ScoutMasters - do they get enough support?

[FScouter]

It's unreasonable to expect that posters here will hold their comments until all facts are revealed and both sides have presented their cases and rebuttals. We post reactions based on the one-sided scenario that is presented. If the facts presented point to the adult leader being a twit, I don't see anything wrong with saying so.

 

The unwritten preface to responses ought to be like Eagle said, "if this is truly the case...". Or "Based on the scenario painted, here is my response."

 

Is it really necessary to preface a response with a disclaimer?

[anarchist]

FScouter,

no it is not necessary to preface every post...

 

it is also not unreasonable to expect posters to keep an open mind, to be skeptical of absolutes and to be wary of unwarranted condemnation...

 

But you seem bent on hosting the next set of trials in Salem. In another thread you jumped (figuatively) all over a scout (remeber "Ralphie") and an SM for bullying based on a couple of sentences and a notation from the poster that there was more to it, but the writer was trying to be brief...What "facts" were given? Perhaps you meant allegations (?) or assumptions(?)contentions(?) accusations(?) but certainly no facts. Thoughtful dialogue requires information and answers should usually be tempered by the knowledge that you and I and the rest of the forum will never have all of the "Facts" nor necessarily even some of the facts...we can only be sure of getting the posters view of the situation from one side...

 

Instead of posing questions, offering ways to mediate and moderate both the "bullys" (your label) behavior and perhaps even the "disappointed 13 yr olds behavior...your short form answer was a sort of "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS"...

 

I think you need to watch some of the old JLT training tapes... to see how we ask the boys to handle conflict...would you like me to send you my copies? Probably wouldn't hurt to switch to decafe either...it's doing me a world of good...:>)

Anarchist

[Venividi]

Fscouter wrote: We post reactions based on the one-sided scenario that is presented. If the facts presented point to the adult leader being a twit, I don't see anything wrong with saying so.

 

Which, in my opinion, is doing a disservice. We don't want our scouts to "react" to a conflict situation, we want them to work it out. If a scout came up to me and told me that another scout hit him for no reason, I wouldn't assume this was factual and then suspend the second scout. I would want to ask a few questions first (or ask the SPL to do so). Because it just may come to light that only half a story was told; that the first scout had been teasing the other for the entire weekend. And that from the first scout's point of view, the teasing was just in fun, so to him the second scout hit him for no reason.

 

If I were to react based on the first scout's initial story, I would be validating his behavior (in his mind), implying that he was in the right, when in actuality he was a contibuting factor to the problem.

 

On the other hand, we (or the SPL, if we asked him to intervene), may find out that the second scout did hit him just because he happened to wander by after the scout got beaten by the Zorkons on his Gameboy.

 

Hence, in opinion, it is better to ask before react.

 

Regards,

 

[evmori]

To answer the original question - SM's get the support they want. Some extend the boundaries of the job description & take on other duties. Some don't do the minimum.

 

Problems in units isn't always the fault of the adult leadership as some posters believe. There are so many other factors involved it isn't even logical to think that way.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Eamonn]

I used to tease my dearly departed Mother about how she always managed to get things wrong.

It seems that yet again I have not seen what Venividi was getting at.

I was looking at the support that is out there that will help a leader. It seems he is asking do we do all we can to back up the SM, in times of conflict or when things don't go as planned or when parents are upset.

I know that in thread that ran a week or so back, there was a question about a Scoutmaster who hadn't signed off on a Scoutmaster Conference.

The support offered here depends on who is asking.

Clearly the Boy and the Parent were upset.

Clearly the SM was not in the right.

A lot depends on what happens next.

If the SM refuses to sign off, the best thing for the Lad and is parent is to get out of that unit ASAP. No good will come from them staying there.

If the SM asks "Am I wrong?" and some one who knows and understands the program takes the time to clearly and politely explain what he is doing isn't right. He has got the support that he needs.

What he does then is the big $64,000 question.

He can do nothing.

He can see that he was not right and still do nothing, but decide that he will start to follow the program. Or he can go back to the Lad and the parent and say that he now sees what he did was not right and then take it from there.

My views change depending on what "Hat" I'm wearing.

As the Dad of a Lad in the program, I think the best thing that the Lad can do is find a new Troop.

As a District Scouter, I would want to do all I could to show in a nice way that what the Scoutmaster did was not right and explain to him why it wasn't right.

Some Leaders are OK with hearing this and take kindly to it. Some are just pig-headed and want to not follow the program and continue to do what they want. Supporting these Leaders is almost impossible as they are not following the program. Sure they may give up time, sure they might be nice people. But they are not playing the game by the rules. While not knowing is one thing. That can be fixed. But the people who choose not to follow the program can't expect anyone to back them up or support them.

Eamonn.

 

[Venividi]

Eamonn,

 

Thanks for letting me know that I wasn't getting my point across. I didn't realize that I hadn't explained it well enough. I will try to do better.

 

You say in your last post "Clearly the SM was not in the right."

 

The point I was trying to make was that to me it is not clear, because I have heard only one side of what may be a more complicated story. I have seen and experienced too many examples of parents viewing the SM as wrong because they were not seeing the whole picture.

 

It wasn't my intent to get into the merits of theparticular thread you are refering to; I recognize that it may very well be an accurate representation of the entire picture. My intent was to be more general, and comment on the number of responses to a couple (or several)threads, where many of the responses were along the lines of validating that SM was in the wrong.

 

Yes, the SM may be in the wrong, but my premise was that it is prudent not to jump to that conclusion without first looking at a situation from other points of view.

 

I hope that I did a better job of explaining my point.

 

Cheers.

[FScouter]

"You say in your last post 'Clearly the SM was not in the right.'

The point I was trying to make was that to me it is not clear, because I have heard only one side of what may be a more complicated story."

 

When people post questions and scenarios in these forums, rarely do we get all the facts, all the background, and all the details. Our conclusions and advice cannot be based on details and circumstances we don't know about. Eamonn for example stated that "Clearly the SM was not in the right". Based on all the information presented, I would agree. Sure, there may be other details and circumstances that might make a difference, but we don't know what they are. We only know what has been presented. Thus, based on the circumstance presented, Eamonn concludes the SM is not in the right.

 

Same thing with the Ralph scenario. I am not condemning a particular boy or SM. I'm stating that bullying in a troop should not be tolerated. It's up to the original poster of that scenario to determine if bullying has taken place or not and decide his course of action.

 

Its not fair to condemn the conclusions and responses of other posters simply because all circumstances have not been revealed. Never will we get the whole story.

[Eamonn]

I think we can only deal with each post as it is posted!!

While I have gained a lot from these forums, I don't take anything that isn't linked to a BSA site or publication as being so with out checking. I do express my feelings and my opinion. I don't try and set myself up as being the final word.

Of course what we see in very often very one sided and only half the story.

As for you not getting your point across?? I think I could (Am??) guilty of seeing what I want to see.

Eamonn.

[anarchist]

"Same thing with the Ralph scenario. I am not condemning a particular boy or SM. I'm stating that bullying in a troop should not be tolerated. It's up to the original poster of that scenario to determine if bullying has taken place or not and decide his course of action."(FScouter quote)

 

FScouter...but you did condemn...YOU took the posters words (actually perjorative characterizations) "mission" and "miserable" and YOU labeled "Ralph" a bully.

 

"When people post questions and scenarios in these forums, rarely do we get all the facts, all the background, and all the details. Our conclusions and advice cannot be based on details and circumstances we don't know about." (FScouter quote)

 

Good grief! If we all "know" and aknowledge knowing that we don't get all the facts... isn't it incumbent on us to temper our advise? Here, I think of the economist's answer "one the one hand...but then on the other hand..."

 

And Finally, Venividi...in the long lost old days a man or woman who freely gave hours, days, weeks, even years(!) of his or her time to help kids grow character and honor, a person who usually spent untold and un-repaid personal funds to help out the boys, the troop, gas and driving to heck and back for campouts...as partial repayment, "we" used to give those persons some measure of respect and some benefit of the doubt...but seemingly no more.

 

Mr.Smith says jonnie didn't get his sign off- its the SM's fault... and BAM! it's off with the SMs head! Venividi...I take it that's what you are sensing? If so I am afraid...at least in these forums...You are right.

Just another bomb thrown by

anarchist

 

 

[Lynda J]

I think that in some cases SM's don't get support because they don't demand it.

My mother was one of the best I have ever seen at getting help with her scouts. And it was YEARS.

She had a troop before I was old enough and graduated her last troop from high school just after she turned 70. She would make a list of things that she needed help with and have each parent make one thing they were going to help with.

I have watched many times as this 4'9" power house would respond to a parent who would make the mistake of saying "I don't have time to help because I work" I have watch as she would very sweetly lay her hand on their arm and smile her sweetest smile and look them straight in the eyes and go for the throat, "I am so sorry you are so stressed and busy that you don't have time for your daughter, but this is not a babysitting service and if you want your daughter to have a good scouting experience they you have to be willing to give me alittle help." She always got what she wanted. And 99% of the time the girls in her troops would start in 2nd grade and graduate together. We are blessed in having great parents, but we also expect that they help.

If you give the impression that you are SUPER LEADER, then they think you don't need help.

But what you have to do is not overwhelm them. Give them one thing to do. We have one mother that her only job is to make sure we have enough transportation when we go somewhere.