fred8033

bnelon44 wrote: "Personally I like making sure the Scout actually accomplishes the requirement on his own prior to signing him off." ... It would be a great addition. What happens to merit badge fairs such as at the Jamboree or at summer camps. It would be interesting. bnelon44 wrote: "I also like the idea of waiting a short period of time between the learning of a skill and the examination for the skill (say a week or two). " ... Yet another great addition. A major issue is teaching and testing at the same time. There is a difference between demonstrate and mimic. If the GTA suggested a clean separation between learning and testing, it would help. ... The GTA addition I'd like to see is a discussion on expected proficiency (i.e. introductory, competence, mastery, skilled, expert, etc). I'm not saying what proficiency. I'm just saying it should be clarified. I'm fairly clear on proficiency as the requirements seem pretty explicit. But apparently, many others debate it. I've generally see merit badges and rank advancement as slightly higher than introductory proficiency and that the written requirements are the real guide to the proficiency level. For example, the requirements for computers don't make you a computer engineer, programmer or administrator. Generally it's slightly higher than "oh yeah, that's what a computer looks like." It's a high level introduction. Cycling is simple but adds some endurance / experience levels. Fingerprinting, golf, fishing, pottery and many others are clearly an introduction. On the flip side, scuba requires open water diver certification. I doubt if that's mastery, but it's clearly some level of competence. But then you get to first aid. I see it as more than an introduction, but less than mastery. It's pretty much the requirements as written but there's a big debate on what's expected. ... IMHO, the trouble is not the GTA or a lack of BSA guidance. There's plenty out there. The issue is that scouters don't like what they hear and read and want to play by a different set of rules. Suggesting changes is moot until everyone is on the same page. Didn't someone once say you can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time?

"... is the "one and done" mentality ..." ... And of course the grumpy old debate raises it's apocalyptic zombie head yet again.

desertrat77 wrote: "there was almost none of the hype that you see from National today" Really? Eagle has always been hyped. But I agree that the average scout is more motivated to earn Eagle. IMHO, there might be fewer scouts, but scouts in the program are much more motivated to earn Eagle. That itself can cause a big statistical shift.

IMHO, this isn't about feeding the child. It's about having an extra person in the room. The room should have the candidate, the BOR members and optionally the candidates unit leader (i.e. scoutmaster). The person's age doesn't matter. The breastfeeding doen't matter. It's just wrong to have someone else in the room whether that person is two months, two years, two decades or two score years old. At best, the extra person is a non-issue. At worst, the extra person detracts from the BOR. Sounds like this detail was missed. So then what you do? It sounds like it was handled appropriately with least impact on the scout's EBOR. In the future, it's just one of those one-in-a-thousand events you need to plan around. For example, if a BOR members has kids, maybe ask if they will be bringing their kids. Then, you need to find a babysitter while the person is in the EBOR.

Beavah wrote: "Since we've mostly dispensed with da original question and the McDonald's thing, let me come back around to this point of CalicoPenn's." Yeah ... Don't confuse "dispensing" and others giving up shouting at the wind. Sometimes you don't have enough time to just say the same things over and over again. Especially when others just don't want to listen. JMHawkins - Your mistake is viewing scouts as burgers ... as meat and wanting to produce "pre-fab Scouts flash-frozen" eagle scouts. They're not. Scouts are the customers. We serve them. The product is the Boy Scout Handbook, the uniform, the materials, the program. You just can't get a better analogy. The main difference is that if you consume McDonalds all the time your going to get a fat consumer. But if done right and youth consume scouting all the time your going to get a well rounded ethical prepared citizen. ... Your example of mixed age patrols is good. There's no rule saying they need to be mixed age or not mixed age. That's a discretion point. Personally, I prefer scouts join together and stick together with their friends to share similar scouting experiences. ... Beavah wrote: "if yeh want to help a troop move along in some area, yeh have their youth and receptive adult leaders go on a trip or two with a another troop that does well in that area." I fully agree with this. Scouters learn alot by visiting other units. I think it would be useful to replace the unit commishioner concept with scouters visiting other units each year.

All of our recent eagles have been 17. With the exception of one, they were all very busy in our troop. Easily over a hundred nights of camping each. We didn't work to delay them. It's just how it worked out. I'm fine if a kid earns Eagleaat 14. It's just my experience that those who go for eagle generally enjoy the program and thus stay involved. But that's our troop.

I'm all for outdoor focus. Outdoor adventures create the environment where the scouts must work together to get the job done. No game playing needed. It's part of the adventure. BUT ... I think the big big issues is perception. The country has changed. Politics have changed. What's acceptable has changed. BSA is out of date. BSA needs to avoid cultural battles and focus on serving youth. It comes down to as long as BSA judges people, people will judge BSA. BSA should just be the umbrella under which many organizations come to structure their youth programs. I truly think letting charter orgs choose leaders that represent the charter org beliefs would solve the PR issue. But as long as BSA makes the judgement, BSA is judged. And to be honest, rightfully so. It's pretty hypocritical to ask charter orgs to host a program when BSA's beliefs about people contradict the charter org. It's hypocritical to ask schools to support recruitment when BSA's beliefs contradict the schools. If you want to be effectively a civic service organization, you need to represent current civic values. Those values include tolerance. Always has. BSA needs to focus on civics, ethics and leave sexuality and beliefs to the scout's family and the scout's church. Now I'm Catholic and pretty old fashioned. And I want my sons in a scouting group that reflects my values and my churche's values. But I also recognize you can't push people away with one hand and then recruit from the same pool with the other. There's lots of other perception issues too. They need to be worked. Too many kids are losing out on a great program.

Yeah, I've been burnt by the two year training too. I'm getting my next certs thru NRA and USA Archery association. They don't expire if keep your registration current.

My favorite is that Arthur Eldred, 1st Eagle Scout, earned 1st class rank four months after his troup was created. BSA was about a year old. Then he completed the Eagle required 21 merit badges one year later. So eagle after 16 months as a scout. Recognized as Eagle about five months later.

Beavah - You decry treating scouts like hamburgers but at the same time you practice cafeteria leadership. Picking and choosing the published rules you will follow. There's a term for that. ... Beavah wrote - "There's no such thing as a 'standard product'." ... Ummm ... really? The signed agreement is that the charter org will "conduct the Scouting program according to it's own policies and guidelines as well as those of the Boy Scouts of America." And that the charter partner will provide a charter org rep who signs a BSA membership application. And you know that it says "I agree to comply with the Charter and Bylaws, and the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America and the local council." ... Beavah wrote - "Chartered Organizations have different missions and goals, where McDonalds franchisees have a uniform commercial goal of investment profit." It's a parrallel analogy. McDonalds franchise investors have different missions and goals too. Perhaps buying a house and putting kids through college. Perhaps shielding money. Perhaps creating a local family fast food dynasty. But as McDonalds has uniform commercial goals, so does BSA. "... prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices ...". ... Beavah wrote - ... Again you write ... "No standard goals, no standard product, no standard resources or input, completely different agreements, completely different organization structures, on and on. The comparison just doesn't work." Dude ... Your incredibly brilliant and wise. But you must have been smokin somethin so you could choke out those words. Really? Have you never been to a scout shop? Book case after book case published by BSA to guide how to run the program. Have you never been to training? Dozens of classes .. if not hundreds. Our McDonalds University is called University of Scouting. No standard goals? Really? BSA mission and goals statement applys here. If not that, how about the scout oath and law that every scout and scouter knows by heart! No standard product? Every scout starts with a Boy Scout Handbook. How about your last visit to a scout shop? Every role pretty much has a handbook. Most committees too. They sell uniforms too. And they sell an insignia guide laying out the rules to wear it and inspection sheets to grade how your wearing it. How about all the insignia used to differentiate the BSA hamburgers? ... Beavah wrote - "Da closest comparison is probably somethin' like a professional association that publishes materials." Now your just far far off base. The McDonalds analogy is pretty close. The one place I'd argue is about the tying knots. That's not the product. The product are citizens that make ethical and moral choices their whole life. Tying knots is just a nice side benefit of doing business with the BSA. ... If scouting does not offer a consistent program, it's not BSA's fault. It's because of all the wise experienced people signing up as leaders to represent the program but then showing contempt for it and going rogue.

This is why one family should never do everything. Doesn't matter if COR is the SM's dad. He's the one who needs to know. COR is the one who's supposed to make sure the SM is doing a good job. SM is also a representative of the COR.

Troop pays $25 for a gift, a BSA eagle pocket knife. Sometimes (not always) the troop pays for new candles for the candle tree used for the Scout Oath. That's it. Council pays for Eagle award kit. Council loans out ECOH kits with table decorations, special flags, statues, etc. Eagle scouts can choose to be recognized at one of the four annual troop COHs or have their own ECOH. Their choice. Their cost. Hopefully, the scouts coordinate it and not the parents. If they want a special cake, the family pays for it. The best ECOHs I've been at have been about 20 to 30 minutes long or are the last part of a troop COH.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

acco40: - Sorry. I was tired. I meant elementary school shower room. It was turned into storage before I went to the school. There were rumors of something happening back around 1970, but no one was ever charged. A year or two before I went there it was turned into a storage room and the requirement to take showers was eliminated. ... Kudu: I'm not really sure what your trying to say..... ... shortridge wrote: "why should those officials and leaders and institutions of yesteryear NOT be held accountable for how they mistreated victims, assuming the cases fall within the statute of limitations?" - I agree that I'm disgusted how EVERYONE handled the incidents and the victims. - But accountable is another issue. If they commited a crime, obviously yes. But I doubt they did. Reporting laws were different. It's only in the last years that mandatory reporting laws have been extended. I give BSA credit for having the perversion files so that they could do some tracking. I bet most school districts and youth sports programs didn't do that much back then. - If parents weren't willing to go to the police and/or the police didn't want to pursue things, I really can't hold a beaurocrat to a higher standard. - How do you pursue it? Many of the cases are very old. Convictions doubtful. Maybe lawyers will exchange money. - I doubt that releasing the files would result in higher awareness or a program change. Instead, it's just damaging a program and damaging people. BSA has been pretty active in changing their ways. Perfect, no. But pretty darn good still. I'd bet better than many. - My big issue is how many are you willing to sacrifice as long as you can accuse someone? Lots of people will be smeared. Some innocent. Some just really flaky people but not criminals. And yes some criminals. But who's who and how are you going to prove it. It will just result in a smear campaign. ... IMHO, I don't care for non-profits being sued for money. It's not like suing a really rich family or rich corporation that benefitted personnally. New operating funds come from current programs and fund the good that nonprofits do. Assets come from donations meant to serve the non-profit purpose. IMHO suing non-profits penalize the goodwill of many and only punish those being served.

shortridge wrote:: "past will be judged improperly against contemporary standards and practices" Yeah... Fully believe it. Things have changed alot. ... Swimming. The one that shocked me was from my dad. His gym classes did not use swim suits. This surprised me. So I looked it up and I was amazed. It was true. Schools, YMCAs, mens clubs, etc. often required no swim suits. Single gender classes and facilities. Pre-nylon and wet clothes were an issue. And it was fairly recently too. so I could easily imagine scout leaders on hiking trips doing as they were taught. ... BUT ... put that in the newspapers now and people would imagine the worst immediately. ... One on one contact. Around ten years ago, the local music conservatory put glass windows in the private lesson rooms. Guess why? Before then for decades teachers taught students alone. Then about ten years ago, an issue. IMHO, I was surprised only ten years ago they realized they needed windows. BUT ... if it was 1980, no one would have batted an eye at no windows in the doors. Heck my high school had solid wood doors on their practice rooms. No thought at all about teachers and students being alone in there together. ... BUT ... put that in a newspaper now ... regular private one-on-one sessons ... and people would imagine the worst. ... My elementary school had a boys show room. Now it's a storage room. Guess what. No police report. I remember people teaching that abusers could be treated. It was a taught attitude. I remember people needing to be careful accusing authority figures. I'm sure if I dig there would be other easy to rememberr famous example.

Agreed. This is a witch hunt. Victim names will be redacted. How about who face unsubstantiated accusations? Until an incident is deemed credible, the accused is also a victim. This is just like what happened in corporate law. For the last several years, most of the companies that I work for delete ALL email after 30, 60 or 90 days. It's a huge headache for the employees. But it protects companies from lawsuits that go fishing in email archives. Will it be the same now for BSA? Every rumor needs to be a police case? Every time something doesn't jive call the police? Now BSA can't exclude volunteers just for not being comfortable with the volunteer because they can't privately document why? BadenP - Nice comments.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

bnelon44: - Thanks for the great write ups. I've stayed silent for a few days as I'm trying to find the specifics. I was looking for either a physical or PDF version of the 1936 and/or 1947 scoutmaster handbooks. I agree with what your saying. In my job, you never have those doing the work also doing the quality control evaluation of the work. Anyway, it is always interesting to hear what Hillcourt really said as people often attribute differently to people who are not there to speak for themselves.

BSA24 - Nice points. Right attitude. Thanks.

My top list is ... - Yelling - Threatening "One more time and you go home" more than once every few years - Lack of sense of humor - Lack of youthful attitude - Lack of adventurours attitude - Inability to de-escalate problems - Inability to coach the youth leaders - Skills - Not knowing. Not teaching. Not testing. - Burnout

Our troop has had eleven eagle scouts in the last eight years. Way more then we've ever had before. But it's because the troop geared up the program and we had two groups of scouts that were really good friends and inspired each other. Only one scout was close to being borderline on activities or other requirements. And then that scout went on to be a great troop guide for another year. All the other scouts far exceeded any minimum Eagle standard. Between merit badge and rank requirements, there are about 280 check points to earn Eagle. I agree with BadenP when he wrote the issue is that "Signing off requirements when those same troop leaders know the boy has not learned them properly/correctly in the first place, but approve a substandard effort anyway." You could add more requirements, but that won't help weak programs. But it would make Eagle really hard in troops that deliver a strong program. If there is something to be addressed, it's focusing on improving the testing. Perhaps, it means waiting time between learning and testing. Perhaps it means examination boards or similar. I really don't know. And I'm not sure if I'd rally like a change. But if there is a place to improve advancement ... it's at the testing step.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Not to take this thread down a different track but .... Merit badge approval is another place that BSA has tried to write clearly, but it takes a bit to understand when to say yes and no. But I did find last night another article that addressed it. Written by BSA national Advancement Team. Published to council and district advancement chairs. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/advancement_news/512-075_March.pdf "Above all, the most important aspect of requiring the Scoutmaster to sign the blue card is that it affords another opportunity for a quality visit between an adult and a Scout. Remember that the starting point for this interview should be for the Scoutmaster to say yes to the Scouts merit badge request (a no might only come if there are obvious reasons for denial). But more important than the yes is the opportunity for a unit leader and Scout to share in a quality adult-youth moment." From what I take, the approval is more for the conversation and the conferencing and less about blessing the blue card.

BNelson44 wrote: "From the Handbook for Scoutmasters 1947 (Author is listed as William Hillcourt):" Now that's funny. People always use Hillcourt as a father figure who created a great scouting program that has now been corrupted by the ignorance of current BSA national staff. It's funny when you find that Hillcourt wrote differently. I really think people remember their past experiences different than it actually was. They put their past leaders on a pedastal. I think we can remember the past with respect and happy memories, but should try to work together toward the program BSA documents.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

The COR is a good person to coordinate packs and troops under the same charter org. He has a right to be there and I don't think people would be offended if he was there. If you have different charter orgs, you have a harder battle to fight.

TAHAWK wrote: "If there has been no actual accomplishment, what are we "recognizing"?" No one's talking no actual accomplishment. He did his project. He did has merit badges. He did his POR. If POR, then he did his active time. Just not as active with his last troop as some would want. The issue is that he didn't do more than required and he didn't do most with his current troop. He just did the requirements as documented. "Can we not, at a base minimum look at effort?" Depends. The adult leaders have approximately 280 opportunities to evaluate the scout (i.e. requirements). And to be honest, only a few requirements explicitly include effort as a criteria. POR being one. 20 nights of camping as another. Purchasing food as another.

TAHAWK wrote: "If there has been no actual accomplishment, what are we "recognizing"?" No one's talking no actual accomplishment. He did his project. He did has merit badges. He did his POR. If POR, then he did his active time. Just not as active with his last troop as some would want. The issue is that he didn't do more than required and he didn't do most with his current troop. He just did the requirements as documented. "Can we not, at a base minimum look at effort?" Depends. The adult leaders have approximately 280 opportunities to evaluate the scout (i.e. requirements). And to be honest, only a few requirements explicitly include effort as a criteria. POR being one. 20 nights of camping as another. Purchasing food as another.

Beavah - I'm mostly fine with your last post in reply to BNelson. IMHO though, the focus is in the wrong place. It's not the BOR's job to make sure the scout knows the skill or did a good job. It's the guy/gal authorized to sign off on the requirement. The whole program falls apart when the steps aren't done in sequence. Learn. Test. Review. Recognize. Ya review how things went so you can make the teaching and learning better. But ya don't use the review as a test because the test was done poorly or the tester is a scout and ya don't really trust the scout. Ya trust 'em or don't trust 'em. There is no try ... and no oh we can catch it later at the BOR.