Boy led - Hypothetical elections

[acco40]

I found that as the boys mature they become better leaders. Therefore, I say phooey on the BSA rule about "aging" out and have a few 18 and 19 year old patrol leaders. They do a much better job than the 14 and 15 year olds. Also, why take a chance on letting the boys elect these fine leaders? They just might, heaven forbid, want to elect one of their peers who has not yet mastered everything he needs to have to become one dynamite patrol leader. Besides, an 18 year old patrol leaders interacts much better with our 22 year old SPL.

 

:-)

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

I am not advocating removing a scout from his position of responsibility unless a lot of work has gone into the scout.

 

I am talking about learning about consequnces of actions. If the scout is working at full capacity, I would never think about remving them, but if he doesnt show up, doesnt make arrangements for his abscences and doesnt care, I dont see why we should either. This is the end point, lots of effort goes in before this type of move is made

[FScouter]

... National basically says that a scout that hasn't developed an appropriate level of skills or experience in his POR, gets credit for it ...

 

No, the national council does NOT say the Scout gets credit for doing nothing. They said that UNIT LEADERS must ensure the boy fulfills the obligations of the position. Quoting: 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."

 

Lets not place all the blame for failure solely on the boy after the unit leaders (including SPL) have failed to do their part too. Sitting by and watching a boy do nothing for 6 months is not an option.

[John-in-KC]

Venivedi,

 

I also appreciate that we've approached this with concern for the young men first.

 

I actually do not think we're very far apart in this discussion. From where I sit, 80-90% of our youth will make never even be a challenge: We'll talk to them on the front end, give them resources, and they'll be coming back to us either asking technical questions or bursting with pride at a task done well as part of doing their POR.

 

The next 5-15% (up to the 95th percentile) will take a little extra mentoring, and may require some encouragement and resources. The Committee member overseeing the Scouts' activity may need to be actively involved in teaching and supporting to get the task done. That's OK. Many of the things we challenge Scouts to do, be it maintain the tentage and inspect the patrol boxes, to keep the primary attendance records and collate advancement, to playing "Mess Call"... well, that's the first time they've ever done it. There'll be lots of stumbling.

 

Another 3% or so are going to need the heavy hand of a youth or adult on them to get it done.

 

It's that last 2%. They are the ones who start off on the wrong track, and will not switch over. Certainly, as you state, the Advancement SM Conference is waaaayyy too late in the day to say "this is not working." They've been absent time and again. If they are attending, their work is just not done. They are square pegs being forced in round holes.

 

There are ways to deal with them. I think the most effective option is to revisit their task against their personal likes and dislikes. A kid who can't carry a tune in a bucket is the wrong one for Bugler. A Scout who has divorced parents, whose non-Scouting parent won't let him attend OA Chatper meetings, is the wrong one for OATR. It's our job, as Scouters, to help the SPL/ASPL find the right fit. Sometimes, that won't happen til the second try.

 

Sometimes, there are external factors too. Kids parents enter divorce. Non-Scouting parent doesn't have him Troop night, and doesn't care for Scouting. The kids needs support now more than ever. We're the ones who can help make things happen.

 

As I said above, at the end of the day, 98% + will get sign-offs with varying amounts of support. It's that last 2%.

[Venividi]

John, I agree that we are not far apart. We both want to develop young men more than we want to hand out shiny medals. And it is that small percent of scouts that we are discussing here - they do take more energy than most, don't they.

 

Fscouter, You are right, I paraphrased what I saw as the net outcome.

 

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."

 

What is left unsaid is "What happens if the scout does not fullfill his obligations and he is not removed." I inferred from that statement that he gets credit for the position. Perhaps inferred wrongly.

 

And I agree with you that sitting by and doing nothing is not an option. I thought I have been clear on that. I do, however believe in personal responsibility, and that the responsibility for performing the duties of a POR belong to the boy, not to the adult, and that while removing a boy from a POR is one option, it isnt the only option, and not always the best option.

 

As I said before, I am glad I am no longer an SM, as my personal style isnt one that prefers threatening removal from a position. So you can be glad that this is a theoretical discussion and that no boy will be harmed by my views :-)

 

[Kudu]

"However good a method works for a Troop, I feel compelled to tell future readers of these threads that appointing boys to Senior Patrol Leader or Patrol Leader is contrary to the Boy Scout BSA program....not have someone point out that not electing patrol leaders and the senior patrol leader is contrary to BSA policy on a Forum that discusses Boy Scouting would be, well, wrong."

 

"...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 literature."

 

"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....I do think the method to be used by the authors of the program should be mentioned."

 

OK, but not to have someone point out to these information-starved readers from the future that the anonymous BSA "authors of the program" are not Trustworthy would also be, well, wrong.

 

When I was in high school, one of my friends did not like to read books. He was really smart, but he just didn't like books. So whenever he was working on a term paper, he would sit down with his mother (a librarian) and they would make up phony book titles and phony authors. That way he could write whatever he wanted on a subject, and back up his views with phony references to books and authors that did not exist.

 

The BSA "authors of the program" don't like books either. Books about Scouting anyway. So just like my friend in high school they just make stuff up. Things like the SPL should be elected by a popularity contest of the whole Troop rather than elected by the Patrol Leaders in the PLC who have to work with him. Then, just like my friend, the "authors of the program" throw in a bunch of phony quotes to make it seem like they read some old books. But the BSA "authors of the program" don't really read old books, now do they?

 

I worried about my friend. "What if you get caught?" I would ask. He would laugh, "These are public school teachers! Do you really think they will look up references? My mom says that teaching is a fall-back position for them until they find the job they really want."

 

The BSA "authors of the program" are like his description of public school teachers. Little guys who get stuck writing a silly three page chapter about the Patrol Method until they find a job in the BSA that they really want.

 

If you are the Wood Badge type who thinks of the Patrol Method as a factory that provides Scoutmasters with an endless supply of popularity contest winners to teach about "leadership," then you may well ask "So what if the BSA 'authors of the program' are not Trustworthy? The important thing is that Scouts and Scouters be Obedient and Loyal.

 

Well, try to imagine the fuss that Wood Badge Staffers would make if the BSA "authors of the program" took some Stephen Covey quote and attributed it in print to Kenneth Blanchard:

 

"The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing." -- Kenneth Blanchard

 

Gasp! The error would be corrected before the second printing! Wood Badge Staffers would never allow such an inaccurate quote to stand because they would lose credibility in the corporate leadership world.

 

After all, Kenneth Blanchard is the Baden-Powell of BSA Wood Badge!

 

The good news is that you do not have to depend on untrustworthy BSA authors or their Wood Badge minions to learn about the Patrol Method. You can still buy used copies of the 3rd, 4th, or 5th Editions of the BSA Scoutmaster handbooks for around $5. Spend a couple days reading the book from cover to cover and you will be an expert on the BSA Patrol Method.

 

By "expert" I mean you will be one of the approximately ten people in the United States who can recognize a phony Baden-Powell quote when you see one!

 

The point, of course, is that if you understand how the Patrol Method was designed to work, then you can build a PLC strong enough to avoid the pitfalls of Gunny's hypothetical election while still following the program written by the BSA's professional high school cheats.

 

Kudu

 

[Beavah]

Yah, Kudu, yeh know...

 

I think there's a lot of merit to sharin' different ways at looking at things in Scoutin', to help people who are tryin' to do a good job with kids.

 

And like you, I think there are a few things that more experienced editors and writers and proofreaders should have corrected in various BSA publications. There are also times when I think da good people in various offices down in Irving get a bit insular, or hang on to positions for too long and get stale.

 

Yah, yah, we all "vent" about National a bit as a sorta pasttime, eh? But I still think they're good people. And I still think da BSA puts together a pretty darn good program overall.

 

Seems like there ain't no reason to call people cheats and such. None of us get everything right even when we have lots of time and resources. I think yeh do other Scouters a disservice when yeh get quite so strident, because as often as not they'll stop listenin' to you, and then you won't have helped 'em with their problem, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[Venividi]

To return this (somewhat) back to topic, let me toss out the following hypothetical scenario:

A boy is appointed historian. He is a Star scout, 14 or 15 years old. Before approving the appointment, SM meets with him and explains the responsibilities of position. SM suggests a specific assignment of taking photgraphs at campouts, and creating a troop scrapbook with those pictures, including a written paragraph of who attended, where they went, what they did, etc.

At the next troop meeting after the campout, SM asks the scout how the scrap book is coming, and if he is having any problems. Scout says he hasn't started yet, but knows what he has to do. Next month, scout doesn't attend the campout. This continues for the balance of the six month term.

Scout asks for a SM conference for Life rank.

 

What is the downside of expecting a scout of star rank to take personal responsibility for fulfilling the duties of his position, rather than it being the SM's responsibility for the scout to fulfill the scout's duties? I am one that thinks personal responsibility is a key component of character. I believe society has moved way too far away from personal responsibility. Spill hot coffee on your lap? Its not your fault, the restaurant served it too hot. Didn't create a scrapbook that you agreed to make? Its not your fault, the SM didnt make sure that you did it. Please note that I specified an age and rank by which I think scouts should be capable of taking personal responsibility without an adult following them around to make sure that they do what they agreed to do. And I am not sure that there is anywhere else where a scout would get the opportunity to experience the rewards or consequences of their personal efforts.

 

Am I the only one here that thinks this way?

[OldGreyEagle]

Venividi, I understand what you mean. In the scenario you describe the Scoutmaster put forth the expectations, after the first campout and inactivity by the scout, the scoutmaster should be sure the scout understands what the duties are. That those duties still exist even if the scout does not attend the event, he can make arrangemens with a scout who is going to take the pictures and help the scout with a writeup of the event. After the second campout and no activity it may be time to take a more stern approach, tell the scout that the POR says what he has to do and it needs to be done. The scoutmaster explains if it happens again, the scout is in danger of losing his POR, if it does happen again, then the scoutmaster needs to evaluate the situation, is the scout not understanding or just not doing. If not understanding, what needs to be done to get the required level of understanding, if just inactive, then its time to remove him from the position. If the scout is judged to be misunderstanding, once more time the expectations are explained and if nothing occures, the scout is removed as his performance results in missed opportunities for pictures and the archives of the troop. His inactivity effects everyone.

 

I have to say the reluctance to remove scouts from PORs puzzles me. In the past when posters have commented on requiring uniforms at BORs or the scout doesnt pass, or retests at Scoutmaster's COnferences, of a defined percentage level of participation there are plenty who agree with such measures, although none is in the program. But when the BSA says you can effect advancement for non-participation in the scouts POR, then its seen as draconian?

 

The scoutmaster needs to be on top of the situation and know who is doing what and who isnt, we are teaching consequences of action or inaction and people object to it?

 

I am missing something here

[FScouter]

My son got a school assignment to create a science project. The lead time was 6 weeks. The teacher gave detailed instructions on how to proceed. The teacher was always available for help along the way if any student needed it. My son and I discussed the project and I gave some suggestions.

 

A week later, he had not started. After 2 weeks he had made no progress. Should I sit on my hands and see how it plays out and after 6 weeks chide him for failing? Its his responsibility and his character. But I think as a parent I have some responsibility too if he fails. If he turns 18, flunks school and has no character, I suppose I could blame it all on him but the end result is we have another member of society starting out with 2 strikes against him, and a father declaring Its not my fault.

 

The Scoutmaster too has some responsibility for the success or failure of troop boys in positions of responsibility. I consider it irresponsible for the SM to watch the calendar pages fly by while a boy fails.

 

[Venividi]

OGE,

This discussion has been good. The discussion has brought me to see that removing a scout in a PL or SPL role may be the best course of action because other scouts are affected. In a role like historian, other scouts are not affected to the same degree in the event that the scout doesn't fulfill his obligations. I can see that removing a scout from such a role can be effective, I just dont think that it is the only way. Come review time, a scout that served as historian but didn't fulfill the duties would have to say "No" when asked by the SM if he had. And shouldn't be surprised if the SM suggested that the scout take another position and have another chance. I have found scouts agreeing with this. (I have seen a parent of one such scout disagreeing, however, and coaching his son to go back on said agreement). Yes, being removed from a POR is a consequence, and I do not object to a unit that does so. Not receiving a desired rank advancement is also a consequence, and I do not see a reason why that would not be an acceptable alternative to removing a scout from a position. I think that a SM should have leeway to determine which is the appropriate course of action.

 

I have a vivid memory from my youth that I will share that may help explain where I am coming from: Seventh grade language arts teacher started the year by telling the class that weekly spelling words were required to be handed in every Friday. There would be no reminders. If the paper was not handed in, the student would get a "0". "I forgot" was not an excuse. I recall that he never had anyone turn a paper in late. And he stuck to his word and never gave a reminder that spelling words were due; everyone knew that he collected the spelling words at the beginning of class every Wednesday. I did notice however, that in other classes it was not uncommon for students to miss turning in assignments. It was a matter of expectations.

 

Thanks for a great discussion. Please note that I am not one that promotes or supports retesting at BOR or attendance requirements.

[Venividi]

Fscouter,

 

I think the difference is a matter of both degree and objective. The objective of a school assignment is to learn the topic. You explain the degree well; it serves no purpose if your son (or anyone else) flunks out of school.

 

I have no arguement with SM/ASM need to be on top of the situation and knowing who is having difficulty. In a situation such as the hypothetical historian, I see the SM role as one of making friendly inquiries as to how things are going, and if the scout is having any difficulties. I do not see the SM role being one of sitting down with the scout and hovering over him as he puts a scrapbook together, or of taking him by the hand and walking him around to take pictures. That would be appropriate for a 12 - 13 YO 1st class scout. I think it is inappropriate for most 14 - 17 YO star and life scouts.

 

Scouts has often been promoted as a place where a scout has the freedom to try new things, and if he fails, to get back up and try again. So to respond to your last comment, no, I don't have a problem with watching the calendar pages fly by - while making those friendly inquiries, but not forcing him to complete his assignment. If a scout takes 12 months to reach the next rank rather than 6 months because he failed in his first try at a POR, I think that is a life lesson that is worthwhile. One worth more than not failing. Often we learn more from our failures than from our successes.

[OldGreyEagle]

Venividi

 

I can see what you saying, that if the scout gets enough counseling and feedback during his term of office, that it shouldnt really be a surprise when the scoutmaster says, yes you have been hisotrian for 6 months, but you didnt do anything and the scout says I guess I didnt, there should be no surprise when the scoutmaster says ok, lets see how you do at quartermaster...

 

That could work, but, if the scout is savvy, he knows he was in the position for 6 months and according to the rules, he compelted his POR because he was never remvoed. If the scout appeals and it gets to District where I am on the Advancement COmmittee for the Disitrct, the scout is getting credit for his POR, not because he did anything, but because the Troop allowed him to be in that postion for 6 months and according to the rules, thats all it takes. We cant publish rules and then ignore them. The approach you suggest has a lot of merit

[Venividi]

OGE,

 

I can only second guess at the reason for the rule. I am not sure that I can accurately do so. Perhaps it is because national saw more appeals than they wanted. Perhaps there are some percentage of SM's that are in the position not because they want to be, but because no one else is willing to do it, and the troop would fold otherwise, but there hearts are no longer in it. Perhaps this is national's way of forcing some action on the part of units on the bottom of the bell curve, and all units are forced into a common mold.

 

I am not a big believer in appeals to authority simply because they are an authority. By way of examples, I don't agree with school districts that impose zero tollerance policies and suspend students that are found with aspirin or other banned item. I see where such rules make it easier for the administration, because they no longer have to be involved in sorting out intent, or circumstances, or anything else. Same with adult troop leaders requiring comlete uniforms simply because they say so. Without an explanation as to the "why" behind the statement from national, while I see how it makes things easier for national, I don't see how it is always the best approach for scouts.

[Kudu]

"Seems like there ain't no reason to call people cheats and such."

 

I use the term "professional high school cheats" with the greatest affection, in honor of my creative high school buddy and his librarian mom.

 

"None of us get everything right even when we have lots of time and resources."

 

Speaking of "time," the instant that I hit "enter" on my last post, I immediately received a private Email from one of OldGreyEagle's time-traveling "readers of the future." It turns out that upon reading my post a millionaire Scouting Executive became interested in the Patrol Method and for the first time in 40 years, somebody in Irving Texas actually opened one of the BSA Handbook for Scoutmasters edited by William Hillcourt. The first thing he saw at the very top of the first page of the Patrol Method was "The Patrol Method is not ONE method in which Scouting can be carried on. It is the ONLY method!" with the correct author (not Baden-Powell). Intrigued, he read the entire 48 page section on the Patrol Method.

 

The good news is that the BSA re-adopted William Hillcourt's Patrol Method in the year 2010 to celebrate the BSA's 100th birthday. I won't mention the bad news.

 

"I think yeh do other Scouters a disservice when yeh get quite so strident, because as often as not they'll stop listenin' to you, and then you won't have helped 'em with their problem, eh?"

 

You called that one exactly right, Beavah. According to OGE's reader from the future, my aphorism "Kenneth Blanchard is the Baden-Powell of BSA Wood Badge" was adopted as the official Motto of Wood Badge, but in an ironic twist the BSA attributed the quote to Stephen Covey!

 

Kudu