts best interests. That means if we have a First Class Scout, we know he needs a POR or project to get to Star.

 

With his needs identified, we then watch to see if he approaches the SPL/JASM/ASM/us for the same, or if he sits "like a bird in the wildnerness."

 

If he makes the approach, a good, well-mentored SPL will look to either the election cycle or requesting a Warrant (appointed positions) from the SM.

 

If he doesn't make the approach, then the SPL approaches the Scout and asks the right question.

 

Once there is a fit between POR and Scout, it's time for a Scoutmaster Conference: Let's talk about your new assignment. Let's talk about what it'll take to get it done! Are you ready!!!??? This should be an upbeat and enthusiastic meeting. To me, if there is a crosswalk between Scout and committee member (scribe/advancement coordinator), this is a time where the two of them get linked together.

 

Mentoring will require both general followup (how are you doing) and access to subject matter expertise (how do I do THIS???!!!??? (in a panic stricken voice). Sometimes another Scout will be the one to be the backup, sometimes it'll be the SM or committee member.

 

Only if we see slacking off do we as adults have to go to the capabilities National gave us, and even there, we have to be mindful of expectations: The work I expect from my peers is not what I expect from a 13 year old.

 

 

[Venividi]

John,

I agree with everything you have written. I see those mentorship discussions happening with 100% of the youth leaders. I don't think they are dependent on whether the last conference for that 2% is to say something to the effect of "Despite all our talks, you haven't done what I expect of a star scout. Lets give you another chance; lets review what you need to do." rather than "Despite all our talks, you haven't done what I expect of a star scout. I have to remove you from your position."

Perhaps I just have a blind spot.

[John-in-KC]

Venividi,

 

I think much may depend on leadership and POR pre-screening. Positions of responsibility are, if anything, a three way street (Yogi Berra, there's one for you). The SM has a duty to mentorship and development. The SPL and ASPLs have duties to task assignment and supervision. The Scout has the duty to fulfill the tasks of his POR! Finally, the parents have a duty to support the Scout in accepting and fulfilling a POR.

 

What I personally despise is what OGE called the token POR, or the "warm body" POR. Your name in a slot fulfills the requirement. Baloney. Does it work that way in our day jobs? No. Should we give the youth an expectation that they can coast in their assignment? No.

 

Yet I've seen it, more than once.

 

I want all young men to succeed, but I also want tools in the box when the few fail: I want to be able to look the young man in the eye and ask "Do you, in your heart and mind, believe you met your responsibilities as XXX? How so?" I want him to answer yes. Sadly, some will no. I want also, though, when I report to a Committee, "Billy will not advance for some months, we agreed he is still not meeting his POR," to be backed up by the CC when BabySitters of America parents Mr and Mrs Jumpback say "but, but, but..."

 

Your turn...(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[OldGreyEagle]

Venividi, I think I see the point of confusion, or I don't but that's ok as well. I am talking about Positions of Responsibility, such as Senior Patrol Leader, Asst. Senior Patrol Leader, Quartermaster, etc., all those positions listed in the book as qualifying a scout for advancement, if he completes his term successfully. Star rank, is just that, a rank. It is a rank that was earned through Troop approval by the scout fulfilling the Star Scout requirements. Once a rank is earned, I see it like a merit badge, once given, that's it, it doesnt get taken away. Yes, there are those cases when National takes away an Eagle but we are talking everyday life, not the rare exception.

 

As a Star scout if he wants to Advance to Life, he has to successfully complete a Position of Responsibility. He accepts the postion, the position is explained to him and what needs to be done. His progress is followed, monitored, praised and if he doesnt do as expected, he is asked why, what can be done to make it a positive, if it can't, and the scout shows no interest in improving, then he is removed. But not at a scoutmaster "advancement" conference. The scout knows he is in danger of losing his position because he has been counseled numerous times on what needs to happen. Perhaps various people have discussed what he needs to do to improve, but in the end, if he is removed, its because he didnt perform, and its not a surprise to him or his parents.

He may no longer be the Troop Quartermaster or whatever, but he is still a Star Scout

 

[Venividi]

John and OGE,

 

I agree with everything that you have said, including "no surprises" at an advancement SM conference; except for not performing POR duties MUST (my emphasis) result in removing the scout from the position. Sure, that is one way, but my personal preference would be to use the carrot of advancement rather than the stick of removal. I think it would be just as effective to replace "removed" with "not approved for advancement" or in the following paragraph:

 

OGE wrote: The scout knows he is in danger of losing his position because he has been counseled numerous times on what needs to happen. Perhaps various people have discussed what he needs to do to improve, but in the end, if he is removed, its because he didnt perform, and its not a surprise to him or his parents.

 

Revised: The scout knows he is in danger of not being approved for advancement because he has been counseled numerous times on what needs to happen. Perhaps various people have discussed what he needs to do to advance, but in the end, if he is not approved for advancement, its because he didnt perform, and its not a surprise to him or his parents.

 

 

Let me try and approach from a different angle.

I do not understand how we have helped a boy (lets say he is first class), by advancing him to Star because he was not activily removed from a POR for which he did not fulfill the expectations. Each POR should build on what was learned in previous experiences. But the referenced communication from National basically says that a scout that hasn't developed an appropriate level of skills or experience in his POR, gets credit for it unless adults have proactively removed him from the position. Then, when he advances to the next rank, he does not have a base to build on for his next POR. To my way of thinking, that is unfair to the boy. I see it similar to social promotion in school.

 

Imagine, if you will, if a similar announcement were issued concerning MB's at summer camp: It is the MB cousellor's responsibility to ensure that a scout is fulfilling the requiremnts of the MB. If he is not, he should be removed from the class. If a scout that is not fullfilling the requirements of his MB is not removed from the MB class before the end of the week, he is given credit for the badge, whether or not he has completed the requirements. We can look at that and see that it is absurd. But the parallel to the POR requirements is that it moves responsibility for learning 100% to the teacher, when learning really is primarily the responsibility of the student.

 

And to reiterate, it recognize that this may be a blind spot on my part, because I do agree with the mentoring approach that you both describe; I just don't get the tie in between the aim character development and the giving credit for a POR, when the lessons to be learned in that POR were not learned. (And I am talking about levels of expectation that are appropriate for the rank at hand, not some idealized "adult level" expectations).

 

Please note that I am not advocating that the statement on the BSA website be ignored; BSA gets to define how they want things done. After all, a Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them. That is approptiate for scouters as well. I just happen to think that this directive is unfair to the scouts, and am sharing my concerns with what I perceive as an unfair rule.

 

It has been a great discussion, and I thank you for the friendliness of the discussion, even though we disagree.

 

Venividi