Planning for the new year

[gcnphkr]

Our annual planning conference is coming up in two weeks, troop elections are a month after that. I've been thinking about the current program an ways to make it better. So here are some things I'm thinking of doing.

 

Free up at least 4 months for just patrol activities. The patrol leader will be expected to lead his patrol in planning and executing these activities.

 

Change the way we do elections and leader transition. In the past we have the patrols form (they don't change much, but there is always a few that move to a different patrol) and then they elect their patrol leader with the only eligibility requirement being that the patrol leader be at least First Class. After the election we have our TLT. This results in a couple of issues. First, the patrols generally just have the patrol leader be the scout that needs the POR credit the most and he then ends up just doing time. The training is held so soon after the election that the new SPL does not have the time to be ready to lead most of it, leaving it to me to cover. Fortunately, I've now 3 NYLT trained scouts, including one that was on staff so I'll be having them do most of the course this time. I'm thinking I want to change this to having the TLT as well as some supplemental skills training for the scouts who want to become patrol leaders before the election. These trained scouts would then run for the position of patrol leader with the entire troop. It would work similar to a caucus. Each scout would pick the patrol that has the patrol leader that they want. Each patrol would have to have at least 6 members and would be limited to no more than 9 (I'm not sure of a fair way to cap it though). I think this may motivate the patrol leaders better. Another fortunate thing is I'll have about twice as many scouts needing a POR than there are available, which should put pressure on them to do a better job. I need to figure out how to work ASM, patrol advisor assignments. I only have 5 or 6 that are fully trained and willing to be patrol advisors and I really need 8 or 9.

 

Change the PLC meetings. They currently meet for an hour before the committee meetings, which forces them to finish in an hour. I'd like to move the meeting to a different night, start with a half hour "Greenbar Patrol" meeting to help teach them how to conduct patrol meetings and to give them a way to try out new games and ways to teaching skills. Then allow them to have their hour planning for the month ahead.

 

Have the PLC plan the month using the Troop Program Features. I suggested this to them last year, but it feel on deaf ears. I really think this would make their life easier (the ideas are there, they just need to pick and implement) and the program better.

 

Troop campouts. Spread them out. I'm not sure that 100 yards is practical (I figure that would require about 14 acres for the troop) but at least 100 yards from the trailer. The more they have to carry over a longer distant the more they will prioritize what they need. Discourage the use of stoves except were LNT or fire restrictions require them. The campout must include some skill related activity, a hike with map and compass, pioneering project, collecting plant samples, etc.

 

Either find a way to make the patrol time during the troop meeting effective or devote one troop meeting night a month to just patrol meetings with perhaps an inter-patrol competition involving the month's theme at the end.

 

Only allow fully trained ASMs or scout leaders who have gone though the extended TLT training (so I know they have the skills themselves) sign off on skill requirements.

 

Finally, no more SPL or ASPLs who phone it in. If they are too busy with football, track, band, swimming, or the school musical to be at every event then they don't need to be in those positions. Let their football, track, band, etc. coaches and teachers let them out of those activities if they want to do both.

 

So, are these reasonable? I'm sure there are other things I've not thought of, or have left out because we are already doing them. Anything that you can think of would be helpful. Most of this is from reading around here and the PTC's Strictly for Scoutmasters course. The Scoutmaster Handbook is helpful, and I will be rereading it again this week, but as I recall it tends to be more general, leaving it to the scoutmaster to figure out how to do the actual implementation of the program.

 

Thank you.

[Nike]

What do the boys think? What they want isn't always what's best, but they need to buy in.

[gcnphkr]

We will see. They have not been discussed with everyone. Among those I have discussed items with the younger scouts (predictably) have been in favor, the older scouts have been mostly okay with things but with a level of apathy normal in 15-17 year-olds. I'll meet with the SPL and ASPLs this weekend to go over the agenda so we can be on the same page before the conference and we will make any modifications needed.

[jmwalston]

Change the PLC meetings. They currently meet for an hour before the committee meetings, which forces them to finish in an hour. "I'd like to move the meeting to a different night, start with a half hour "Greenbar Patrol" meeting to help teach them how to conduct patrol meetings and to give them a way to try out new games and ways to teaching skills. Then allow them to have their hour planning for the month ahead."

 

That sounds reasonable, it will also let the boys have time to pause and reflect.

 

 

 

"Have the PLC plan the month using the Troop Program Features. I suggested this to them last year, but it feel on deaf ears. I really think this would make their life easier (the ideas are there, they just need to pick and implement) and the program better."

 

Great idea, but... Boy-led troop, let them decide. Sometimes they will play devil's advocate simply because it looks like too much adult planning involved. Let them know they are available if they come up with something they want to do, but aren't sure how to do it.

 

 

"Troop campouts. Spread them out. I'm not sure that 100 yards is practical (I figure that would require about 14 acres for the troop) but at least 100 yards from the trailer. The more they have to carry over a longer distant the more they will prioritize what they need. Discourage the use of stoves except were LNT or fire restrictions require them. The campout must include some skill related activity, a hike with map and compass, pioneering project, collecting plant samples, etc."

 

Good idea, or they will make several trips. Probably want credit for hiking too. I do work with a Troop whose SM makes them cook at least one meal during the day in a Dutch Oven, their choice which meal.

 

 

"Only allow fully trained ASMs or scout leaders who have gone though the extended TLT training (so I know they have the skills themselves) sign off on skill requirements."

 

Bad idea. It is adding a requirement to rank.

 

 

 

"Finally, no more SPL or ASPLs who phone it in. If they are too busy with football, track, band, swimming, or the school musical to be at every event then they don't need to be in those positions. Let their football, track, band, etc. coaches and teachers let them out of those activities if they want to do both."

 

Bad idea. Same reason as above. And it means that it is no longer a boy-led troop.

 

Just my thoughts. Let the boys decide their leaders. If it doesn't work, then the boys will have learned a lesson.

[gcnphkr]

jmwalston, thank you. I do appreciate what you are saying but I do have a could of issues with what you wrote."Only allow fully trained ASMs or scout leaders who have gone though the extended TLT training (so I know they have the skills themselves) sign off on skill requirements." Bad idea. It is adding a requirement to rank.

How does this add a requirement to rank? From the Advancement Guide:

 

The Boy Scout is tested. A Scout may be tested on rank requirements by his patrol leader, Scoutmaster, assistant Scoutmaster, a troop committee member, or a member of his troop. The Scoutmaster maintains a list of those qualified to give tests and to pass candidates. The Scouts merit badge counselor teaches and tests on the requirements for merit badges.

The determination of who is qualify is up to the Scoutmaster. I cannot prevent a qualified scout from being a patrol leader, but I can certainly can make it so that they are not permitted to conduct the testing. That all this various classes of people may do this does not mean that I am required to qualify them to do it, otherwise I would be forced to allow a brand new scout to test and sign himself off on any requirement.

"Finally, no more SPL or ASPLs who phone it in. If they are too busy with football, track, band, swimming, or the school musical to be at every event then they don't need to be in those positions. Let their football, track, band, etc. coaches and teachers let them out of those activities if they want to do both." Bad idea. Same reason as above. And it means that it is no longer a boy-led troop.

How is that? How can a SPL run "all troop meetings, events, activities, and the annual program planning conference" and "the patrol leaders' council meeting" if he is not there? If "the troop determines the requirements for patrol leaders, such as rank and age" why would the troop not have this same ability to determine the requirements for the SPL? I would not remove a SPL from office for missing an event, but he should understand that he is making a commitment to the troop to be there just like the coach is expecting him to be there at the game. Life gives you choices, no one is forced to be a SPL. I don't see how this would make it so that the troop is not boy-led.(This message has been edited by jet526)

[jmwalston]

If you choose who can be SPL (the SPL chooses his ASPL), then it isn't a boy-led troop. You are determining who can and can not be a leader, not the boys. If it is a matter of experience and training determining who can be elected, then it comes down to who gets the training. Just because you are trained doesn't mean you are the best for the job. Experience isn't necessarily an indicator either. Otherwise, Barak Obama would be the wrong candidate for the DP.

 

If a Patrol elects a PL who you determine isn't qualified to check off on rank requirements, then how is the Patrol method going to be applied? You have effectively removed the PL's ability to lead and train his patrol. What message is being sent?

 

A bad SPL? It happens. If we (the People) elect a poor President, do we not correct it when re-election comes around? How will boys learn from their mistakes to make good judgement calls if we only give them a "winning" slate to choose from?

[Nike]

Why not let the boys write a job description for the SPL to include his required/expected level of participation? Then they are selecting the candidate pool.

[gcnphkr]

So, are you saying that any boy should be eligible to be the SPL? The Scoutmaster's Handbook states that "Each troop sets its own requirements" for the SPL. The scouts determined these requirements years ago and are free to change them. All I am doing to seeing that they are implemented. Requiring the training prior to election rather than after would be the only change, and that bit of timing is not particularly important to me, it just makes it easier on the SPL in that the out going one is doing the training and not the new one.

If a Patrol elects a PL who you determine isn't qualified to check off on rank requirements, then how is the Patrol method going to be applied? You have effectively removed the PL's ability to lead and train his patrol. What message is being sent?

What message? That you should know a skill if you want to test people on it. I'm not sure how that is bad. Looking over the Patrol Leader Handbook I see that the Patrol Leader is to "Encourage patrol members to complete their own advancement requirements". What I don't find is anything stating or implying that they would be testing the members in the patrol. Of the four steps of advancement Learning is primarily the PLC's responsibility (either within the patrol or as a troop), Testing is the Scoutmaster's, Review is the committee's and Recognition it the troop's. I will not preventing anyone who shows himself to be proficient at a skill from testing that skill. All he needs to do is show me what he knows.

How will boys learn from their mistakes to make good judgement calls if we only give them a "winning" slate to choose from?

It seems to me there is a big difference between eliminating obvious bad choices and ensuring only good ones.

[gcnphkr]

Why not let the boys write a job description for the SPL to include his required/expected level of participation? Then they are selecting the candidate pool.That is what they have done.

[John-in-KC]

Jet,

 

Have you thought of letting the PLC brainstorm qualifications for SPL and ASPL, then carrying back to the Patrols for ratification?

 

Then, they're the ones making the policy decision, not you.

 

Also, agree with Mr Walston on the limitation of sign-offs. Power down. Let the Patrol Leaders and TGs be the signers. If they goof, you've got a chance for a SM conference and some gentle mentoring about "Why doing it Right is Important?"

 

Let the kids decide what criteria cuts it for cooking. If a kid is working on Cooking MB, requiring him to do a Dutch meal IS ADDING TO HIS REQUIREMENTS. (Requirements 3 and 4 call for a ONE POT DINNER; the Scout gets to make the call on what his pot is, it need not be a Dutch).

 

Right now, the approach you've posited thus far is Adult Run Troop Method.

[jmwalston]

"What message? That you should know a skill if you want to test people on it. I'm not sure how that is bad. Looking over the Patrol Leader Handbook I see that the Patrol Leader is to "Encourage patrol members to complete their own advancement requirements". What I don't find is anything stating or implying that they would be testing the members in the patrol. Of the four steps of advancement Learning is primarily the PLC's responsibility (either within the patrol or as a troop), Testing is the Scoutmaster's, Review is the committee's and Recognition it the troop's. I will not preventing anyone who shows himself to be proficient at a skill from testing that skill. All he needs to do is show me what he knows."

 

You do not let your patrol leaders train and check off advancement? The SM/ASM Specifics training has video modules showing just that scenario. It's part of boy-led/boy-enpowered. The message I felt you sent with your suggested set-up was that a Patrol could have a PL who had no authority because he was considered lacking in credentials. Patrol members taught by him had to have advancement approved by others.

 

"Of the four steps of advancement Learning is primarily the PLC's responsibility (either within the patrol or as a troop), Testing is the Scoutmaster's, Review is the committee's and Recognition it the troop's. I will not preventing anyone who shows himself to be proficient at a skill from testing that skill. All he needs to do is show me what he knows."

 

Are you the sole decider of advancement completion for your troop? Do you make the Scout do the requirement again? And please, don't interpret this as condensending, because I am not phrasing it in that manner. It just seems that you've added a step in the advancement procedure by assuming the "testing" phase. Page 124 of the SM Handbook says, "Scouts in regular patrols and Venture patrols might be tested by adult troop leaders or by their own patrol leaders, troop guides, or another junior leader (i.e. SPL, ASPL, Instructors, JASM, etc.), provided that the boy leader has already earned the rank the Scout is aiming for." It also states in the next paragraph, "Completing a requirement is often more a checkoff process than a formal examination." Let the boys do this. This is part of their growth cycle in Scouting.

 

 

[gcnphkr]

This is difficult. I very much want to be defensive, at the same time I want to make sure that the program is the best that it can be. But getting there is not a clear or simple path. I don't mean to argue, so thank you for your patience.

You do not let your patrol leaders train and check off advancement? The SM/ASM Specifics training has video modules showing just that scenario. It's part of boy-led/boy-enpowered.

You will notice it that video that the PL knows how to tie the knot and is able to teach an other scout how to do the same. What do you do if the PL does not know how to tie the knot? Do you say, "You are a First Class scout, you should know how to tie the knot so do you best and then sign them off when they know what you know"? I don't think so--that doesn't empower the scout, it just frustrates him. I need to sit down with that PL, teach them how to tie the knot, how to teach others to tie and then have them teach the skill to their patrol.

Page 124 of the SM Handbook says, "Scouts in regular patrols and Venture patrols might be tested by adult troop leaders or by their own patrol leaders, troop guides, or another junior leader (i.e. SPL, ASPL, Instructors, JASM, etc.), provided that the boy leader has already earned the rank the Scout is aiming for."

I agree, but that assumes that the Scout learned the skill in the first place. What I'm trying to say is I have Life Scouts who cannot build a fire, bandage a sprained ankle or stop an arterial bleed. Someone signed them off on all of these things. I can't take their T-2-1 away from them and I can't stop them from earning their Eagle. But it would be irresponsible for me to allow them to sign off other scouts on S2d-f, S6a and F8b. I can provide them an opportunity to learn these skills and create a culture were these skills are regularly used. Making sure that PLs know these skills is only a step in the process of getting to were the troop needs to be.If you had a Star Scout leading a patrol who did not know how to lash a square lashing would you have him teach lashings to Second Class scouts and sign them off? Would you climb a tower they built?

[jmwalston]

"I agree, but that assumes that the Scout learned the skill in the first place. What I'm trying to say is I have Life Scouts who cannot build a fire, bandage a sprained ankle or stop an arterial bleed. Someone signed them off on all of these things. I can't take their T-2-1 away from them and I can't stop them from earning their Eagle. But it would be irresponsible for me to allow them to sign off other scouts on S2d-f, S6a and F8b. I can provide them an opportunity to learn these skills and create a culture were these skills are regularly used. Making sure that PLs know these skills is only a step in the process of getting to were the troop needs to be."

 

OK, this is something entirely different. I assume that you inherited this position. You are right to provide them an opportunity to learn the skills, but they have to want to do it. If you start putting limitations out there, it is no longer a boy-led unit. Let them set up new patrols. The higher rank boys will probably gravitate toward their own patrol. The other boys should form ones they are comfortable with. If you have Star and Life Scouts who can't do the basics, I hope that they haven't completed their First Aid and Camping MBs. Otherwise, you are stuck with a problem that is hard to rectify. Of course, the BoR should be able to see Scouts lacking these abilities are not prepared for advancement. Call BoRs for these Scouts. Go back to the basics for all your Scouts. Talk to your PLC about intrapatrol competion (knot tying rescue relays, first aid bandaging relays, etc.) and offer a prize for winners.

[John-in-KC]

No, you challenge that PL to:

 

1) Find a resource within the youth who CAN do the lashings, so the task gets done.

 

2) Earn his own Pioneering Merit Badge. Explain technical skill proficiency is a part of teaching. This way, he's doesn't have to find a resource any longer.

 

3) Re-look the requirement. Where does it say "build a tower" for the First Class pioneering? In fact, here is the requirement:

7a. Discuss when you should and should not use lashings.

7b. Demonstrate tying the timber hitch and clove hitch and their use in square, shear, and diagonal lashings by joining two or more poles or staves together.

7c. Use lashing to make a useful camp gadget.

http://www.scouting.org/BoyScouts/AdvancementandAwards/firstclass.aspx

 

This isn't about mass policy. This is about 1/1 interactions which you as SM should, nay, must have with your youth. Leverage on the Instructor position. If a young man has the skills to teach First Aid, encourage the SPL to nominate him for an Instructor's Warrant (yes, old term) for First Aid. Ditto map and compass, cookery, pioneering... whatever.

 

It also goes back to encouraging the youth to set qualifications for SPL, ASPL, and even PL. Do it through the PLC, with ratification by the Patrols. Then you have youth buy-in. There is nothing in the literature I know of which discourages setting thresholds for elected office ... as long as the youth set the threshold.

 

Does this make sense?

[asm 411]

I don't encourage my Scouts to set thresholds for leadership positions. I encourage my Scouts to think about what the leadership position entails and vote for the Scout who can get it done.

 

Last year we had a Scout who had been with our Troop for 6 years and just passed the swimmers test for First Class. He just had mental block about it. He has mounds of camping experience, great Scout skills and held several other PORs in the past. He was elected SPL and did a good job. If he had failed the swimmers test again should he have been denied the chance to run for SPL, I don't think so.

 

Our troop currently has two 12 year old Star Scouts. Are they ready to be SPL? I can't tell you for sure, and it is not my decision. The Scouts will pick who they think is best. They may make a horrible mistake but you know that is a lesson it itself isn't it.

 

My point is we don't need to put limitations on Positions of Responsibility we need to teach Scouts to think about the candidates and if they can get the job done.

 

Just my 2 cents.