To protect or to serve?

[Beavah]

Yah, in da previous thread sheldonsmom talks about parents getting very upset with the troop leaders rather than with their son when their son played an M-rated videogame at a troop lock-in.

 

Makes me wonder what parents think da role of adult leaders in a Boy Scouting program is, eh?

 

One view, expressed by these parents, is that da role of adult leaders is to sanitize the environment of boys so that their son is never exposed to the slightest risk or temptation. Adults best limit video games to Mario Brothers, movies to Disney, prohibit toy guns, and shelter the whole camp in a bunker whenever there's a chance of thunderstorms (to borrow from the lightning thread and the suit against the NE camp). To protect kids at all cost.

 

Another view is that da role of adults at Boy Scout age is to help the boys make choices about how to manage their own environment. To engage in activities that have some risk - some chance they'll be exposed to foul language, friends playing Halo, getting rained on, falling overboard and the like. Rather than protect them from such things, our role is to help them grow stronger and navigate such things and such choices themselves, with our encouragement and support.

 

Traditionally, Boy Scouting has done the second. But we're increasingly being pushed to do the first, eh?

 

I'm wonderin' where parents and scouters here come down?

 

Beavah

 

[Eamonn]

To protect or to serve?

At work in jail, I'm charged with the Care, Control and Custody of the inmates.

For about a minute I thought that this might fit into a Scout Leaders role.

I seen that this isn't the case. Or maybe I seen that this shouldn't be the case.

I really liked the idea and still like the idea that Scouts and Scouting was a Safe Haven, where no one gets hurt in body or in spirit.

I do however see that the Controlled Risk thinking makes more sense.

At work, along with protecting the public from these dangerous convicts, part of my job is to protect the State (And myself.) from law suits that these guys might want to pursue. I do this by following the policies laid down by the State.

These guys are under constant observation and supervision. They have very little choice about most things, they go where they are told to go when they are told to be there, they eat what is on the menu or don't eat, the lights go out at a set time, they wake up at a set time. Everything they own is subject to be searched and can be taken away from them.

This is done to ensure the smooth running of the jail and the safety of all the inmates.

I really hope that no Boy Scout Unit is ever run like this.

The guys in jail have made it known that they are unable to be trusted.

The youth we serve are learning how to be trusted and the best way of teaching them that is to place them in situations where trust is placed on them.

 

When it comes "To protect or to serve?"

I think a balance of some kind is needed and in order.

As I seem to keep posting, I'm not very much in favor of long lists of rules, regulations, by-laws and that sort of thing.

For me most of what we do is all about knowing the youth that we serve and being able to help guide them. I see guide as being different than control.

At times the youth we serve do not live up to the expectations that I have or might be expected from a Scout.

The good thing about this is that we all can learn from this happening.

We as adults are supposed to be on top of things!

Parents do have a right to think that when the hand their kids over to us that we are going to make every effort to take care of their children.

But they do need to know and understand that there is some risk involved.

The risk might be that their kid is going to fall out of a tree or that another Scout is going to sneak a copy of Playboy Magazine into the camp.

One thing that older, more experienced leaders have on younger new leaders is just having been around the youth for longer.

Many of us have seen the new leader who has crossed over from the pack, who wants to oversee everything and is unable to trust the Scouts, wanting to make sure that everything is perfectly ship shape and in order. (I've seen these guys tell Scouts to brush their teeth!!)

The guy or gal? Who has been around for a while kinda gets a sense of when they need to step in and when not to.

The risk for us adult leaders is that at times this sort of "Open Leadership"? will come back and bite us on the tail.

"Boy's will be Boy's" seems to now be seen as something that we shouldn't even say let alone practice, but the hard truth is that they will be boys!

Scouts and Scouting has to be a learning and growing experience for the youth members, parents have to understand this. They need to be informed that there is some risk involved, but at the same time we need to safeguard the youth we serve from as much unnecessary risk as we can.

A big part of this is knowing the kids and knowing their parents.

Lord knows I have messed up a lot of times. (I'm thinking of the HBO Robin Williams special that the Sea Scouts played on a TV, one Winter Training weekend!) When this happens I found the best way of dealing with it was to talk to the youth about what happened and to come to some agreement as to why it ought not happen again! Then tell the parents what happened, before the "News" gets out and has a chance to be embellished or made sound worse than it really is or was.

 

There is some risk in frying bacon.

The bacon will spit and splatter hot grease.

Frying bacon with no clothes on is not a good idea.

Do we stop having bacon or ask the bacon fryer to put a shirt and pants on?

Even then will someone still want to fry the bacon without a shirt on?

Will an adult always be around to supervise the cooking of the bacon?

Eamonn

 

[sheldonsmom]

Beavah,

Just to clarify, I never said the parents didn't blame their son. They did and he was punished accordingly. But, the leaders had told boys and parents that these movies and games would not be present. To me at least it seems that the boys are being taught that rules are made to be broken. If the parents of a 12 year old boy are told that there are going to be R movies then they can make the choice of whether or not to send Johnny to the campout. If they are told there will be no R movies, and then the movies "appear" at camp and are watched by one and all with the blessing of the adults, then that is a trust issue. MY beef is the fact that the parents were told one thing and the opposite was done. Can you trust the leadership in anything else?

 

Yes, we need to teach the boys to make good choices. Is it a good idea to teach them to lie just to have fun? Should we condone telling parents that Johnny will only watch Disney movies and then pull out American Pie? If you tell parents, we are showing American Pie, then the parents can discuss it with Johnny Boy Scout and come to an agreement. If you tell them we are watching Snow White, then that is what should be shown.

 

 

 

 

[Lisabob]

I think Beavah presents a false choice. While it is indeed possible to go too far toward one extreme or the other, it is certainly also possible to find a middle ground.

 

We're talking about 11 year olds in 5th grade. Many of them may have seen the sorts of things that often earn a movie an R rating or a game an M rating (note to Beavah, if you can't find the ratings on the games then you need new glasses - big black letter in a white box, on the front of the game). But a lot of families who choose scouting do so in part because of the values that scouting espouses. And for them, they expect that a scout really will be trustworthy - or at the very least, that the adult scouters will be, and will guide the youth to try to be so!

 

The parameters for a particular event were laid out in advance and parents were told they would be enforced. That did not happen. I can imagine the parents of many of our younger scouts raising concern about that. And if we blew them off by saying (in effect) "hey, not our problem, we know what we said but you didn't really think we meant it, did you (sucker)?" then we would lose those families too.

 

I just don't see this as a protect vs serve situation. I see this as being trustworthy, or not. Don't say one thing, do another, and then act shocked when people ask why you didn't live up to your original statement.

 

 

[ghermanno]

Sheldonsmom,

 

Having read the previous article, and perusing this one, I think it is poor taste to say that "If they are told there will be no R movies, and then the movies "appear" at camp and are watched by one and all with the blessing of the adults, then that is a trust issue." Where did the adults give their blessing? I understand they were advised of a violation of their rules and handled it quite poorly (did not take responsability or even have the courtousy to be shocked, but now you say they gave their blessing? did the adults go get the games and the movies? Did they provide them? Did the boys show them to them? You also state in your sentence that the adults watched the films. I did not see that statement in the original posts (are watched by one and all).

 

I too, would have pulled my son from that troop if he had been involved. I also would have asked District/Council to look into it. But I would not say the adults did anything I am not sure they did. Maybe something was missing from the first post, like the SM brought the movies and games, but I doubt it. They may actually have some good adults in the Troop, but your comment paints all of them with the same brush.

 

YiS,

 

Rick

[Beavah]

Yah, sorry, this was meant to be a spin-off thread to talk about da subject more generally, eh? Not to create a second thread on video games . Partly because I had the lightning thread in mind, where some parents really felt that it was the adults' job to bunker the kids whenever storms were predicted.

 

So let's keep this one more general and leave da video games thing over on that other thread so people can follow! And yah, Lisabob, I agree I presented two ends of a range... in da hopes that folks would comment on where on the range they fell.

 

B

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Narraticong]

I'll take a stab at getting us back on track. I have pretty strong feelings on this subject. In my mind I am not here to be a babysitter. My goal is to help boys become upstanding young men and good citizens. I use the Scouting outdoor traditions to do that.

 

There are risks inherent every time we step outside and throw on our backpacks. But if we present the program correctly, Scouting will help our boys be better prepared to face those risks they will come across throughout their lives.

 

Boys will fail every step of the way. And sometimes they will be moral failures, not just using an axe incorrectly. But they must know that in Scouting they will be given the opportunity to fail and learn from the experience.

 

The lessons learned from the consequences of a moral failure will do more to teach good citizenship than any of the three Citizenship Merit Badges. The boy who has his character put into question will quickly learn how his actions impact others and himself.

 

As a leader it is my responsibility to exercise good judgment. If parents perceive that I am not leading in a safe manner they have several options. They can vote with their feet, and join another troop. Or they can have me removed as Scoutmaster. Before it ever gets to that point, I would hope I might learn a lesson and fix things.

 

Every parent must make their own decision on what they want from the Scouting program. My measurement is the health of my troop. If it is active and growing, I'll keep doing what I am doing. If it is stagnant and decreasing, it's time to reexamine our methods.

 

Ken

[Gunny2862]

Unless you are an insular family i.e. you home school not as much to enhance the education but to protect from outside influences, you only take part in your churches, or your home school associations athletic opportunities, you ensure prior to enrollment that whatever venue for enrichment your child want to join has the same values as your family; then, you assume the risk that your child will be presented with views other than those your family holds dear.

 

I see Scouting as a melting pot where others values most likely won't be forced on you but where others views on life are in play and (key) are open for a safe discussion amongst the boys.

 

Can this be taken overboard - of course.

 

But then I'm not likely to certify that any video gaming or reading material or language used by any given Scout is going to be "safe" for any other particular family.

In example, Sorry for going back to video games Beaver In some families(in one in particular that I'm thinking of) "Super Mario Kart" ESRB Rating: Everyone, is a violent game that shouldn't be played by anyone under 18 due to the extreme focus on competition and the use of "dirty" tricks to "harm" ones opponents rather than just focusing on improving ones own driving abilities.

In other families the realization that it IS simply a game, makes games like "The Darkness" ERSB Rating: Mature, suitable for anyone it doesn't give nightmares to (gotta say personally don't like this one but know families where the 13 year old plays it and it's completely in line with that families views on entertainment.)

 

Yeah, we shouldn't let Scouts swim unsupervised, or shoot rifles without training and supervision or stay out on top of mountains in lightning storms, but to say I can or should keep a child with in any particular families particular box of what is or isn't appropriate is a little bit much to ask given the widely varying views possible in many Troops.

If given the insular family model above you've found an insular Troop - then maybe it can and should be done, but that isn't the life I'm living in.

Our Troops families vary from "helicopters" to "if the come back broke - then they had a good time" from "religiously observant" to "Sure there's a God, somewhere..."

 

Trying to enforce one specific families mores in such a Group is a sure recipe to thin the Troop down to the size of one family - encouraging discussion among the Scouts and tolerance of others views is a much better preparation for life after 18 in my view.

[rkfrance]

Are we trying to help them make their own decisions or are we supposed to make the decisions for them? That's what it comes down to.

 

Scouting is just ONE aspect of growing and learning in a boy's life. Not the only environment. With the boys I serve, some go to church regularly. Some do well in school. Some do well in sports. Some do well in art or music. Some like the outdoors. AND SOME DON'T.

 

I think the bigger concern is "what opportunities are we providing for our Scouts?". Are we encouraging them to succede? Are we giving them a chance to learn or experience something different? No Scout is AVERAGE. We're here to help them grow and learn. Our function is to teach, coach, mentor and try to set a good example for them.

 

I'd rather have a boy that will make a choice that might be right or wrong and experience the positive results or negative consequences, than to try to make every Scout in my tend a choir boy. We aren't shooting for PERFECT. We're trying to help them become responsible men of good character.

 

Hopefully most will. Some won't. We have to let them choose, sometimes guiding from afar and sometimes with our hand on their shoulder.

 

Life happens.

 

BTW, as an experienced leader, SM and Commissioner, I still continue to learn and grow from the experiences I have in and out of Scouting. Sometimes I make good choices and sometimes I don't.

 

Rob

[Eamonn]

At the risk of being 100% wrong

I think I could come up with a fair sized list of things that all of us would agree are just wrong and should have no place in Scouting.

Things that we just don't want our own children or anyone else's children to be involved in or part of.

As an adult leader I'm not ever in a million years going to allow the things on "The List".

I kinda think that even on this list there is a chance that somethings will need to be explained and chances are that there is going to be some gray areas.

When a parent entrusts their child to me, what they get is me. If they don't want to trust me? They really shouldn't allow their child to go with me or the unit I lead.

For my part I do of course have and accept the responsibility of looking after their child.

Will I do everything that they do at home?

Maybe not.

I can't see myself ever telling a Scout to eat his vegetables, or ask if he has brushed his teeth!

I will and have yelled at a Scout who has gone on deck without a PFD, we do have drills and swim tests that are by design there to help keep people safe.

I am willing to do my best to protect their child from things that are dangerous or wrong.

Who makes that call?

I do. Parents have to trust my judgment.

Things will at times not go as they are supposed too.

Some Scouts will want to do things that they shouldn't.

There are I suppose ways of ensuring that we avoid a lot more than we do at present.

In my time as a Leader I have not as far as I know ever had a Scout take alcohol, drugs or cigarettes to a Scouting activity. The Scouts know and are aware that these are not allowed and that I'd be very upset if they were to take them.

I'm OK with things just as they are. I don't see the need for a search of any kind before we go anywhere to ensure that they don't have this stuff. I know that a search would in fact prevent this type of stuff almost ever making its way to a Scouting event.

Eamonn

I might not have the same expectations from a group of Scouts as maybe a parent or somebody else might have, I might have different ways of enforcing or getting the message across

[Gunny2862]

Eamonn,

if you are wrong on this, I'm joining you.

Well said.

[Twocubdad]

I think you stated the case from a Scouter's point of view rather well, Ea. Unfortunately, a good number of parents don't buy into it. I do think most parents understand they must trust your our judgement to "take care" of their son, but I don't think they agree with the underlying proposition that we are trying to teach boys to make good decisions on their own and to be responsible for themselves and others. In particular they don't buy into the idea that they way we teach boys to be self-reliant is by asking them to rely upon themselves.

 

I've been in a tussle the last few weeks with a couple parents who feel I should spend the week of summer camp chasing their sons with a pill bottle in one hand and a cup of water in the other. Our troop policy is that Scouts are responsible for taking their own medications. The parents are appalled that the adults won't take personal responsibility to "make sure" all medications are taken on time.

 

One of those warm, fuzzy Scoutmaster moments for me occurred at a troop meeting after a weekend campout. When I walked in one of the new scout moms was giving one of the newer ASMs the what-for because Dear Sweet Thing had gone the entire campout without washing his hands. The poor ASM was staring at his shoes and apologizing left and right when he saw me and recognized his opportunity to bail. I walked up and the mom started in on me wanting to know how we could let Dear Sweet Thing go all weekend, cooking, eating, handling raw hamburger and not wash. All I said was, "What do you want from me? YOU need to teach him to wash his hands!"

 

The debate over the meds is the same thing. The parents need to teach their son to take his pill when he gets up. There are a hundred ways to help him to remember to do that -- tie a string on his finger, write a note on his pillow, stick a post-it on the inside of his foot locker. Of course all that requires effort on the parent's part. They need to take the time to train their son themselves at home. Making the SM responsible is a whole lot easier and has the side benefit of creating someone to blame if the kid doesn't remember.

 

The trained Scouters in the crowd understand that making the Scout responsible doesn't mean we stand by with our arms folded, biting our lip while the Scout curls up into a fetal position gasping for breath. Just because we don't have "pill call" and line everyone up for their daily dose doesn't mean we aren't aware of who has and hasn't taken their meds. Prescriptions are kept in a lock adult's tent, so an adult know who has and has not taken their medications. Even if I'm not the adult with the med box, I still know who takes medications and will occasionally ask a Scout if he is remembering his medications.

 

Meals are the same way. We pay attention to who is eating their meals and who is trading their dinner plates for extra desserts. Walking back to camp I may ask that Scout how he liked his dinner and remind him to eat right and take care of himself. But that doesn't mean I'm going to sit next to him in the dining hall and feed his peas to him. (I died on that hill my first summer camp. Rookie mistake.)

 

Unfortunately, a lot of parents would like us to do just that, because that's what they do at home. Helicopter parents expect us to hover for them when they aren't around to do it themselves.

[Gunny2862]

Great post also TwoCubDad!

 

But how did you get the helicopter parents to stay at home? :)

Or were they hovering in camp waiting for reports from you on what the Scout was doing at that instant?

 

True Story: Red swimmer (Non-Swimmer) in the 3 foot deep area of the pool taking swimming lessons from the: BSAL Counselor, who is also a WSI Instructor, and is the NCS Trained Camps Aquatics Director and then the boys Helicopter Mom feels the need to tag along sitting on the Pool deck "helping" the boy every time his face goes in the water. Oh and don't forget the BSAL assisting the Instructor and the Four other BSAL's on deck doing pool coverage. ARGH!

 

How can you Protect OR Serve any more in some of theses situations...

Is it possible that SOME parents have completely out of the box unrealistic expectations?

 

[skeptic]

"Is it possible that SOME parents have completely out of the box unrealistic expectations?"

 

Yes!!!!!!!!!

 

[Twocubdad]

"But how do you get the helicopter parents to stay home?"

 

Not sure. I'll let you know how it works out. We're in the midst of a fire-fight with one new dad who insists that troop campouts are his time to spend time with his son. I spent much of the last campout shoo-ing him away from his son's patrol site or his son away from the dad's tent. The guy seems nice enough and it's not like he's spending all day powdering his son's behind. He just wants to play. It isn't as if he is a divorced father or travels all the time, but he just wants to hang with his son. But he's creating all sorts of problems for his son's Troop Guide and is constantly "fixing" things for the patrol. Several times on the last campout I tried to redirect him and have had a couple general, philosophical conversations. We've suggested he take SM/ASM training so he understands A friend of his, one of our ASMs who "gets it" had a more direct talk with him, but that didn't go too well. His mantra is "no one is going to tell me I can't spend time with my son." True, no one will. But we may get to the point that he is told he either stops interferring with the troop program or not be allowed to attend. The troop committee is supportive and wants a policy that says only registered, trained adult leaders are allowed on campouts. That's a bit ham-handed and creates more problem situations than it solves. I favor dealing with this dad directly.

 

(And before anyone writes in to complain, I know G2SS says all aspects of Scouting are open to OBSERVATION by all parents and leaders. He can observe but not interfer. If push comes to shove, a parent may be told to stay home. If that isn't acceptable, they have the option to remove their son from the activity or unit. I certainly hope this doesn't come to that.)

 

On the other hand, summer camp is working out well for us this year. We have a full complement of six good, solid, experienced leaders attending the whole week, so we simply put out the word we don't need any help. We need drivers up and back, so if anyone really insists on coming up, come up Friday night and help drive us home Saturday. (I'm hoping they can't do too much damage in only 14 hours on site.)

 

Last year was a disaster. I had only one other full-week adult and a revolving door of what my SPL called "the Cub Scout Leaders." (Don't you love watching the light bulbs come on over the boys' heads!?!) About Wednesday or Thursday of camp last year I wrote a two-page memo on expectations for adults at summer camp and saved it to a "Summer Camp 09" file. I distributed it sometime in March. Perhaps that helped put a damper on some of the new parents wanting to attend this year and encouraged the experienced guys to step up. (PM me if you want a copy.) I also added to my new parent orientation a very strong message that they weren't doing their boys any favors by hanging out at summer camp.

 

Something that occurs to me it that it seems like after a few months the parents with whom I'm having these conflicts begin to understand the program and the subleties of making the Scouts responsible for themselves but creating a safety net under them. I get the feeling the helicopter attitude is being pushed by the other, uninvolved parent who never attends troop functions and makes no effort to understand the program or the methods. Sometimes the involved parent simply needs some cover to back out of the way. "But honey, all the adults slots are full. They don't need me at camp this year!"