HICO_Eagle

Daddy_O, for what it's worth, it sounds like your family needs to move ON to Boy Scouts, not back to Webelos. Your son sounds ready. Your wife should know that she doesn't have to be involved in it every week like she would be in Webelos. Heck, I'm happy as punch if a parent from every family is involved quarterly (beyond the Courts of Honor). Your boy is growing up, he doesn't need diapers or apron strings now. As Beavah said, your son will have to deal with people he doesn't like more and more as he grows up. The patrolmate he despises is good training. I had one of those during my first year in Scouts, I lasted, he didn't. First year summer camp is a great way for your son to transition and build independence. If he waits a year, he'll find himself behind his classmates (I took almost 2 years off from Scouting and it was a bit of a pain). What I would suggest is that he continue with Boy Scouts but don't worry about missing some meetings or activities so he can also do baseball. Scouting is not supposed to be a singular focus or obsession -- but don't overlook its role in the larger picture.

Sorry to hear about your leg and work situation kittle. You might want to talk to your DE -- sometimes there's an opportunity for adults to attend things like the resource camp for free if they will be instructors or on camp staff.

As I have been told many times. The current syllabus was born out of feedback and critiques of the Wood Badge for Boy Scout Leaders. There were a few regional teams of former course directors (a variety of Course Directors from the 70's, 80's and 90's) assembled with professional educators to rewrite the WB21C in a manner that the feedback and critiques had asked for. I understand many numerous WB course critiques in the 90s questioned, if Wood Badge learners are already experienced in the outdoors, why is the curriculum on an aggressive outdoor schedule?

I stopped supporting UW ever since some chapters of the United Way stopped supporting Scout units during the Clinton administration. There have been numerous allegations about both UW and CFC diverting financial support to "underdonated" organizations like Lambda Legal Defense. Regardless of the veracity of those claims, I'd rather donate directly to the organization than go through a pass-through.

I have a very good friend whose brother has absolutely no interest in attending Wood Badge (he's 50 something). Why should he go?! Afterall, he's an Eagle Scout. End of conversation. Well, let me clarify. I have never taken a "bad attitude" into training with me. I have, however, developed a disdain for courses after they ended and it was clear I had wasted my time. I got nothing from Scoutmaster Fundamentals or Trainers Development Course that I didn't already know. The sharing with other Scout leaders would have been helpful if I hadn't already been getting that in spades from Scoutmaster cracker barrels and the like. I don't care about the cost, I can afford it -- what I can't afford is wasting nights and weekends going over something I've gone over (heck, taught!) many times before. It has nothing to do with whether I'm an Eagle Scout or not, it has to do with the fact I have limited time available and 30 years of Scouting behind me. I knew people learn better by doing than by getting preached to 30 years ago, why did I have to spend 6 hours in a classroom regurgitating it? If you want former Scouts who remember Patrol method, Scout skills, etc. to go to WB, you need to show why it's value-added. I have seen plenty of reason for new Scouters to take SM-specific training and WB -- but I have yet in all these discussions seen anything in the WB syllabus or program that amplifies Scout (or SM) skills for the former Scout or long-time Scouter. What exactly is the student supposed to get out of the time invested? I'll sign up for it in a flash when I see that it really IS going to make me a better Scouter.

Lisa -- Good on you for doing what you felt you needed to for your son. My point was that you don't need to go to WB to talk to other Scouters and get suggestions. I got it at summer camps by keeping my eyes and ears open and talking with some of the more grizzled Scouters but you can do some of the same at Camporees, Roundtables, etc. although (truth in advertising) many Scoutmasters will send surrogates to Roundtable. At one troop we had a direct conflict between Roundtable and troop meetings, in another, I just didn't have time for both. I highly suggest WB and other training for our adult volunteers with no background in Scouting. I have yet to be convinced that it has anything of value to offer to those with a lot of background in Scouting (although they probably have a lot to offer to WB) if you don't care about beads or belt buckles (I'd rather wear my Philmont or Eagle belt buckles than a WB belt buckle anyway).

Fantastic! It's great to hear some good news these days ...

One thing I liked about Wood Badge was that it is the only place, save perhaps this board, where I got to spend real time talking about scouting with dedicated scouters. Um, I got that in my first year (and beyond) as an ASM by sitting down and talking with other Scoutmasters at morning coffee and cracker barrels at summer camp. The other Scoutmasters were frequently old-timers (as evidenced by the number who proudly continued to wear their ODs or forest-green uniforms instead of the de la Renta uniform). Wood Badge won't make a crappy leader into a good one -- but it might make him less crappy. Less subjectively and more to the point, it will help the inexperienced leader make up for his inherent deficit of knowledge if he wasn't a Scout.

When you are preparing for a big expedition like a week-long trek, how do you do that? It is one thing to say "have practice hikes" and another to have a sense of what those practice hikes are like? Are your practice hikes tightly controlled or are they just hikes for the sake of getting miles under the belt? Yes, we do practice hikes or practice campouts. Usually, the hike or campout is very clearly advertised as such with specific goals. Those goals may be specific skills like low-impact camping or simply to get used to trekking X miles with 40 pounds on their back. You seem to have glommed onto one of your troop's problems yourself. The adults are not communicating their goals or why the various plans are necessary (or at least germane) to those objectives. This creates ill will and resistance among the Scouts because they don't know why they are being driven the way they are.

It has just seemed that it is harder to get the Boy Scouters to go to training. Cub Scouters tend to know they need it so it is not as hard of a sell. Of course, doing the DL training again and again gets old. We do have a training chair. It seems to me you may have some self-selection bias affecting your sample populations. My experience has been that adults involved in Cub Scouting are far more likely to NEED the training. There seem to be far more adults in Cub Scouting who were not involved in the program as Cub Scouts and even those who were have dimmer recollections of what it was when they were Cubs. In contrast, you have a lot of former Scouts getting involved with Boy Scouting. Far more of them remember the Patrol Method, knots, first aid, camping skills, etc. from their days as Scouts. I have yet to learn much of anything from the mandated training and I know others who felt the same way (but didn't have the effrontery to say it outloud) during my SMF and TDC courses. Having said all that, the Troop Committee should be looking at all the adults and recommending training that would help the individual. Some troops have a Training Coordinator, others leave it up to the Committee Chair to suggest helpful training.

I don't remember the Red Berets being "beloved". I grew up with the flight cap or baseball cap -- the campaign hat was impractical and the beret was just an idiotic European affection. I can't even remember seeing any Scouts wearing it except for out-of-towners who usually dropped it within 6 months after moving in-state. I don't mind Sliwa, NYC needed something to protect people when he started the Guardian Angels, but the berets were just stupid regardless of who wore them. They have got to be the most impractical headwear ever devised; they don't block sun or rain from your eyes or face and you can't even store stuff under them like with a fez or turban or fedora.

I grew up hammock-camping and never really saw a need to go beyond 3/8" rope with a bowline or eyesplice on the hammock O-ring and a few wraps around the tree trunk to finish back off at the O-ring with a tautline and two extra half-hitches. That's an interesting knot there but I like the added value of showing the Scouts the versatility of the knots they need to learn for advancement.

We've been doing mostly car camping lately so we bring it with us but when backpacking I use a mixture of packing it in and a filter with iodine as an emergency backup. Iodine or PolarPure are great for killing obnoxious organics but won't get rid of chemicals or "floaties" as some of my boys called them.

No kidding True Believer! It amazes me how society doesn't want to let these young men grow up until they're magically Voting Age. Some of my boys' eyes bug out when I remind them that just 100 years ago they might be the chief wage-earner in the house at their age. I had always learned that you can call them boys or Scouts since it is the Boy Scouts but never EVER call them "kids". I never really thought about it until now but I think the fact our adult leadership was frequently absentee during a lot of troop/patrol activities was a growth factor for a lot of the boys in our troop. We learned to plan and work for ourselves because we had to.

Not only is the patch ridiculously large, but the logo on it is silk screened or some other similar process, meaning it'll eventually get trashed from repeated cleaning unless you get the shirt dry cleaned. This prompted a thought. On a recent visit to the local Scout Shop, I looked over the uniform parts and patch bins because I was curious about the Centennial uniform and looking for uniform parts for my newly-Webelos nephew. I was dismayed at the cheap look and feel of the new patches, even the red troop numerals but most importantly, the American flag patch! I'm flabbergasted that National thinks it's good to have boys buy $40-50 shirts and stick $0.25 Chicom-junk patches on them. I'd rather spend a little more on patches that look decent and wear well than on a shirt they will outgrow in a year or two (especially since the patches CAN be moved to the new shirt as they grow). Some of my favorite patches are on their 4th or 5th shirt and still look good after 30-odd years.

Why is it that when you attend a Wood Badge course you are separated from your friends? I thought the best way to align patrols was putting all the Scouts in a room and letting them form their own gangs as boys do? It seems to me that this is an example of dividing a troop into patrols; instead of having patrols that make up a troop. I can't tell you the book answer since I haven't actually taken the course or taught it. From what I can tell, there's nothing in the course that I didn't get already as a Scout or after that in the military. However, I would venture that the reason is to force you out of your comfort zone. It would be too easy for the course to devolve into being in the woods with your buds if you got to form a patrol with your existing clique. Placing you in a new patrol, separated from them, will increase the odds of working together with your new friends on completing the program and just perhaps learning what the patrol method really is all about. Bear in mind you are in your WB patrol to learn about the program and patrol method and you're in that patrol for a relatively short period of time. Most Scouts are in their patrols for months if not years so the relatively aspects of being with your existing friends versus being in the company of strangers are different. For what it's worth, we will sometimes intervene to "balance" the patrols after they split up voluntarily -- although we try to take care to explain the rationale for the adjustments so the boys understand the decision process. Example: Hey guys, the Sharks seem to have all the experienced Scouts while most senior guy in the Eagles is a Second Class. Don't you think it would be better to mix it up a little? You could swap Johnny for Bill and then Johnny will be able to help out with the leadership tasks. (of course, if Johnny was in the same patrol as his brother Timmy, the trade might have some additional benefits in helping each brother become more independent but you don't have to mention that)

Lisa, I'd disagree with that idea of how boys (or girls) become popular. I've seen an incredible number of slack-offs and leeches become "popular" because they were "fun" to be around. Being "fun" by the way doesn't necessarily mean doing what he is supposed to do -- especially with teenage boys. In fact, the boy who is conscientious about keeping the campsite clean, working on program or service projects instead of playing games, etc. is quite often less likely to be popular than the gamer who lets his patrol sleep in, pulls pranks on the less-popular scouts, etc. OA can be a very good thing but it -- like anything else -- requires the right leadership and culture.

You taxes support every church in the city, county & state you live in! Whoa! This is the same major fallacy that half the country appears to labor under. Your taxes do not support an organization simply because they are tax-exempt. Taxpayer funds are NOT expended on them, ergo there is no tax support. This is directly analogous to President Obama's proposal to cap tax deductions for charitable giving, saying "it's not fair" that someone who makes more money gets to deduct "more" for giving the same amount. You are taxed on the portion of your income that exceeds various expenses acknowledged by law. One of these expenses has been donations to registered eligible organizations regardless of political, religious or other affiliation (as long as their actions comply with the law). Your statement, like President Obama's proposal, seems to assume that all your money belongs to the State except what they allow you to keep so anything you aren't taxed on equates to tax support.

If the boys are 15 - 16 year old scouts, they're not going to change units at this stage of the game. I don't know where you get this but I've seen plenty of boys change troops at that age and not just because their family moved. Sometimes their friends or role models have moved and they have realized the troop is no longer meeting their needs.

Unless National is revising the requirements, the HB still has to have the same basic material. Sounds like more of a packaging and presentation strategy. Well, my problem with the 11th Edition is that it DOESN'T have the same basic material. I sure hope the 12th Edition brings back some of the material that was deleted from the 9th or 10th editions in favor of useless white space on the margins or glossy photos that don't add substance.

I'd like to know how the BSA's e.g. litigation over the Cradle of Liberty building is supposed to "help the community" I'd like to know how the ACLU and other groups' continued harassment of symbols of traditional American culture like BSA as illustrated by their attempts to eject Scouting from the Cradle of Liberty is supposed to help the community? They could of course attempt to set up an alternative youth organization that did for the counterculture what BSA does for Rockwell's America but it's far easier to attack the BSA.

Sorry for raising another sore point Lisa. It sure sounds like your troop needs what we used to call Junior Leader Training or Patrol Leader Training. If the adults want the boys to demonstrate better leadership they need to 1) show them how to do it and 2) give them the room to exercise it. For that matter, your adults seem to need some basic review of traditional Patrol Method. Good luck!

You know it's a sign of the times when someone has to complain about having 5 adults for every 3 Scouts on an outing. Most units I've been associated with have had a tough time getting 2-4 adults on a trip. The Boys should be allowed to work their program -- with 10 adults going, I'd say 2 adults could go with the Scouts for safety, the other 8 should form up an Old Goat patrol. Perhaps you could have a discreet word with your Unit Commissioner who could say something to the Troop Committee?

I wouldn't allow the Scouts or Adults in debt to just continue vouchering. That's exactly like what our federal government is doing today. I prefer the clarity of using camperships (with or without sweat equity depending on situation) specifically approved by the troop committee. Not all Scouts or adults may be able to work out a sweat equity solution -- the troop committee hopefully will know and understand what's appropriate for his/her specific situation -- but you don't want to encourage a "welfare" attitude either (as far as I'm concerned, that's a part of the 9th point of the Scout Law).

I think this particular thread was spun as a result of my statement in the original thread about just letting the troop raise its "fair share" without having to go through the rigmarole of the FOS pitch. I'm not in favor of more mandated fees, that sets up yet another rigorous structure that we don't really need and reduces the flexibility we have to take care of less fortunate Scouts. I don't mind FOS, we need to pay for services, insurance, etc. What I DO mind is losing time at a meeting or court of honor for a pitch that no one (in our troop) really wants to hear anyway. I'd be just as happy approaching it like a telethon. Put info up on the council website or provide it to the troop committee that explains the council's operating expenses versus income, the target goal to service X number of Scouts and let the troop committee do the math. We're adults, we KNOW not all families can afford the average per Scout. The committee can invite a council rep if they feel a specific pitch would help with their membership. I realize exposing income versus expense data is pretty sensitive but a lot of the problems we've seen over the past couple decades have been with so-called non-profits hiding their finances and actions. I personally think Scouting could lead the way in being open and showing people their money was going toward worthwhile efforts.