Eagledad Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 >>after reading my post then you missed the whole point of my post and I am quite chagrined and vexed in my inability to lucidly delineate the context of my essay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGreyEagle Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 I guess its just the jackass in me that cant let this go. I cant see any reason why anyone would not present a troop program that enables a scout to reach First Class in a year, thats all FCFY promises(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mk9750 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 OGE, Did I miss something in Barry's (Eagledad's) posts? I'm guessing that the boys in Barry's Troop do advance in roughly the right time frame. I just think they don't emphasize this. To put it another way, I think they work hard at keeping advancement a Method, not an Aim. Look, I am really happy serving the Troop I do. But from what I know, I would be happy in your program, in Barry's program, in Bob's program, and in the program of a few other people here (please don't mistake my style for meaning ownership or development of the program). Because it seems to me that regardless of what it is named, it works. Barry, I think I aught to leave defending you to you. Sorry if I've misrepresented you in any way. You haven't said that, but I know I've been acting as if I understand your position. Hope I wasn't too far off. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mk9750 Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 Man, I feel like President Carter, with Begign (sp?) on one arm and Sadat on the other! Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagledad Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 >>Barry, I think I aught to leave defending you to you. Sorry if I've misrepresented you in any way. You haven't said that, but I know I've been acting as if I understand your position. Hope I wasn't too far off. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsteele Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 While I agree that the troop adult leadership exists to help facilitate the program (a pretty common theme among other threads,) I implore you to remember that a Boy Scout's advancement is dependant upon the boy. His drive. His goal-setting. His desire. His planning. Our jobs as adults is to help make it happen, but not to the extent of doing it for him. To illustrate -- I got a call today from the mother of a 16 year old Scout. He recently got a camcorder for his birthday and went to the Scout Office and bought a copy of Cinematography merit badge pamphlet. Good for him. Then he went to the council's web site (where we have an on-line list of merit badges, their counselors and the phone numbers.) however, when he clicked on Cinematography, there were no counselors listed. The mother called me and asked if there are any counselors or what they should do. I answered her incorrectly, by the way, and didn't realize it until I read this thread again. What I told her was that I would call her district advancement chairman and see if he has a counselor or any ideas. Perhaps that is the new way of doing things. Back in my day (the late 70'2 and early 80's) Merit Badge counselors didn't have to register with the BSa and only required the signature of the SM on the Blue Card. Now that I'm thinking of it, perhaps I should have given the 16 year old (and not his mother) an idea or three or fifty of who might be a good person to recruit to be a cinematography MB counselor. The experience in recruiting a counselor would probably be a good one for the Scout. Especailly if I (or his other Scout leaders) guided him well. That may be the route I go with this. I owe him an answer tomorrow. DS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsteele Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 Hi folks. Before I let my previous post mis-guide you, a friend of mine has just reminded me that recruiting merit badge counselors is the responsibility of the district advancement committee. In the council I currently serve, it is the responsibility of the district advancement committee to approve the merit badge counselors. It may be their responsibility also to recuit them, which may be why it was my first gut instinct to call the district advancement chairman. I've been in Scouting for a long time. In my day as a Scout, there was a council merit badge counselor list, but most of us kids found our own cousnelors and recruited them to teach us ourselves. But there was no approval other than the Scoutmaster's to work with them. Different times then. I have no problem with a kid (Scout) recruiting one of his teachers or other respected experts to be his merit badge counselor. But the proper approvals must be secured before the process can begin. DS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Old Guy Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 "Now that I'm thinking of it, perhaps I should have given the 16 year old (and not his mother) an idea or three or fifty of who might be a good person to recruit to be a cinematography MB counselor. The experience in recruiting a counselor would probably be a good one for the Scout. " I've done that and it works pretty well. I give the Scout the two forms needed and tell them to go forth and find a counselor. In your example, it is likely the Scout's high school has a teacher for film making or some related subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuddBaron Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 What is wrong with a period of time, even a short period, in between the lower ranks? Even if a boy can reach FC within a year with work, there should still be a period of time required to be spent at each rank. This nonsense I hear of boys going to summer camp a Scout and coming back FC is just that...nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SM406 Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 Camping and other outdoor activities are a vital and integral part of the Scouting program. Therefore I have always viewed the Tenderfoot through First Class requirements not necessarily as advancement but more in the line of a skill set the Scouts need to safely and efficiently enjoy the outdoors. By coming up to speed with these skills the Scouts become independent and confident in themselves. Thus, the troop as a whole functions better on outings. The newer Scouts become lower maintenance as they progress in their skills and the older Scouts begin to enjoy their experience by becoming less hands on with the younger guys. When the first aid skills are presented to new Scouts, I have jokingly told the boys they need to really pay attention to the 5 signs of a heart attack, because their adult leadership is probably the first place they will ever use this skill (but in my heart I believe this is the case ha ha ha). I do not believe that a time frame between ranks is important as much as making sure the Scouts really learn these skills in order to have a safe fun outdoor program. SM406 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuddBaron Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 Doesn't it take time to learn something? No one becomes an expert on anything overnight. I agree it is good to have the younger ones be lower-maintenance. Besides, even if there is a time-in-grade requirement, they needn't be stopped from learning the skills. They can learn the skills through FC as soon as they can, and then have the ranks presented in recognition of their tenure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SM406 Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 Sure learning takes time. Everyone learns at their own pace. To add tenure as a requirement to slow down advancement through first class in my mind penalizes the Scouts that satisfy all the other requirements before tenure is up. What is really being accomplished by adding tenure? I recognize there are pushy parents and advance at any cost leaders out there, however ideally if a Scout is truly learning the skills and his troops program is giving him he opportunity to advance quickly, is it fair to hold him back because of tenure? My understanding of the purpose for tenure for the Star and Life ranks is to provide the opportunity to have time in a leadership position so that the Scout can develop his leadership skills in preparation for the requirements for the rank of Eagle. In these ranks tenure has a clear purpose. For the lower ranks, I do not see how tenure would help a Scout learn how to tie two half-hitches or identify poison ivy. SM406 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuddBaron Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 What's the point of tenure? It allows them to season in each rank and experience each rank. It teaches them that things don't always happen "now now now" like most of society thinks. A boy can complete his basic requirements and then say to himself, "Once I have enough experience as a Scout in this troop, I will be advanced, as I already have the other requirements completed." Of course, it's a non-issue, as the rules do not permit time-in-grade requirements through FC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mk9750 Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 In what way would adding a tenure requirement to early ranks advance the Aims of Scoutiing better than the currect methods? I am not being contridictary. I think there is room for healthy debate on this, and, if great minds like ours (well, maybe great minds like everyone else's LOL) can agree that there is value, maybe we should try to appoach National? Certainly, I hope we all agree that until National added this requirment, we would be in no position to do it ourselves, right? Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuddBaron Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 Absolutely the requirements cannot be changed to include a time requirement without National's approval. The only leeway locals have is not to sign off on certain requirements that have not been done up to standard. But, I don't agree with holding back Scouts from advancement artificially. I was in a Sea Explorer ship that really dragggggggged things out in allowing the kids to do things for their requirements. Most frustrating. But, time in rank is different...even if moderately annoying to the boys. There is something to be said for taking time, letting things sink in, and then moving on. This is why Brotherhood was added after Ordeal in the OA...10 months minimum after the Ordeal. It takes time. The tenure requirements worked just fine before. The whole idea of FC in a YEAR isn't that bad. What I REALLY have a problem with is this phenomenon I have seen where Scouts go away to camp a Scout and return in a week an FC. It's like this modern trend of feel-good education. If that's what they are going to do, then why not just have one rank before Star? We're also talking about boys here. Six months or a year makes a BIG difference in maturity. Holding them at a given rank for a period of time allows a certain degree of general maturity (yes, I know some are more mature than others at any age) to be ensured for a certain rank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now