Planning for the new year

[Stosh]

"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."

Here's where the comments break down.  :^)  What do the boys want to do?  Is the structure of the troop patrol-method?  Who's running the show?

If one has to set aside patrol time, maybe it's because the troop-method is being used.  If someone were to ask when the last time we had a troop meeting, they would all say the same thing, "Last Court of Honor".  Otherwise ALL the meetings are patrol meetings.

Each of the comments that are provided seem to be a little adult directed.  The adults are dissatisfied with how things are going, what do the boys think?

I constantly question myself and my motives.  Yes there are things I dictatorially do in the troop (safety issues).  But I am constantly standing back and letting go when the opportunity for a boy to lead presents itself.  When the boys become frustrated with the program, or loose vision, that is the time to offer suggestions, not at an annual PLC meeting. 

Our "elections" for PL's and troop officers is set in a schedule of "Whenever".  If a boy chooses not to present himself to do the task he was elected to, he may show up after a month and find his position filled with someone else.  Serving out a term is something each boy decides for himself.  If a patrol doesn't have a leader for a month, they have the right to have a leader who will be there and do the job.

Stosh  

[gcnphkr]

Yes, I inherited this. I've been working on it for about a year and a half now. I've got it so that I feel good about the current T-2-1 program. Are they perfect? No, that comes with repeated use. I'm working on getting the patrols to utilize skills in their games. But a patrol would rather play basketball than bring the material to splint 8 arms. "Steal the Bacon" takes no planning, having a contest involving lashings does. When I try to steer them to something than might require a little effort I get cries of "I thought we were boy led!"

 

Unfortunately the method this troop has used (until this year) to teach first aid was to have the first year scouts take the First Aid MB at summer camp. The class met for an hour a day for five days with 30+ scouts. I'm not convinced you can get through the T-2-1 first aid in 5 hours, certainly not with 30 scouts.

 

"Of course, the BoR should be able to see Scouts lacking these abilities are not prepared for advancement."

 

I'm not sure how they can do this. They can't retest them. The book is signed off. I know the Advancement Guidebook and the Committee Guidebook both discuss that the board determines if the scout is ready to advance, but it does not tell how to do this or give specific reasons not to pass a scout. I really don't know how you would do this for Star or Life. Most of these skills are T-2-1 or in a Merit Badge that is even more inviolate. The scout may have received it at a MB mill, but you are stuck with it as far as I can tell.(This message has been edited by jet526)

[jmwalston]

"I'm working on getting the patrols to utilize skills in their games. But a patrol would rather play basketball than bring the material to splint 8 arms. "Steal the Bacon" takes no planning, having a contest involving lashings does. When I try to steer them to something than might require a little effort I get cries of "I thought we were boy led!""

 

If that is their choice, then so be it. However, as noted, they are not checking off advancement requirements, therefore they will not advance. Only applies to 2nd Class and Tenderfoot trying to advance, what about the others? Have your SM Conference with those. Still falls on deaf ears? Well, they will hit the wall when they try to put together their Eagle Service Project, you know, the one requiring leadership. Remember, a Scout advances at his own rate. If you have some go-getter Scouts who want to do Scouting, let them get together and form their own Patrol.

 

"I'm not sure how they can do this. They can't retest them. The book is signed off. I know the Advancement Guidebook and the Committee Guidebook both discuss that the board determines if the scout is ready to advance, but it does not tell how to do this or give specific reasons not to pass a scout. I really don't know how you would do this for Star or Life. Most of these skills are T-2-1 or in a Merit Badge that is even more inviolate. The scout may have received it at a MB mill, but you are stuck with it as far as I can tell."

 

True, so take the MB Mill out of the equation. A Scout has to come to you for the blue card. Coming back from somewhere with MBs that you can verify are not completed? Tell the Advancement Chair of our Troop Committee. There has to be a signature confirming Advancement reports to Council. Two for BoRs advancement. Get your Committee behind you. Let them know what's going on in the Troop.

[Twocubdad]

If I were in your unit, Jet, I would be very supportive of the changes you are suggesting. I thik they will generally increase the level of Scout leadership in the troop. It may not represent the by-the-book, picture-perfect ideal of a boy led troop, but you're heading in the right direction. In discussing program and policy on the Internet, I think we tend to argue in the extremes. Truth is most of us are in your position with less than perfect troops that we are trying mold.

 

Boy-led doesn't mean adult absent. Youth Leadership and Adult Association are both Methods of Scouting. We have a responsibility to guide the Scouts into good decisions. The Scoutmaster is ultimately responsible for the program. Allowing the election of a SPL you know will crash and burn may or may not be a good idea. Sometimes controlled failure is a good teaching tool, but sometimes not. The SPL and the troop may learn a good lesson about selecting leaders, but the cost of that lesson may be that the troop program is in the latrine for six months. We have a responsibility to ensure that all the Scouts in the troop receive a good program, not just those learning leadership skills.

 

The lesson I've learned from both experience and from other long-time Scoutmasters is that I have to continually monitor and adjust the level of adult involvement. Sometimes adjustments are made on a macro scale, as with the election of stronger or weaker junior leaders. Sometimes the adjustments are on a micro scale as weekly programs ebb and flow. Don't mis-intrepret that to mean that I'm jumping in and rescuing every little mistake. I'm not. It's more that that the size, height and tension of the safety net needs regular attention.

 

One of my rookie mistakes as a new SM was to try to push for 100% Scout led troop meetings at a time when the SPL and PLC wasn't quite ready for it. When I took over the troop it was more adult absent than boy led. We conducted TJLT and held monthly PLC meetings for the first time in years. At the end of the first year, I was all pumped up to have the Scouts run the troop meetings. Unfortunately, just because I was ready didn't mean the Scouts were. The new SPL just didn't have the interpersonal skills necessary -- especially since this was new to the whole troop. It was a rough year and I think from a Scout skill and instruction standpoint the troop suffered for it. Many of the middle-aged Scouts were totally bored and disconnected. But from the standpoint of ultimately becoming more Scout-led, the results were worthwhile. The following year, we tried to adjust the mix of pure Scout led meetings and activities with more adult involvement. We're still trying to get it right.

 

In terms of how the SPL and PLs are selected, I believe the SM should offer his advice and consent over who goes on the ballot for SPL. Scouts interested in running must first have a Scoutmaster Conference on the subject. I've had boys who want to be SPL who weren't ready for the job and I've steered them in other directions. We often have elections with only one name on the ballot (only once due to me, usually because we have fairly few older Scouts who want the job and they tend to horse trade for jobs).

 

In the past the PL elections have been wide open. That's changing. We're now going to require that PL's be First Class (that's always been an informal, unenforced rule) and have completed troop junior leader training. This last term several of my older (14y.o.) guys thought it would be fun to dump all the patrol jobs onto the younger guys. Had they been willing to let those boys lead it would have been fine, but it was just their way of sticking it to the system. Their next SM conference will be an eye opener for them.

 

I've had good and bad results from PL elections. When my older son first crossed over into the troop, they elected the popular, outgoing kid who they all perceived to be a leader as their first PL. (The troop was not properly using the NSP program at the time.) That kid attended a total of two troop meetings and was never heard from again. After floundering for a month or so waiting for their PL to return, the APL stepped up and the patrol moved forward. In that case, those guys learned a good lesson about selecting leaders which has stuck with them ever since.

 

On the other hand, a year or so later, the following class of Scouts elected a PL only because he needed the POR. This kid was a troublemaker. When things didn't go his way he would either abandon the group or actively try to undermine it. None of the boys respected him or wanted to follow his lead. While these boys may have learned a lesson about dealing with a lousey boss, the problems caused and the damage done in those six months is still being felt in the troop two years later.