SM trying to change my son's personality

[goodkidsmom]

Wow, I never expected so much help - what great group you are!

 

Scoutingagain - no need to apologize; I didn't realize just how active he was until I added up all the campouts etc.

My guess is that more assertive means speaking up more (he is VERY quiet). He does not make his wishes or complaints known. He comes home and tells us whatever was bugging him (i.e. troop bully) and then we come to the rescue. Sticking up for himself on this issue would certainly count, but at this point his personality just isn't like that. As he matures that may change, or maybe it won't. Maybe if assertiveness is so important to SM he should do some workshops or get in some speakers.

 

acco40 - we joked around about your point about jumping in the lake. It's tempting......but of course he shouldn't and won't do it. I think it'd be a great idea for him to call SM and say "The requirement says "participate" and I did, so as far as I'm concerned I've met the requirement, so I expect you to sign it. There, is that assertive enough for you?" I would do that, but I'm assertive and he's not.

 

How does He want to handle it? He is so disillusioned by this whole mess that he really doesn't care. He just wants to crawl into the sand and have it all go away. He is not accustomed to rejection and when he does get it he doesn't handle it well at all.

 

Update: I talked to two district (council? not sure of the difference) execs, each of whom offered to talk to SM and CC (I said not at this point), and each of whom suggested talking to the CC. Our CC is also the district advancement chair, so there's a possible conflict of interest here. Each agreed that Participate means exactly that, and that assertive is not a requirement. We all agreed that SM probably has the boy's best interests at heart, but that this isn't the way to help him.

 

My husband talked to SM tonight. (My husband is NOT assertive so it was probably not as strong a talk as I would have had.....but that's not necessarily bad). SM said the Committee said he should not pass along boys to the BOR if he thinks they're not ready - behavior, scout spirit, etc. Since he thinks assertiveness is important and wants my son to become stronger in that area (how? by being rejected?), he didn't want to pass him along. SM said to talk to CC to clarify that and that he'll go along with CC. Since CC is the Distr. Advanc. Chair, he *should* go along with the actual requirements.

 

Where did that come from? There were some instances in our troop where boys with problem behavior (i.e. troop bully and some of his gang) got young ASMs (in one case an 18 yr old who had attended only 1-2 meetings in the past year) to sign off on "scout spirit" and "serve actively" and SM Conf, and then showed up for the BOR with all requirements completed.

 

Some parents - including me - objected strongly to these kids getting advanced when their behavior was so disruptive, and suggested to the committee that they not be allowed to slide through like that. In response, the committee said that only the SM could do the SM Conf for the higher ranks. That was well intentioned, but they *should* have included "Scout Spirit" and "serve actively", and perhaps opened it up to 1-2 select adult ASMs (we are blessed with a LOT of adults) in case a particular scout might be more comfortable with a different adult than the SM. Then the behavior problems etc. couldn't slide through.

 

Anyway, that suggestion obviously backfired here!

 

My husband has placed a call to the CC so we'll see.......

 

Thanks so much, and I'll let you know how it comes out, and of course will be interested in any more suggestions or comments!

 

[Bob White]

Arm your son with some facts. Scout Spirit according to the BSA(and this is found in the Scout Handbook and a variety of other BSA sources) refers to how the scout lives the Oath and Law in his everyday life.

 

Assertive is not mentioned in either of these oaths. The qualification of "assertive" needs to be stricken from the converstaion in the Board of review. I would suggest that the District Advancement Chair meet with the Committee (and the SM) sometime before your sons BOR and review with them the purpose and elements of a BOR. Otherwise you are sending him into trap.

[dsteele]

Goodkidsmom:

 

I have no doubt that you are any of the things that your pen-name implies. I have no doubt that your son is a good kid and that you are his Mom. I also have no doubt that you care very deeply about your son.

 

I hope I don't offend you with this. However (doesn't there always seem to be a "but" after sentences hoping not to offend?) I do have to say that two phrases in your above post make me wonder. You said that he doesn't complain (I'm paraphrasing) at troop meetings, etc. But when he complains at home, you and your husband "come to the rescue."

 

Secondly, I've not been a parent, but I have been A Scoutmaster. I always expected the boys to do things for themselves. If they had a beef on a meeting or a campout, I expected them to inform me of it in a diplomatic manner. That doesn't mean confrontational (read assertive) but I would have wanted to hear from the kid himself that he didn't like whatever it was. I wouldn't want to hear it from Mom or Dad three weeks later.

 

I'm leaving the advancement issue to the folks here who have more knowledge than I about such things. However, at the risk of being a non-parent Scout leader giving advice to parents -- I suggest you talk through this kind of difficult situation with your son to help him come up with a plan of action to help him deal with his difficult situation.

 

Your son is on the verge of emerging into life on his own. Wouldn't it be better to help him learn to deal with difficult situations in a "leadership laboratory" such as Scouting than to make him learn it with his landlord in a few years? Or with his employer?

 

Sooner or later, Mom and Dad can't come to the rescue and he has to deal with life. All I'm suggesting is that he learn to stand on his own sooner rather than later.

 

I'm with him when it comes to the brawl ball -- or dodge ball as we used to call it -- I was never any good at it either and would just as soon have avoided it.

 

Assertive doesn't mean he needs to box his Scoutmaster. But if he hates peas, he should suggest they be left off the patrol menu on the cookout.

 

Unc.

[goodkidsmom]

Good advice, Bob - thanks. Note that CC and District Advancement Chair are the same person, so he SHOULD know that "assertiveness" is not part of the Oath or Law and that it can't be added at whim. When my husband talks to him tomorrow, if he senses that he is sticking with the "assertiveness" bit, we will go higher.

 

My son does know that this is not a requirement - it's a shame that an authority figure whom he should respect is holding him back on something that's not even legit - but your post points out that we should arm him with a polite response. I think we'll suggest that if the term "assertiveness" comes up during the BOR he could politely suggest that they could schedule a troop activity to work on leadership and assertiveness skills, and then change the topic back to something more relevant.

 

As an aside, my non-assertive kid does not speak up when an authority figure is being authoritative, but tonight he WAS effectively teaching and correcting students in a younger kids' Karate class, then went on to work out and also help in his own class, then worked effectively with adults in the adult class (5:30-9:00). Today we received an unsolicited letter from the school librarian thanking him for his "wonderful" volunteer work throughout the school year (easily 6-10 hours/week) with the library and audio-visual department, including managing the stage crew, video-taping school productions, "always being there to help", etc. Hmmm..... maybe he's not assertive, but he's certainly "friendly", "helpful", and "trustworthy" at the very least!

 

Good night,

Mom

[goodkidsmom]

Uncleguinea, you do not offend me, and you are absolutely correct. I agree with you 100%. He does NOT speak up, and we DO come to his rescue. We want him to speak up for himself. He will have to start sticking up for himself more as he matures. Teaching Karate, Managing Stage Crew, etc., as well as Mom and Dad backing off (which I HAVE been doing more and more), will (we hope) help with this.

 

However (yup, I get a however too!) the immediate reason for my posts is whether or not SM can refuse to sign off on the SM Conference because of assertiveness or the lack thereof, i.e. whether SM can change or add to the requirements, and everything I've been reading and hearing today is that the SM is out of bounds.

 

After all this is over we - AND SM if he wants to - will continue to encourage him to speak up for himself, and will continue to step back so he'll be more likely to do so.

 

Thanks for your post, it is well taken!

Mom

[FScouter]

"SM said the Committee said he should not pass along boys to the BOR if he thinks they're not ready - behavior, scout spirit, etc. "

 

I have to take issue with that attitude of the Scoutmaster and the committee. A boy is ready for a board of review when he has completed the requirements. There isn't anything for the SM to think about. Either the boy has satisfactorily completed the requirements listed in the book or he hasn't.

 

If the SM is using the Scoutmaster conference as a roadblock, he is just plain wrong. The Scoutmaster conference is a only a discussion, an opportunity for the two of them to reflect upon the boy's accomplishments, and to look forward to the future. If he wants to encourage the boy to be more assertive, that is great, and a perfectly acceptable topic to be discussed at a Scoutmaster conference. Maybe the boy could use some encouragement. But it is absolutely wrong to hold that up as an additional requirement that must be completed to the satisfaction of the SM before advancement will be permitted.

 

If he is going to be a stinker about this, I'd challenge him to point to the specific pages in the Scout Handbook that your boy needs to work on to meet the listed requirements. And challenge him to point to the pages that say the Scoutmaster conference is a subjective test that must be passed.

 

[goodkidsmom]

I agree completely.

 

The committee wanted to avoid having scouts with behavior problems sliding through by getting a young ASM to sign off. The committee thus decided that only the SM could do the SM Conference for the higher ranks so boys couldn't slip through the cracks.

 

This was well-intentioned, but incorrectly thought out. Clearly the committee should have said that only the SM (or perhaps specific adult ASMs) can sign off for "Scout Spirit" and "participate actively" as well as the SM Conference. That would take care of not letting behavior problems slip through b/c the adult ASMs and SM would take those two requirements more seriously than some of our younger inexperienced 18 yr old ASMs or junior ASMs or whatever they are.

 

This should not affect my son, because he has completed all requirements, however we will be sure to talk to CC and committee as a whole to correct this problem for the future.

 

Thanks for the post!

Mom

 

 

[scoutingagain]

FScouter suggests "If he is going to be a stinker about this, I'd challenge him to point to the specific pages in the Scout Handbook that your boy needs to work on to meet the listed requirements. And challenge him to point to the pages that say the Scoutmaster conference is a subjective test that must be passed. "

 

I agree 100%, doing so a politely as possible. But, I think if you could get your son to make this challenge, it would demonstrate the "assertiveness" your SM is looking for. That might be all he's looking for. It could start out something like, " Excuse me Mr. SM, do you mind if I ask you a question?"

 

This may be a learning opportunity for your son. He has fulfilled the requirements. He knows he is right. An authority figure is wrong. This will happen in life. He can choose to step forward and assert his right to his rank advancement, have Mom and Dad come to the rescue again or forego the rank advancement.

 

And Goodkidsmom, I understand. My older son(17) making a bank transaction yesterday, called his mom on the cell phone to ask how to fill out a form instead of asking a teller!(He's one step away from Blackbelt himself.) My younger son, our scout, probably would have shouted out in the lobby, "Does anyone know how to fill this thing out?"

 

Again, Best of Luck.

 

 

SA

[goodkidsmom]

Yup, I agree again. But we wouldn't be here if he spoke up. He just plain won't. Personality, depression, not challenging an authority figure, whatever - he won't. Trying to get him to deal with this one himself would a) result in major family fights b) him going to his room crying and getting more depressed and c) possibly dropping out of Scouts.

 

Challenging an authority figure with whom he's had an uncomfortable experience (to say the least) is way beyond him at this point. Mom and Dad will deal with this one because it seems to be a pretty serious instance of a SM stepping out of bounds and is not something for a kid to try to fix.

 

However, we'll continue to back off and encourage/bug him to speak up for himself more on issues that he can / should handle himself. Last night he wanted me to talk to the Karate teacher about something and I told him nope, it was his problem, and he could deal with it. (He didn't, so took the consequences, but yay for Mom!)

[goodkidsmom]

I had an interesting talk with my son about the content of the SM conference.

 

1) SM did it WITH an ASM - why, to have back-up for a pre-planned "fail"? Or, maybe it was to make my son feel more comfortable b/c there HAS been some awkwardness with the SM? But maybe what looked like a two-against-one situation was uncomfortable?

 

2) They talked about the usual - what he's done, what he likes/dislikes, goals, strengths and weaknesses. When asked about weaknesses my son said "not participating in the games during the meetings and I need to be more assertive and speak up more". SM then said "I'm glad you brought this up", talked about those issues, and then said he'd be looking for a change and they could do the SM Conf again in about six months.

 

Later in the meeting, after the boy told Dad SM wouldn't sign off and Dad talked to SM to find out why. SM said "six months" and Dad said "no way". After some discussion, SM left it at "when I see some improvement, I'll sign him off".

 

Of course that's not acceptable, neither the six months or the when he sees some improvement part. We already know that he can't add a requirement or not sign off on one that was completed.

 

BUT what I find interesting here, is that MY SON is the one who brought up the lack of assertiveness, recognizing and admitting that this is a weakness - so then SM turns around and slaps him in the face by saying "you're right, so I won't sign off"????? Real nice! SM definitely needs "Psych 101 for Scoutmasters - How to Help Kids Effectively"

 

GKMom

[EagleInKY]

Okay, forgive me, but I'm going to play devil's advocate again (or is that Scoutmaster's advocate) ;-)

As I mentioned, I've had issues with a paticular scout, we'll call him Billy. A SM conference earlier in the year went like this (after all of the how are you doing, what do you enjoy types of questions):

 

SM, So, Billy, where are some areas you can improve as a scout?

Billy:  Stop getting in trouble so much, I guess.

SM:  Good, yes, we had a rough time last campout didn't we?  And at your last patrol function, I understand you got a little unruly.  Is that true?

Billy:  Yes sir.

SM:  Is that living according to the Scout Law?

Billy:   I guess not.

(and it goes on from there)

Now, where I differ from the SM is that I didn't say, "come back and see me in six months".  I told "Billy" that we were going to monitor his behavior and that I wanted to see some improvement at the next campout and the next patrol events.  Until I saw some, I would not signoff on his Scout Spirit requirement.

"Billy" had completed all the requirements for 2nd Cass & 1st Class early in the year.  I signed off on SS for 2nd Class in April.  I'm getting ready to do the same for 1st class, assuming all goes well at Summer Camp in 2 weeks.

I think it is reasonable for the SM to establish some goals for your son to make an improvement in an area.  Six months is too long a period, that seems like an eternity for a young lad.  It would have been better for him to give him some milestones that were close and within his grasps (let's see how you do at Summer Camp, Over the next 2 months, at JLT, etc.). 

BTW, there is a point of the Scout Law that does apply.  It's "A Scout is Brave". 

I hope you get this worked out soon.  My best to your son.

[EagleInKY]

Mom said "SM said the Committee said he should not pass along boys to the BOR if he thinks they're not ready - behavior, scout spirit, etc. "

 

FS said "I have to take issue with that attitude of the Scoutmaster and the committee. A boy is ready for a board of review when he has completed the requirements. There isn't anything for the SM to think about. Either the boy has satisfactorily completed the requirements listed in the book or he hasn't."

 

I agree. However, I think the confusion may be around terminology. It sounds like the SM is saying that the boy hasn't met the Scout Spirit requirement. If that is the case, he is within his "rights" (although maybe not applied well). If he's saying that he's signed off on Scout Spirit and is holding up the Scoutmaster's Conference, then he's wrong, as you have stated.

 

I'm going to spin off a thread regarding the SM's responsibility for the boy to be "ready" for the BOR.

[Bob White]

EagleInKY, I find myself compelled to ask this...

 

Why did the SM wait until the SM conference to bring this up? Would a more appropriate and certainly more effective time to counsel on this situation have been at the time it happened?

 

If that was done and resolved then, why bring it up again now?

 

Why only discuss what the scout did wrong and what the negative result of that will be. When were the imprtant issues dealt with? Why did the scout behave that way? Does he know how he could have handled things differently? Was he supported and or rewarded when he handled similar situations in a more scout-like manner? Anyone can point out a childs faults. What actions were taken by the leaders to develop and lead the scout into the desired behavior BEFORE the Scoutmaster conference? Does telling a scout that you want to see improvement tell the scout anything specific? It is a wandering target that he wont know if he hit until the next time you meet.

 

When a scout is denied advancement he needs and deserves concrete and measurable actions to perform. A measurable goal. What could you have done to make the behavior you are looking for measurable for both you and the scout?

 

Finally, in the case of goodkidsmoms son. Assertiveness is not the same as Brave. One is a part of the Scout Law, one is not. To use anything outside of the Oath and Law to determine Scout Spirit is adding to the requirement and it is a violation of the BSA advancement policies.

 

[EagleInKY]

Bob - I agree with you completely. (really, I do). I don't believe this was handled correctly. I think too much time was allowed to go by before it came up, and too much time was given as a "requirement" for improving.

 

As for my example, I was specifically vague in my post, but was very specific in my actual conversations with the Scout. We also had the discussion months before he reached the point of having all other requirements completed for 2nd Class.

[goodkidsmom]

My son WAS signed off by one of the adult ASMs for "Scout Spirit" as well as for "participate actively". (the same ASM who also did his SM Conference that the CC later would not accept and made him repeat with the SM ) So as far as we're concerned, he has completed ALL requirements except for the BOR.

 

Now, beyond my son's issue, where does the SM have leeway to deal with kids who misbehave, aren't ready to move on, etc? Clearly "Scout Spirit" and "Participate Actively".

 

Certainly a scout who misbehaves, is slovenly, unfriendly, rude, etc could be dealt with in Scout Sprit. I wonder, though, if lack of assertiveness would fit even there? I suppose it could fit in with brave.....but semantics aside, is "assertive" is a requirement, EVEN as part of Scout Spirit? Assertive and its synonyms are not part of the Scout Oath and Law, and I don't think they appear anywhere in the Handbook.

 

Speaking up for oneself is certainly a sign of maturity and leadership - but not the only sign, and kids do vary in maturity and leadership. For that matter, are maturity and leadership requirements? Certainly they are needed for Eagle - but we're not there yet.

 

That brings me to the original title of this post, in which I refered to "personality". Is a quiet shy kid who won't interrupt adults and doesn't speak till spoken to less deserving of rank than the in-your-face variety? Certainly SM doesn't have the right to REQUIRE a change from quiet and shy. Does the SM have the right to even TRY try to change quiet and shy? SM has the right - and perhaps responsibility - to try to change discourteous, dishonest, unclean, etc - those things that violate the oath and law - but personality traits that are not in violation? I don't think so!

 

GKMom