Scoutmaster Podcast 91

And now to you, Scoutmaster. We interrupt this podcast to bring you this from the Scoutmaster CG Campfire Physics Lab. Extensive testing has concluded that the likelihood of a flipped pancake landing on the uncooked side within the pan is inversely proportional to the number of observers.

We now return to your regularly scheduled podcast. Hey, this is podcast number 91..

Welcome back to the Scoutmaster podcast. This is Clarke Green. Let's take a look and see. We heard from some people last week. We heard from Walter- and this is not Walter the Underwood, This is Walter other Walter, And he said: I just listened to podcast 17.. The Adventures of Brick Mason are an absolute scream.

I actually burst out laughing when I heard the old Batman drama music. Great touch. I hope Brick Mason returns in future podcasts.

Well, thank you, Walter. Brick Mason is an old radio show. I found some recordings. Really I did Kind of sort of And I've put them on earlier podcasts back podcast 17 around there- And Walter heard them and he's actually the first person to ever say anything positive or negative about the Brick Mason thing.

So I wasn't really sure whether people were enjoying it or getting it or had any idea about it. So thank you so much, Walter, And there may be a little surprise for you later on in this podcast. Some people have been going back and they discover the podcast and they go back and they listen to the entire archive.

You know that's a great idea- I guess I don't know if I could stand it or not- And you can do that pretty easily by going to scoutmastercgcom and you can find the category page for the podcast And you can go back and listen to all 90 of them, because this is 91.. I also heard back from John Sloan. You'll remember John last week asked a question about adults on camping trips and we spent most of the podcast talking about that.

John got back and said: thank you so much for a detailed and thoughtful answer to my question. I had no idea it would actually turn into a podcast topic. I'll be spending a lot more time with the boys and asking a lot more questions on our November camp out.

Let me ask you: do you limit this to just yourself in the boys camp? I'm afraid having too many adults in camp will be a hindrance to the scouts. You're going to show the other adults what that means by example And you're going to tell them: look, you know. In no uncertain terms you're going to say: we don't interfere with the boys. You and I are going down to visit their campsite.

I'm going to talk and you're going to be quiet And you know that might sound a little harsh but people will get it. And don't stray from frankly discussing what constitutes interference and being sure that you're understood, Because this is one of the more difficult things to get about scouting. As I said in the podcast last week, John, you'll gain experience and skill and a way of doing things And that way will change and the distance you can comfortably give your scouts will grow.

So in this podcast we're going to talk about- in Scoutmaster's ship in seven minutes or less- evaluating active. Evaluating active: Some of the ranks in scouting require a scout to be active for a given amount of time And the new guide to advancement has greatly clarified how that is to be evaluated.

We're also going to talk on another advancement related topic about signing off requirements and a couple of hints about that, And there may be a little surprise for Walter somewhere in the middle of those two. Who knows, That sounds like a pretty full podcast.

So let's get started, shall we?

Scoutmaster's ship in seven minutes or less. The new guide to advancement that has just been published walks us through some of the thorny issues of evaluating active participation.

I've struggled at times, as many of us, with judging how to interpret the requirement that a scout be active, And the team that assembled the new guide has made this process very simple and very clear, And I'm not going to spend a tremendous amount of time talking about it, because evaluating active is a three step process now, And if you go to the guide, there'll be a link to a PDF version on the post that contains this podcast. You go to the guide, read the section and you'll see that there is a three step process And this is the way it works.

Step number one: is the scout registered? Easy enough, right? I mean, that is going to be a 99.99% yes, right.

And then step number two: is the scout in good standing, And that is also going to be a 99.99% yes. And step number three: has he met the expectations of his unit? That's a little more complex, but we're going to explain it very quickly. The first two steps are cut and dry: Good standing. The only thing that good standing means- and this is it- is that a scout has not been excluded from membership by the unit, the council or the National Office of the BSA. These are extraordinarily rare circumstances.

If a scout's been excluded from membership by anybody above the unit level, you will know that. You will absolutely know that. It will be communicated to you. Step three is also pretty simple. Now. Some scout units apply a metric to active And I don't suggest that.

I think it's a very bad idea as a matter of fact, but it is a fact of life. That's the way a lot of people do it And that means a certain percentage of meetings and outings and things like that. I've got lots of reasons why I don't think it's a particularly good idea. A lot of people think that it works To pass step three. If the scout meets that metric expectation, you're done. He's been active.

In the vast majority of circumstances where you're going to be asked to evaluate the activity of a scout, those three tests are going to happen and it's not going to be a problem. As I said, 99.9% of scouts are going to pass the first two and then 90% of them are going to pass number three and it's not a big deal.

So what if a boy hasn't met the stated expectations of his unit? Well, if you read the guide to advancement you must have Now. Must is a very important word here. Must It's not, may, should It's not suggested. This is a policy statement. It says you must have an alternative path to fulfilling the active requirement that recognizes influences outside of scouting.

These are very carefully described in the guide. To recognize that scouts are not able to control some circumstances in their life, We are also required to recognize activities outside of scouting that are cooperate with our aims and the values of scouting. The end of the matter is that metrics are there in a lot of units. Again, I'm going to emphasize that I don't think that's a great idea, but they alone cannot evaluate active. We're not in competition with school and sports and church and worthwhile influences in a scout's life. We're in cooperation with those things.

So if a boy doesn't pass the metric standard of active, then we have to sit and have a discussion, We talk to him and we say: so, you didn't make the percentage of meetings and things like that. Why is that? I'm the president of the student body at school and I had some meetings I had to go to. I'm involved in the FBLA, I'm involved in the YMCA, I'm involved in any number of things.

Now we're probably the only organization on the face of the earth that is going to allow our members to go out and participate in the community and recognize that as being active in our own organization, as that having impact on a scout's life, And I think that's great. The national advancement team has gone to great lengths to set out a concise, definitive set of standards that will put to rest many of the things that we argue about and many of the things that cause Scoutmasters and scouts a lot of ang.

And, as always, I want you to remember that the scout is usually his own best standard of if he's been active or not. The way that I evaluate the active requirement, as I sit down with the scout and I say so, says here: you have to be active in your troop and patrol for four months or whatever.

Do you think you've met that requirement? And if you do think so, then tell me why.

If you don't think so, then tell me why We're going to enter into discussion about it. The scout does not have to impress me. The scout does not have to prove something to me.

What we have to do is we have to find out- him and I on the same side of the question, if he's fulfilled the requirement. There you go, Three tests for active. Number one: be registered. Number two: don't be excluded by either the unit or the council or the national office. Number three: meet the expectations of your troop. There's been a reasonable amount of back and forth about this on the blog.

Some people like the idea of the standards written in the guide. Some people aren't too keen about them. Some people think that they're very bad indeed. This doesn't really change anything that I'm doing.

I think that we had it right to begin with, and I'm not saying that to pretend that I'm the smartest man in the world. You may need to adjust the way that you're handling this, But what I really appreciate about this is the inclusion of other community activities and the consideration of active.

I think it's a brilliant idea and I would love to hear your ideas about it. So do get in touch and you'll find out how to do that towards the end of the podcast. The section that you want to look at in the new Guide to Advancement 2011 is page 21 and 22.. That's page 21 and 22.. That's where you'll read about the evaluation of the active requirement:

Scouts, now that we have established the cordons of our area for our monthly sojourn in the forest, and owing to the incipient drop in ambient air temperature accompanied by the diminishing availability of solar luminescence, I would recommend the assemblage of combustible materials into a controllable conflagration in order to provide both warmth and light. What do you say, Mr Rem? I'm not following you there. Let's build a campfire. Oh, yeah, yeah, let's do that. I've already got one going.

The first elemental step in building a campfire is the assemblage of combustible materials such as these here. What do you mean?

The firewood you got at the convenience store there, Mr Rem? Yes, the firewood I purchased as an example to guide you in the gathering of combustible materials. Right, There are many methods of ignition practiced by the back woodsmen. Let me demonstrate the use of a glass-like mineral substance applied to a ferrous metal.

What are you talking about there, Mr Rem? The application of a what to a what? A flint and steel. Oh, oh, yeah, yeah, Yeah, I got it, I've used them. First, we take the glassy stone and strike it against the ferrous metal And the resulting sparks. The resulting- One moment, please.

The resulting sparks are: Oh. Another method applied by the back woodsmen was capturing the heat generated by friction of woody materials using a stick held in a semi-lunar shape, by the imposition of a string and a second piece of wood that is round in cross-section, applied to a flat piece of wood held on the ground. The assemblage of this apparatus.

Wait a minute, Mr Rem, But what are you talking about? The round cross-sections of a string?

Would The bow and drill method fired by friction? Oh, yeah, yeah.

Well, we do that. So first, what one does is takes the bow and assembles it with the second piece of wood in a way of One moment, please, while I take an. A third method of ignition is the paper match- And I happen to have a book of matches here- And one takes the match and The strike. They seem to be a bit damp and my hands are becoming numb. A fourth method of ignition, although more modern in scope than the prior three, is the use of a propane torch. The torch is: Mr Rem, it looks like you're getting cold there.

Why don't you come over to our campfire and have a cup of hot cocoa? Yes, perhaps we can carry on with our demonstration a bit later. Lads, That sounds like a good idea. Mr Rem, Come over here and get warm first. Join us again for another exciting episode in the career of Rick Mason Scoutmaster. This is Cliff Jacobson and you're listening to the Scoutmaster podcast with Clarke Green.

Send it by mail, Email. That is folks,

And here's an answer to one of your emails. So here's an email I got this past week from David Shoup. Dave wrote in and said: Hi, Clark, I have seen the requirements for tender through first class handled several different ways and I was wondering what you thought was the spirit behind the requirements. It seems some Scoutmasters give boys credit for merely attempting to do some of the cooking requirements, for example, while other Scoutmasters require a high level of proficiency before they sign it.

The way I read it, it seems if a boy does the requirement, regardless of how well he's completed it, how do you make sure that the same standard is applied across an entire troop if everyone, from the Scoutmaster down to patrol leaders, are signing off on requirements? David, you touched on a couple of important questions there.

So the difference between two basic approaches You said, I believe if a boy does a requirement, regardless of how well he did it, then he's completed the requirement. And you've seen other Scoutmasters who really require a lot of practice and proficiency before they sign the requirement. That's really. I'll tell you. That's not an either or It's really kind of a false dichotomy, because both approaches are right, depending on the requirement. And it's vital to read requirements carefully because they usually clarify exactly how they should be fulfilled.

I don't remember exactly when I discovered this, but you know what This is. It's really simple. You have to actually sit down and just read the requirement. Once you do that, everything kind of clarifies itself in a lot of ways. Some have very specific standards, some are more open-ended.

So let's take a look at two random requirements I took from the tender foot rank. One in part says: on a camp out, assist in preparing and cooking one of your patrol's meals.

And one says: demonstrate that you know how to tie the following knots. Then it gives you the list of knots.

So the first requirement was written. So the Scout did something once and he was finished.

Okay, on the camp out, assist in preparing and cooking one of your patrol's meals. The requirement doesn't read: assist preparing a meal six times or help prepare a meal for a minimum of an hour. There's no test for anything but participation there. He does it once and he's completed the requirement, Easy, right. The second requirement reads a little differently.

It says: demonstrate that you know how. Demonstrate that you know how Well. That means skill or knowledge that a Scout's proficient in, Not something that he did just once. Once Scout comes to you, he wants you to check off the requirement for two half-hs. He ties the knot in two seconds. Once Scout comes to you, it takes him 60 seconds and he biffs it up a couple of times, But they both satisfy the requirement right.

If they know how to tie the knot, you don't have to coach them through it. They know how to tie the knot.

Now, if the boy comes to you and spends five minutes trying to figure out how to tie the knot- well, does he know how to do it or not? In my book he doesn't know how to do it, So I don't call him a failure and send him off into the outer darkness.

It's like: okay, so you need to practice on that a little bit more. If there's somebody that you can practice with- hey, one of the guys here- they are pretty good at tying knots- just practice it a few times, There's no big deal.

And then, when you know exactly how to tie that knot, come back to me and show me and we'll sign the requirement off. We need to look at signing requirements and boards of review and Scoutmaster Conferences and things like that as a dialogue.

We have a dialogue with Scouts and we both decide if the Scout's ready. Is he ready to have a requirement signed off?

Is he ready to move on to the next rank? But reading the requirement and making sure we both understand what's supposed to happen is going to take us forward in a very positive manner.

Now, like most adults who get involved in scouting somewhere along the way, I got upset that my Scouts didn't seem to know their skills. Everybody encounters this at one point.

Now that leads us to react in several different ways. Me, I kind of started to crack down on things and I started requiring all kinds of things that the actual written requirements of the Scout handbook don't. Then we start thinking about fairness.

Well, how can I require one Scout to tie a knot in 10 seconds and let another one go if he takes 30 seconds? And then we sit down and we have an extra cup of coffee and we start writing And I have seen pages and pages of different requirement standards that people have written in- And you know it's all reasonably good-hearted- and that they're trying to standardize things and they're trying to make it work, But I got to tell you that's not scouting. That's really not scouting.

What most of us end up discovering in the end is that advancement is only an indication of how well the program is impacting the Scout. It's only part of the picture and it's based on the effort of individual Scouts. When youth leaders- or adults for that matter- sign off requirements, there's learning on both sides of the equation. It's just not proficiency we're looking for. It's overall growth and participation. It's successively more challenging activities and skills.

Scouts advance when they do the things that Scouts do not, because they satisfy requirements. So I would encourage you to stop thinking about requirements and start thinking about how the program reaches an individual Scout. This can be a little difficult because we usually get off on the wrong foot in Cubs, where everything seems to be about earning a patch or a belt loop. Boys pick up on that quickly and they start looking at everything they do as a way to get the next shiny object And, being boys, they start to find the quickest route to being able to say I'm done.

A lot of times we get so focused on checking off lists that we're in danger of missing the bigger picture. As for uniform standards, in a troop about one person should be signing off the requirement with exactly the same standard as the other person. I don't think that that's very important.

To tell you the truth, Did the Scout satisfy someone empowered to sign the requirement? That's all that's needed. When you go to Scout Camp, you're going to check in at the pool and you're going to do a swim test.

So watch the swim test with this in mind sometime. The counselors: what do they want out of the swim test? They want to be sure that a Scout can swim a given distance, that he knows a resting stroke, for instance, that he can tread water. Beyond that, it's not about uniformity at all. A Scout on the swim team at the local pool will jump in and cuts through the water like a pro. A Scout who'd rather be doing anything else than swimming is going to jump in and splash and sputter his way through the test.

Maybe he'll finish it, maybe he won't, But if he finishes it he completes it. So does the guy on the swim team.

Did the swim team guy do a better job? Yeah, probably if you were judging it that way. But the idea is the impact on the Scout right. The idea is the impact on the Scout Did our guy who jumped in and sputtered his way through and kind of splashed a lot, he finished- it Was his effort, any less than the guy on the swim team. Maybe his effort was more, Maybe he had more to overcome there.

So advancement very highly individualized. And if that doesn't convince you, think about that test at 100 different camps. They're all doing it exactly the same right. No way. I mean they're using the same standard, But the counselors at 100 different camps are not going to administer the test exactly the same way and off of the same script. No, The end result is Scouts have demonstrated they can safely use the pool.

That's all that really matters in the end. If we observed and evaluated the same test in 100 camps, we'd probably determine that in some camps it was a little harder to pass the test than it is in others, But that there were common elements in the way each test was administered.

Now, if that doesn't come in, you should start thinking about every Scout taking any merit badge in a given year. Now how many differences in instruction and evaluation are there going to be?

For you know, 40,000 Scouts working with 40,000 different counselors earning the same merit badge, Should we attempt to judge which Scout did a better job of the merit badge or which counselor did a better job of instruction? I really don't think so. As long as a Scout satisfies somebody empowered to sign the requirement, that's enough. Uniformity to me not important. What's important is how the program reaches the individual Scout.