JMHawkins

And of course there's generally a negative correlation between da age of the Eagle Scout and the number of man-hours as well. Beavah, do you really mean a negative correlation? As in, older scouts tend to have smaller projects?

We have lots of SMASMs in their 30's and 40's. In fact, I think we only have one ASM over 50 (though a couple of us are getting within hailing distance...). Most of us are interested in hiking and camping and trying out (or making) new gear. We're kind of an outdoor club that formed within a Scout Troop. So far, it's worked out great. Of course, we're a new troop and our big challenge will come when it's time for some turnover in the adult leadership. We're acutely aware that we need to be ready for that. I'm signed up for PergoWoodBadge this fall. I'm curious if they cover any sort of succession planning, seeing as how it's a class about unit organization rather than outdoor skills.

Ironically I think you have it backwards. The program struggles from lack of adults with a youth scouting experience. If you don't know why scouting is fun for boys, you are more likely to point towards making it fun for adults. Yes. B-P's genius was creating a program based around what boys naturally did for fun, cleverly designed so that growth and maturity were by-products of the fun. The spiffy-uniform, sprint-to-Eagle troop probably miss out on most of that by just making themselves another outpost of the Adult world in boy-land. Of course, any adult who still has their sense of adventure can make it work, but I wonder if folks with non-Scouting backgrounds sometiems come in with the wrong idea of what the program is all about. Merit Badges, Eagle scouts, and helping little old ladies across the street. The notion of a group of boys having fun in outdoor adventures is the key to the whole thing, but the literature doesn't do a good job conveying that. LIke Kudu keeps saying, Patrol Method has been de-emphasized, so adults coming in without a background (at this point, maybe a fairly old background) in "old-school" Scouting might never even realize that's part of it.

A casual day for the most part with friends and family. Made a three hour drive and saw at least a half dozen State Troopers with motorists pulled over on the side of the Interstate. Saw a "click it or ticket" (seatbelt enforcement law) billboard. Saw several notices posted reminding folks about fireworks laws and the fines for violating such. Was glad I turned east instead of west on the last highway and so avoided the toll bridge (newly re-tolled, old bridge toll ended decades ago when the bridge was paid off). Read a newspaper story about the Planning Dept. cracking down on some homeowners for not having engineering drawings on file for the septic systems their ancestors put in 90 years ago... Didn't have the heart to run the ol' Betsy Ross flag up the pole when I got home. Went with the 50-star version instead - I don't think it knows any different, so probably isn't too heartbroken by it all.

JMHawkins said, "So, if units are going to update their own records, then why is ScoutNet necessary for mandatory training? Just switch over to Mandatory Training and ask units to check a box next to each required traning that each member of the charter has taken. I mean, if units are going to need to manage their own training reports, then why not have them manage their own training reports? " Because the units never do that correctly. They mix up what needs to be taken all the time. You need a system that leads them by the hand. This isn't very sophisticated companies have had training management systems in place for years. And you don't see any obvious problems in this direction? Unit's can't be trusted to manage their own training reports, but even if and when National gets a functional training system up and runing (which, as you said, isn't exactly rocket science, and yet ScoutNet is... not exactly a Saturn V) they'll still need units to update their training reports. Exactly the thing they can't be expected to do correctly? Where in this loop does the actual critical validation happen? I'm actually not entirely sure where things should go at this point anyway. I'm a huge proponent of training, but I think it needs to be different than what we do now to really be effective, and I think there are serious problems with mandatory training for a volunteer organization. Not to mention there will be radically different results from training depending whether you have a Troop 1 style trainer, or a Troop 2 style...

If we are going to use such terms in a national organization we need to define them. Well, please define "define" then. Because I'd be inclined to say the terms are already defined by common English language to an acceptable level. But if you have a different definition of "define" then maybe they're not in your book. So before we can authoratatively, written-down-to-be-quoted, argumentum ad verecundiam define what "mastery" means, we have to agree on defintions of definitions and write all sorts of rules about writing the rules. And when we make the inevitable mistakes, forget a subclause to cover a corner case, or encounter a locker-room lawyer trying to finnagle his way through, we have to put band aids on the rules and argue about that.... Or we can go with common sense, as messy as that can be.

The hold up on mandatory training is ScoutNet. As soon as training can be tracked correctly and there is a way for units to update their records, I would expect mandatory training to happen nationwide. We are probably a couple of years out from that. So, if units are going to update their own records, then why is ScoutNet necessary for mandatory training? Just switch over to Mandatory Training and ask units to check a box next to each required traning that each member of the charter has taken. I mean, if units are going to need to manage their own training reports, then why not have them manage their own training reports?

We had a similar discussion in our Pack a couple of years ago. Not about archery, but about awards in general. One particular den was handing out awards at a prodigious rate. Almost every event they did generated multiple awards of some sort for the cubs. And by "mulitple" I don't mean they would do different things and get an award for each, but rather they would do one thing and the DL would find multiple awards to hang off it. For example, doing archery for this Den would definitely be an archery belt loop plus a pin plus a segment for achery plus a segment for visiting a council camp plus a segment for getting a segment and maybe another segment for finding a place to sew the last segment onto the shirt... It was a bit over the top. As Wolf cubs, they looked like El Generalissimo Presidente For Life of the People's Republic of Bannanama. The DL protested "but they like getting awards, and my parents like it too." A few of the "older" families suggested maybe she should save a few awards for later in their CS career so they could continue to get awards and enjoy it rather than burning them out with a wad o' cloth and hardware every meeting. So... Along those lines, go along with the RM. Consider what he's really saying. He isn't saying "Bahumbug! No Pins for your little brats!" Instead he's saying "bring those little ones back in a year or two when they will appreciate and understand more. They can have fun this year, and come back to earn the award next year." Give them something to look forward too.

A lot of the angst could be solved by banning camps from working on requirements. Just the fun, please... But, but, but... how do you measure fun on a JTE scorecard?

Since WB is really not about scoutcraft but more how to get a working vision of your unit... In which case, it's another one-and-done course. Just like there's no AOLS (Advanced Outdoor Leadership Skills) to go along with the Introduction course, there's no follow-up, no training continuum, to unit vision. Anyway, if your in IOLS, doesn't mean you are not a seasoned scouter.. Many finally come to IOLS after haveing been SM for years and in scouts for years before becoming SM that.. Not any more, since you need IOLS to recharter as SM (or even an ASM). If you aren't ready, at least you get to know when you are ready, there might be something else for you to try down the road. But there isn't. Like you said, it's not something that builds on any other training, it's just another Intro course. Rename it IEUAO (Introduction to Effective Unit Administration and Organization, the Vowel Class!), since that's what your definition amounts to. If you want to give people a Mountaintop experience, you should probably have them climb a few hills first.

I think it is a training issue, if you don't tell people what's important they grab something (like advancement guidelines or safety guidelines) and think those are the all important things. I really think it is a training issue. I agree, it is a training issue. One way towards a solution would be to almost ditch the G2A. Reduce it to something more along the lines of a Program Helps. As it stands now, too many people think it's a User's Manual or better yet, a cheat sheet. Er, maybe I should say Crib Sheet instead. Something that leads them through doing it without really knowing what they're doing. Like the way cooking is taught in Beavah's Troop #1. Those scouts aren't really "trained" in cooking. They're lectured in it, given one or two brief opportunities for hands-on practice, then signed off. That's not training, or at least it's not effective training. Real training that imparts skills takes more than what Troop 1 is doing. Thing is, the BSA adult training curriculum tends more towards Troop 1 than Troop 2. Classes with one-and-done signoffs. IOLS meets the standard. Frankly, so does Woodbadge when you think about it. I was getting pitched Woodbadge during IOLS. Honestly, shouldn't folks have a little more time under their belts before taking the end-all-be-all training BSA offers?

There can be a certain virtue made out of the scout not getting the badge that same night. The recognition process can be drawn out and built upon. The night (or day, could be at a campout, right?) he earns it, he gets a hearty verbal congratulations, hand shake, and recognition during closing ceremonies. "Congratulations to Joe, he passed is Board of Review for 2nd Class tonight. Good job Joe, and to the rest of the Cobra patrol as well." Big round of applause for Joe. One or two weeks later, at closing ceremonies, the SM or SPL calls Joe up to recognize him again and hand him his rank badge. "Last week, Joe finished all his requirements for 2nd Class. Joe, here's your rank badge, wear it with pride, you've earned it." Another round of applause for Joe. Then at the next CoH, Joe gets recognized yet again for his achievement. Rank achievements ought to be big deals, so making a huge fuss about them is appropriate.

So a Scout is Trustworthy unless he wants something right away, then he cheats and lies to get a badge for someone under false pretenses. The end result of stupid rules is a lack of respect for rules and the people who make them. And by "stupid" I mean a rule that creates more problems than it solves, or else pushes the burden of solving one person's problem onto another person simply because the "one person" is the rulemaker and they're disposed towards foisting their problems off onto folks under their authority because they can. So if National "catches" unregistered scouts by requiring advancement reports to buy a rank badge, they're foisting their problems off on the actual Trustworthy units and scouters. That's another way respect for authority goes away - when the authority doesn't care to make a distinction between the "decent" folks and the trouble makers. I think National can find better ways to catch the handful of units cheating on their dues than imposing hurdles on the vast majority of units that aren't. And if it's not cheating but simple record keeping errors, there's a better way to solve that problem too (hint, it's by using a better record keeping system). A Scout is Obedient comes with a flip-side - anyone who expects obedience from people honorable and strong enough to follow the other 11 points of the Scout Law has an obligation to make rules worthy of such followers.

Your making an arguement for learning basic Scoutcraft skills which is what the First Class Emphasis program is suppose to be all about. People have gotted sidetracked into thinking it is to check a box off in a book. That isn't the purpose of the program. The purpose of the program is to educate the Scouts in the skills so they are prepared for adventures. Benelon, the mistake you're making is assuming we're arguing about the purpose. We're not. We're saying the results are bad. The results of the current G2A and an emphasis on following them to the letter and avoiding at all costs the dreaded adding to the requiremetns are bad. It doesn't matter what the intentions behind the policies and proceedures are, if the results of following them are bad, then the Polices and Proceedures are bad. The lack of Scoutcraft skills in kids with Eagle rank is not some abberation that would be fixed if those units stuck more closely to the G2A - it's the result of them following a G2A that encourages one-and-done, minimal retention, forced march to FCFY advancement.

I've been known to tell my son to run down to the park and back on occasion when he's been sitting inside all day and starts getting obnoxious from pent up energy. After burning off some energy, he's much more civilized. Usually I only tell him to do that after he's declined a couple of invitations to "go outside and play" and continued down the spiral. He's starting to mature though and self-manage better. The point of course was never to punish him, but to get him to reset his attitude. With scouts? Never done that, but they usually are plenty active anyway.

Think about how most troops spend the majority of their month - in meetings indoors, in church halls and Legion posts, planning and preparing and talking about adventure rather than being adventurous. That's not a way to gin up excitement. It conveys a very plodding, staid image. And it's boring as all get-out! Y'know, if you follow the meeting template in the resource guide (ah! I'm suggesting using some material from National! I'm not a complete rebel after all...) the meetings shouldn't be boring at all. -A few minutes of opening ceremonies (which can be interesting if they're not the same old same old) -Some sort of hands-on skill insrtruction or interesting demonstration (no reason the new guy can't dive right in and learn whatever the other guys are learning) -A game (boys hate those, especially if there's running around and yelling...) -Patrol meetings (assing him to a Patrol for the meeting. If the patrol is functional, they'll be talking about something interesting - meal plans for a trip, a patrol hike, etc.) -Maybe a handful of awards or other recognition for guys who've earning things (gets the new guy thinking about earning those cool looking badges himself) -reminders about cool, fun, upcoming events -Scoutmaster's Minute -Closing, see you next week! Sure, I agree that the campouts are the mostfun, but the weekly meetings shouldn't be boring. There should always be something fun and interesting going on.

having to actually learn something worthwhile (physical or otherwise non-scholastic) and be able to _do_ it (possibly for the rest of their lives)... That's a good point. I think a lot of youth programs sell to the parents by selling something the parents either had fun with themselves as a kid, or else wish they'd done more of. Parlor Scouting isn't going to be high on any parent's list of things they wished they'd done more of as kids.

having to actually learn something worthwhile (physical or otherwise non-scholastic) and be able to _do_ it (possibly for the rest of their lives)... That's a good point. I think a lot of youth programs sell to the parents by selling something the parents either had fun with themselves as a kid, or else wish they'd done more of. Parlor Scouting isn't going to be high on any parent's list of things they wished they'd done more of as kids.

Beavah Thinkin' about these two troops and others, yep, there's also a correlation with experience, but that one I'm less sure about. It might just be there because less experienced folks have had weaker materials in recent years to learn from, and some have been taught really odd ways of thinkin' about those materials. So it's not so much experience but poor guidance and support on our side, eh? That's what I'm worried about. There's the old hiring question about they guy with 20 years in a particular field. Does he have 20 years experience, or 1 year of experience, 20 times? Funny, my first thought reading your original post was that Troop 1 was kinda like their own NSP - inexperienced, highly reliant on Guides (Troop Guide, Guide to Advancement, G2SS, etc) to function, and pretty much limited to following a checklist someone else came up with. And sort of like the scouts in that NSP, even when they reach First Class, they have a tenuous grasp of the skills, and since the checklist of learning ran out after that first year without them learning how to function without a checklist, they're not able to progress any farther. Metaphorically they're stuck doing dump camping, stuck at "1 year experience" no matter how many years they've repeated it. I think it happens just because da folks on district and council and national committees lose touch, eh? So we start to believe that filing paperwork is more important than getting a lad the badge to recognize his achievement and wear with pride. That happens just because we folks who serve at da grey or gold-tab levels spend more of our time dealin' with paperwork, eh? So we start to think of it as important for its own sake instead of thinkin' of it as being a service to boys and units. I have a different take Beavah. I think what happens is 'da Grey an' Gold Tab' folks don't trust the Green Tab unit volunteers, so they try to rewrite the rules to limit the unit leaders autonomy. It's bureaucracy in action - focusing on Policies and Proceedures over training, experience and competence. Yes, the higher-ups lose touch, but it's their response that makes the problem. Trying to "impart their wisdom" through rules is a poor substitute for doing it through leadership, example and mentoring. It plagues our society at large too - I've mentioned it before, but really, BSA has no business claiming it teaches "Leadership" to our youths when it's own competency at the skill is so poor. Even when yeh have talented folks, it takes a fair bit of time to learn Scouting. To really understand youth leadership and the patrol method is pretty counter-cultural. Very much so. I think I have two advantages in that regard over lots of my contemporaries. One, I was a Scout myself ages ago in a troop that did the Patrol Method really well, and I know from experience that it works. I also have a decent knowledge of history, and know that throughout human history, scout-aged youth have shown themselves capable of far more that the mainstream of our today's society assumes. Kudu's notion of having scouts watch Master and Commander to show them what 13-year olds were - are - capable of is great. Maybe Woodbadge ought to show that movie to the adults too and get the message across. Too many adults think scouts are barely capable of tying their own shoes. At summer camp last year, the troop camping next to us was highly adult-led. Wednesday night was "cook your own dinner" night, with the Dinning Hall giving out raw hamburger, veggies, etc,. We were a brand new troop, about three months old at the time with zero experience scouts. All of our guys cooked their own food - I coached, explaining how they could tell the meat was done etc., and I even helped a few guys fish their hobo packs out of the campfire when they needed it, but they cooked. The neighboring troop - which was 80-some odd years old - had the adults cook for the scouts. Their SM told our SM later "oh, we would never let the little guys cook for themselves..." Same troop at a MB campout this year had two new crossovers take my Astronomy MB. They showed up with a Troop Mom shepherding them from class to class - even though the same troop had an older FC scout taking Astronomy with me as well. They don't trust their scouts to do much of anything. Just like a lot of Grey 'n Gold Tabbers don't trust the unit volunteers, when you think about it.

So, the way I see it, Troop 2 produces far superior results, but it requires significantly more experienced and talented adults to pull off.

My point here was going along with dkurtenbach's statement: "I think that BSA suffers from putting out a product that is highly inconsistent from unit to unit. Of course, there is a fear that improving consistency from unit to unit would mean not only eliminating units that fall below a certain minimum standard, but reducing the quality of highly successful units to make the product more uniform." Actually, most likely it would just eliminate the high-performing units and drop everyone to the lowest demoninator. The reason for the substandard programs is mostly because those programs don't have the great leaders needed to run a quality one. SeattlePioneer nailed that - plus he's right that just setting "higher standards" isn't going to magically make those leaders better. On the down side, attempting to enforce standards will likely drive some of the talented volunteer leaders out, who maybe figure if someone is going to tell them how to do the job, then maybe they ought to get paid for it. You can't get bossy with volunteers, or they'll un-volunteer. Besides, let's take a moment and consider what sort of "higher standards" are likely to come out of Irving these days. Wattered down advancement, Webelos III programs, lack of real adventure, overly bureaucratic operations, all those are encouraged by the current material coming from National. If the same folks who created FCFY, NSPs, one-and-done advancement, and the current G2SS, attept to standardized the program, it's not going to be in the direciton of what fred8033 suggested: Focus on what everyone expects. Getting outside. Camping. Hiking. Outdoor skills. Focus less on the advancement program. Focus more on what people innately understand about scouting. I completely agree with fred here, this is what we ought to be doing. But unless there's a change of direction at National, I expect more focus on advancement from them, since that's been their direction.

Now, the question arises, why would Little League be in decline? Did it go through a period akin to "urban scouting" or otherwise stray from its roots? Hardly--baseball is still baseball. Actually, baseball has changed, or at least what LL plays as it has. When I was a kid, LL was played in the summer, with 15 kids on multi-aged teams ages 9-12, with lots of practices that we (the kids) were genearlly responsible for getting ourselves to. Now, it's a late-winter/Spring sport with 11 man teams divided up into narrower age ranges, with a handful of practices before the season starts and then almost no pratices after the first game. And parents generally have to drive kids everywhere. What are the implications? Lots of rainouts, lots of wet, sloppy fields that aren't fun to play baseball on to start with. The narrower age ranges have 9 year olds trying to pitch to each other, and very few 9 year olds can throw strikes, so the games degenerate into walk-a-thons. On top of that, they let kids steal, and the 9 year olds who are also catching usually can't throw from home to second base faster than a runner can run from 1st, and that's assuming they caught the ball in the first place. Smaller teams (so "everyone can play") means frequent situations where you don't have 9 kids - my son's team his last year had to sneak the coaches 7 year old onto the field several times to avoid a forfiet. And the lack of practices after the season starts means no chance to work on or improve skills as a team. Kids do all their learning and improvment at home or at some sports camp, not in LL. Add it all up and it's not as fun for the kids, and not as useful for the parents (who now have to spend more time driving the kids there in addition). No wonder numbers are dropping - I'm surprised they're not dropping faster. We can complain about the specialization leagues, the travelling teams, but they're providing a program that's more fun than LL for the kids since they're actually providing the kids a chance to learn, improve, and test their skills. LL has degenrated into fresh air day care with matching shirts and trophies for everyone.

Personally I think the Tiger year is the best year in Cub Scouts. The problem with the Tiger Year is getting the program started since it generally involves EVERY family being new to Scouting. That is often tough for packs to do, can take months to do and not infrequently results in a failed den. Agreed, this is a major challenge. My pack tends to "affiliate" the new Tiger den with the old Tiger (now Wolf) den until there are enough new Tigers and an identified Tiger Den leader to make the den work on it's own. That's the best solution I know of, but it's still not easy. I'm torn about the Tiger den idea. They do tend to be wildly enthusiastic and full of energy, and the parents are highly involved so they get an idea of what it's all really about. But... I see a lot of burnout on the other end of the Cub spectrum. Webelos Scouts, and their families, and their leaders, are running out of energy by that fourth or fifth year. My own son skipped Tigers and started as a Wolf and he's running on fumes for the CS program. I'm not sure how much of that Tiger enthusiasm is because they're Tigers, or just because they're new. My son was pretty excited about the Wolf program, but it was all new to him. It may be that starting them a year or two later will still have the same level of excitement and interest when they join, with less burnout before they finish the Webelos program. One idea aside from shortening the program would be to enforce (or at least strongly encourage) a leader change half-way through. Kind of hard to do for units struggling to get leaders to step up as it is, but I think it provides two benefits: one, the leaders don't burn out quite as badly, and two, the boys have a chance to re-invigorate their interest from the simple change of leaders. It's the "Hawthorne Effect" from manageent studies. Of course, I can't finish a discussion about Cub Scout retention without mentioning that national sure isn't helping membership numbers by taking away their little red wagons.

...adults will smell tobacco smoke on the leaders... Actually, so will the youth. Almost guaranteed at least one of them has smelled cigar smoke before and will recongize it. I don't smoke, but I'm not a fanatic about the whole "don't smoke around kids" notion. Frankly, the reason I'm not and have never been, never would be, a smoker is probably because my parents smoked around me when I was a kid. I hated the smell of it. It never held any mystical alure to me because I knew it stunk. Any, y'know who else will smell the tabacco smoke besides the adults and the youths? The bears... which raises a question I've always had about bear bags. Lip balm, bug spray, sunscreen, deodorant - all those are "smellables" that go into the bear bag and not into your tent. Now, besides going into the bear bag, what else to they all have in common? Right, they go on your skin! So, if you put those things on you, shouldn't you then stuff yourself into the bear bag and haul yourself up a tree? Does anyone have an explanation for why half a can of bug spray in your tent will attract a bear, but the other half sprayed on your arms and legs wont?

The best remedy for this is trustworthy scouts, abandoning FCFY, and not making Eagle so important that one feels the need to violate the Scout Law to obtain it! I tend to agree. Question though. What's the thinking on a little pre-emtive discussion with scouts about creampuff MBC? Should we talk to the scouts ahead of time and let them know they might, on occasion, run into a MBC who signs off on stuff they never really did, and give them some guidance on how to handle it? Can be kind of hard for some kids to understand an adult isn't always right, and especially if they've been brought up a little sheltered, or a little too rule-bound, they might now know what to do...