JMHawkins

I think moosetracker's on the right track so to speak, though maybe the tutu's are gratuitous. Or would that be gratutuitus? (Sorry, been reading over too many skit ideas for my IOLS weekend, puns and bad jokes are stuck in my head). We ought to stick to what we do best. For Scouts, I think that's an outdoor, camping centric program. The whole foundation of Scouting was to teach boys important life skills by making use of their natural inclination to seek adventure and peer group membership. That doesn't mean you can't teach important things without camping. You can, but that's not scouting, it's something else. Not necessarily something worse, just something else. Doing it under the brand of "Boy Scouts" dilutes the brand message and makes for a weaker overall program. So my answer to thriftyscouts' question: "What about the Scout who doesn't like to camp? Is there a place for him in today's Scouting?" is no, and that's nothing to be ashamed of or try to "correct." We don't do a boy any favors by "reaching out" to him if we don't actually have a good program to offer him. We just just distract that boy from better opportunities, and distract ourselves from doing our best for the other boys already involved in Scouting. No need to be greedy, we can share the youth of the country with other programs.

The requirement doesn't state demonstrate. It says teach. There are requirements that state demonstrate. This isn't one of them. To me that is getting dangerously close to teaching the boys to be locker-room lawyers, parsing words carefully and looking for every shortcut. Isn't the spirit of a rule more important than the legalistic wrangling over the words used to define it? As far as taking the Scouts word for it, sure you should do that, and there's nothing inconsistent with taking his word and asking him to show you how he did it. SCOUT: I taught my little brother how tie a square knot. Can you sign my book please? SM: That's great! I'll sign it, but first can you show me how you taught him? SCOUT: Don't you believe me? SM: A Scout is Trustworthy, of course I believe you. I'm sure you taught him, and I'm sure you believe you taught him the right way. But I want to make sure you really did get it right - that's my job after all. Sometimes we think we got something right but didn't, and it would be a poor teacher who let his student go on doing something the wrong way without telling him, wouldn't it? Now show me how you taught your brother. If you did it the right way, this is a chance to show off! If you didn't get it quite right, this is a chance to improve your skills and get better. Either way is good, right?

And the OP has a valid complaint. The requirement states "teach someone" not "teach someone only when the SM is available to watch" Shrubber's SM is adding to the requirements by requiring a Scout to do this teaching so they can watch. But it seems to me that underlying everything is the notion that, as Beavah said, the Scout becomes proficient at the skill. So, regardless of who the Scout originally taught, it seems perfectly reasonable for the SM to ask that the Scout demonstrate how he did it. If he really is proficient at teaching a square knot, it won't be a problem. If he's not able to do it a second time, he still needs to work at it. The goal isn't to plaster his uniform with a bunch of patches after all. But I have another question. Who is he going to teach it to? Or rather, how should the Troop or Patrol make sure he has the opportunity to teach it to someone who doesn't know how to tie a square knot? To my way of thinking, it's not in the spirit of the requirement to have him "teach" the SM or the SPL - he really should teach someone who doesn't know how to tie it. So... invite a Bear Den from the local Cub Scout Pack in and help them with Achievement 22? (and of course, while they're doing that, the older Scouts can be practicing setting up tents or doing First Aid or something else that looks really cool and exciting to the Bears.)

"Do we know for certain that there will be no eye damage as a result of exposure to this item through play in the hands of a Scout?" Can't say for sure about the device you linked to, but an actual "Laser Tag" gun has no chance of eye damage, since it's a blinkin' (so to speak) infrared led, not an actual laser. Heck, shining a flashlight in someone's face is more dangerous to their sight than a laser tagger. The biggest chance of injury from laser taggers is if one boy accidentally clunks the other in the chin with one. So from a pure "safety" standpoint, a real game of Laser Tag with commercially available equipment is less dangerous than the inevitable homespun games the boys will come up with (borrowing dad's laser pointer, etc.). Oh, and Kudu, they definitely are expensive, but they aren't limited to indoors. You can use them outdoors just fine. Done it a few times now for birthday parties (non-BSA events, of course). "Nah, we follow the rules , or at the very least - don't intentionally break them. But just because we follow them, does not mean they are good rules, make any sense or are of any actual value." Yep, a Scout is Obedient, but I think there's got to be an unspoken codicil to that. The people making the rules he is supposed to follow are supposed to be worthy of the Scout giving them that authority and respect. Making dumb rules undermines the effort. Not necessarily saying the simulated firearms rule is dumb, but at the very least it ought to be fully, honestly explained.

Beavah: "To my mind the only time a COH should honor an adult is when the youth unanimously agree. Somethin' like a brief thing at the end of the CoH to say goodbye to the SM of 50 years who is retiring. " Engineer61: "I think CoH is the perfect time for the Scouts to recognize and show appreciation for the adults that make Scouting possible. No adults...no scouting." There's some common ground - the Scouts recognizing the adults. I guess the difference is whether it's unanimous or a simple majority, but I think that as long as it's the Scouts making the decision who to honor, how to honor them, how much time to spend on it, etc., then it's probably okay. Just want to avoid the adults standing up and congratulating each other on being such fine fellows while the scouts get bored.... (if Kudu is around, he might chime in with a "leave that for Woodbadge reunions" comment) "...but don't exclude anyone if you do... " Leave it up to the Scouts and they probalby will do this once in a while. Good lesson for them on recognition, the advantages and pitfalls of it. Not to mention some practical experience in handing out awards. You can hand 'em out to everyone, in which case the impact is positive but a little wattered down; you can have a crisp set of criteria for who gets em and who doesn't, in which case you promote certain behaviors (and did you think through what those really are?); or you can hand em out haphazardly and tick off a bunch of people, turning what should be a morale booster into a morale drainer. Tricky stuff, raise your hands if you ever wished your employer understood this better!

I've been wondering about the amount of heat behind all discussions BSA/LDS related, and I suspect that part of it is just the natural temptation we all have to tell each other "Oh, you fool! You're not doing it right!" I'm as guilty of that as anyone. But I think there's another factor, kinda subtle, but there. For non-LDS units, the relationship between the Scouters and the CO can generally be described as the Scouters approaching the CO and saying "Hey, Mr. (Legion Hall/Rotary Club/local church/etc) Representative, we have this great program set up by the BSA, and we'd sure appreciate your help delivering it to the boys in this area. All we really need is some meeting space and a signature once in a while and we promise the boys won't break anything and will reflect well on your organization." But in LDS units, it's the CO approaching the BSA and saying essentially "Hey, we have an important program for our boys, and we'd like you to help us deliver it by letting us use your methods and program as a part of ours." It's maybe a subtle distinction, but I think it colors our reactions. The ideal is that a unit represents a partnership between BSA and the CO, but the reality is usually that one is using the other. I don't mean that in a bad way, but someone is always the driving force in the relationship. For non-LDS units, the driving force is usually the Scouters, but for LDS units it's definitely the CO. I think non-LDS Scouters are used to thinking of the CO as the junior partner. The implications of that are demonstrated by the response to a recent thread where a CO (a church but not LDS) prohibited Scouts from attending firearms training. The gist of the response here was "Well, it's within their rights to do that, but gee, it's a bad decision and if you can't get the IH to reconsider, you might want to look for a new CO." But with an LDS unit, nobody would seriously expect and LDS SM to look for a new CO if the Bishop wouldn't change the Sunday campout policy. It's a matter of who's running the unit, and for LDS unis, it's not the Scouters, or at least not in the way that non-LDS Scouters are used to.

In my troop growing up, we had three "regular" patrols and one "older guys" patrol. The SPL was the PL of the older patrol, which had most of the 15+ year olds. That patrol functioned like a normal patrol as far as tents and food. The assumption was the older boys were experienced enough to handle troop leadership roles and still plan their one patrol stuff. If you only have 2 patrols, then I think I like something akin to Stosh's setup, where the senior PL functions as the SPL (and I suppose the other PL functions as the ASPL). Essentially he's wearing two hats, but based on the Patrol Method, I'd say PL is his primary job.

Are you saying this is not so? Have we/I been wrong in our impressions? I honestly don't know. The site you linked to doesn't appear to be an official LDS church site, but it does seem to be run by members of good standing. At one point, the guy writing the FAQ explicitly states "Let me make it clear that these will be my opinions. I do not speak for the LDS church". The site does seem to indicate that a lot of myths and rumors make their way through the ranks of Mormon families about what's going on in their church, both as it relates to Scouting and other things as well. Not surprising, I'd expect as much from any large organization that was an important part of someone's life (hmmm, are there ever any myths or rumors among Scouters about what BSA National is up to next?). ldsscouting.org seems like it's full of pretty good advice and steers readers towards a traditional BSA program. I have no idea how well it matches with what the typical practice is in an LDS ward (not being a member myself), but after skimming over the faq, I find myself hoping a lot of LDS adult leaders find that site.

All this LDS talk got me to looking around LDS and Scouting sites, I found this and was frankly amazed as its counter to what I continualy hear about Homosexuality and the LDS/BSA relationship OGE, I'm not sure I understand what the question is. The statement from the ldsscouting site just says that, even if the BSA were to change their policy about this (either voluntarily or under court order), the IH of LDS units would be under no obligation to ask (ie. "call") openly homosexual people to server in unit leadership positions. I imagine the leadership of the LDS Church wouldn't be very happy if that change occured, but it doesn't automatically mean they would drop Scouting. One thing to keep in mind is that unlike most other COs, the LDS Church doesn't just see Scouting as a nice, optional bit of community involvement. They see it as a core part of their youth program. For all the LDS/non-LDS squabbles there are in Scouting, at the foundation the leadership of that church realized shortly after the BSA was formed that the ideals and methods of Scouting were valuable enough to officially adopt them for it's Young Men's program. If they ever decided to end their relationship with BSA, they would need to replace it with something else. Certainly they are a big enough organization to create their own program, but they haven't felt the need to do that yet. Mormons do have a large investment in the relationship, they won't abandon it lightly.

I was a decently athletic kid, played sports, lettered in Basketball, was reasonably active. But like Stosh, I didn't have a whole lot of upper body strength. I hated pull-ups. I hated 'em, and I couldn't do very many. But I could do a couple. Three maybe on a good day. As a kid, I wasn't opposed to exercise or running or even doing lower-body weight workouts. But I really disliked doing upper-body work because I was so bad at it. Then in college, my roommate convinced me to go to the gym. Mostly to look at girls, I think, but while I was there I did hit the weights. I still didn't like it - at first. But after a while, my arms started getting bigger, I started getting stronger, and I actually got to like it. Because I wasn't bad at it any more. I'm not exactly a gym rat these days, but I do have a home machine and use it. I suspect that will be good for me as the calender keeps turning over. So for kids who can't do a pull-up, I think we need to encourage them to work at it. Find a way to make it less dispiriting for them - the bungie cord idea or assisted pullups, or some other way to build strength that shows visible progress. But don't just check em off the fisrt time they can bend their elbow. Unless there's a real physical problem, make them do a pullup. It's not beyond their ability. Physical fitness really goes in spirals - either up or down. If you're out of shape, it's hard and painful and depressing to try and get into shape. It takes some willpower to get out of the downward spiral, it takes being able to see past the first dissapointing results and the embarrassment that you're not more fit, stronger, whatever. But once you start to get some gains, it can be extremely energizing. Help kids to get to that place, where they don't fear getting fit or staying fit and aren't depressed about not being fit. It's an amazing mental transformation when you realize you - your body - can break out of your current limitations with a little effort. Losing out on that realization isn't worth a stinkin' rank badge, is it?

I just received my new advising list and a couple of superannuated scouts from the troop I serve are on it. Their parents were similar to JMHawkins in their involvement (if his description serves well), so I'm going to see how 'needy' or 'prepared' these guys might be. I'll bookmark this thread so I can update with news. Ha, now I'm confused (but I admit I got sorta lost around the cockroach discussion). What description was that? Parents who focus on their kid's resume instead of his character?

First Aid was my first. Hard to say what was my favorite (been a while!). I know that Citizenship in the Nation was my favorite graphic design.

btw, not to put down your rigger, but I have known plenty of riggers that consider it standard practice to fuse the end of a line. He lists four objections (this is from The Complete Rigger's Apprentice): 1. melting synthetics gives off toxic fumes and molten sludge 2. the fused end is hard and sharp and "will slash away at sails, brightwork, and crew." 3. They crack without warning ( whipping will show some wear first). 4. "They are ugly." He also notes that a couple of constrictor knots are nearly as quick. I'm not so worried about 1 and 4 (do it outdoors and don't worry about the looks), but 2 and 3 can be problems. Now, all that said, I use the butane backsplice occasionally myself (don't tell!).

lrsap, Congratulations! Your son stepping up to lead when you arent around (the science teachers comment) wa a great step. But Im even more impressed with the flag ceremony. That was him stepping up to lead even when you were there. Think about that for a minute. He not only has the confidence to lead, he has the confidence to lead in the presence of someone who outranks him (e.g. Dad). Thats fantastic. He didn't just defer to someone more experienced, and he didn't freeze up with you watching. He carried on with the job. He hasnt shown he needs you NOT to be there. Hes shown he can handle it with you or without you there. Youre free to do what you want!

Since we ought to be preparing these boys for the corporate world some day, personally I think we should teach FRACK: Fad Recognition, Avoidance and Containment Knowledge EDGE seems like yet another Consultant-generated fad that, while not necessarily objectionable in itself, is indicative of a silver bullet, one-size-fits-all shortcut mindset. If the requirement was to use three different teaching techniques, one of which should be EDGE I would be happier with it. Expose the kids to a couple of ideas: theres more than one way to teach something, and that teaching is itself a skill with established techniques. But the way its set out, it seems like someone got their heart all a-pitter with an enacronymed fad and thinks its the only way to do it. Should we rewrite the Pioneering requirements to say do everything with square knots? Seems like these sorts of fads run through every bureacracy. Leaders will need to wrestle with them frequently.

Incidentally, when I was a scout, using a match to fuse a rope seemed vaguely like we were doing something that was forbidden, not because matches were dangerous, but because of the prevailing view then that scouts ought to "whip" a rope. I haven't whipped a rope in 40 years, but whenever I burn the end of one with a match, I take a look around to make sure my old scoutmaster isn't watching A master Rigger by the name of Brion Toss calls fusing a rope the "butane backsplice" and looks down on it too. I'm with Blanchmange on this, if a DE was arguing a scout couldn't, under supervision, use a candle to fuse a rope, you do have bigger problems. The fact the argument got so heated (so to speak) is a bit worrysome too.

Yah, that kind of sea lawyer interpretation is just fine if you're an attorney tryin' to manipulate things to get your client off on a technicality, but it has no business in raising kids unless yeh want them to someday need a lawyer to get 'em off on a technicality. Beavah, I'm going to print that out and frame it. Though I'm not so sure it's really okay for an attorney trying to manipulate things either... but that's another subject entirely. Yah, OK for Cub Scouts, but not OK for Boy Scouts. In Boy Scouts we EDGE, eh? That means after yeh explain and demonstrate, the boy has to have a lot of opportunity for you to Guide and then to be Enabled to do it on his own, in the field. Tying loads onto the tops of cars, settin' up his patrol dining fly, lashing gadgets, etc. Only when he's "got it down" after a lot of practice is he then tested, and by that point he isn't goin' to forget it the next week. In fact the "test" may be "go set up the dining fly usin' the right knots". My son is a Bear and we're doing Achievment 22 (the knots one). Considering that the boy was still having trouble tying his shoes, I thought it was going to be a long, long road. I figured I would show him a new knot each night, and have him practice all the previous ones first. Started late last week, and we've gone through all the knots now. To my surprise, he picked them up really fast (it took me forever to learn a bowline, he got it the first time). Anyway, I haven't signed off quite yet. I told him he should keep practicing them. We're going to work on some other achievements, and probably this weekend I'll ask him to tie the five knots and sign off if he's able to do it. I suspect he will be. But I'll know he's learned the knots.

Doh! I completely misread the requirement. I thought it said 21 additional MB, but it's 21 total. Thank you, glad I made that mistake here and got set straight. Education is what you get when you read the instructions carefully and experience is what you get when you don't. Well, now I'm more experienced. For what it's worth, the BSA website says the average age at which Eagle is awarded is 17.3. So, while there are middle school Eagles running (flying?) around, they aren't the majority. I'm making a mountain out of a molehill.

Let me pose a question. One that may ruffle some feathers, so to speak, but it's not meant to do that. It's asked in good faith to generate a discussion. Assume a Scout receives his Life Award and sets out to earn Eagle in the minimum time, 6 months. He needs to serve in a POR, so he takes over as PL for Panther Patrol. During the next six months, he completes his 21 additional MBs (an average of nearly 1 per week) as well as planning and executing his service project. During this time, he is also presumably continuing his schoolwork, and whatever other community involvement he has. How much leadership do you think he's really giving to the Panthers?

Realistically most parents could careless if their Scout can tie a knot, do a presentation or actually lead. They care about that extra line on the college resume, Period. Funny, I was going to reply "well, we ought to focus on the kids who are in the program to learn rather than earn." But then it hit me that kids who have parents driving them that way, focused strictly on the paper resume instead of the real person and character behind it, they might be the most in need of the experience a well-run program can give them. Of course "most in need" isn't the same as "will benifit the most from" because they might not pay attention to anything but the badges.

JMH please accept my apologies in advance if the following offends you, but your opening post was one of the most judgmental I've read in quite a while. No worries Twocub - I've got pretty thick skin, so let me know what you think, I'm not going to be offended. Of course, I don't think being judgmental is necessarily a bad thing so I'm not offended anyway. I think you can be judgmental in a bad way, or use poor judgment in it, and perhaps you think that's true of me here. Could be (hey, judging is a two-way street). But I do think it is important to be willing to make judgements and evaluate performances. For sailingpj, I'm pretty familiar with speaking anxiety. I (usually) still get vertigo when I speak in front of a crowd. I don't think that's what happened here, but no, I don't know the Scout in question well enough to be sure. And yes twocub, I am tarring him a bit with a broad brush, I know that. It was definitely a case of "jeepers, another kid with an Eagle who doesn't come across as very accomplished."

What happened to simply meeting the written requirements? Those are the bar. Not the lowest nor highest...simply the bar. Packsaddle, the thing is, what constitutes meeting the bar? Take the cooking requirement I mentioned earlier. It says "serve as your patrol's cook." Okay, so a boy serves as cook. He burns dinner, forgets to add any of the seasonings, the PL needs to remind him to clean the pots and pans, an ASM had to show him how to start the stove because he didn't practice before the trip, and he forgot to bring the extra fuel bottle so there's no hot chocolate for desert. Did he meet the requirements? If you have a low bar, sure. He literally served as the patrol's cook. If you have a high bar, he failed, because he didn't do it very well. Of course, you don't stamp a big red X on his forehad and say "BZZZZZ! You failed, ha ha." You slap him on the shoulder and say "Not bad for your first time. Lot to remember. Being a good cook is important and it takes some practice. Now you'll know what to do for the next trip, eh?"

I know, I know, I'm probably being too critical here. Maybe I'm a bit shocked still at the sheer number of Eagles I run into since I've gotting involed in Scouting as an adult. In my old pack.. ah, jeez, next I'll start yelling at kids to get of my lawn. Okay, here it is. To me, and Eagle badge is supposed to represent a significant achievment, something out of the ordinary. Any young man who has earned - really earned - his Eagle is somewhat exceptional. Especially if he earned it young. To actually earn an Eagle by 14, that's a lot of work in a short period of time and anyone who does that is a truly exceptional young man. And those young men do exist! I've met them. Some of them are undoubtedly on this board. But they are exceptional, and exceptional people aren't common. If half the boys in a troop are earning Eagle before they're out of middle school, is it really an exceptional troop, or is it just one with watered down standards. Looking over moosetracker's definition for an Eagle Mill, I guess what bugs me is a troop that runs that way turns Eagle into a participation award rather than an achievement award. Maybe that's the middle ground I can find with folks like Jet526, packsaddle and Horizon. Is three years of showing up, paying attention and following insructions enough for Eagle? That's certainly something and weeds out a lot of kids right there. But should Eagle require more? Thanks PS: you might ask yourself why a Cub parent is even worried about this. I find myself thinking about this for two reasons. One, my son is not that far away from Boy Scouts (remember the adding machine tape presentation?). So far, he seems like he really likes Scouts, and at this point I'm assuming he will at least get started in Boy Scouts. I want to find a good troop, one in line with my standards (he's my son, I still get to pick! I think high standards will be more beneficial to him). Two, even in our Pack we have problems with leaders who want to hand out awards like candy, and it creates conflict with those who expect kids to earn their awards.

Sorry Packsaddle, been kinda busy (it's recharter time. Got your YPT done? Dues in? Do you know if Cole's mom plans to be on the committee next year? Oh, and how's popcorn going?). To answer your question, the Scout was letting the district leaders know about a Council-wide program. His troop, perhaps his Lodge, are heavily involved in it. Good for him doing that, sure. And I appoligize if folks dislike the term Eagle Mill, I didn't mean to push buttons and I'll be more circumspect going forward. Moosetracker and Evmori's definitions are pretty close to what I meant by it. More specifically for me, it's setting the lowest possible bar for checking off the requirements. On another thread, someone made the comment about checking off the Patrol cooking requirement for 1st Class the first time the scout did the cooking vs letting him learn from his experience. The requirement says "On one campout, serve as your patrol's cook." Does "serve" mean anything vaguely resembling cooking, or does it mean cooking competently and with some skill? It doesn't literally say "serve competently as your patrol's cook" but I don't think it would be adding "extra requirements" to assume competence is implied. My own son is still in Cubs, and we're working on his knot tying achievement. I won't sign off on it the first time he fumbles a bowline together - he needs to demonstrate that he can repeatedly tie the knot with confidence. He needs to demonstrate that if he needed to tie a bowline and no one else was around to check his work, that he'd get the knot right. It's more work for him, more work for me, and it takes longer, but ultimatley it's more valuable. If he finds himself at the bottom of a cliff and needs to tie a bowline, his Bear Badge isn't going to tie it for him. Getting back to the Eagle Scout and his presentation, jet526 said "Last I looked none of these (poise, confidence and general competence) are requirements for Eagle". True, there are no checkboxes for those items, but I would expect them to be byproducts of accomplishing all the things that are. Jet526 also said "I'd guess that he will end up being in that special 10% with a bit more experience." He may, he seems like a decent kid. I hope he does. But if he does, it won't be something that happened while he was earning his Eagle - he's alredy been given that award. And as Stosh said, if he already thinks he's a high achiever, he might not realize he still needs to make that leap. And just to clarify, it wasn't simply poor speaking skills, it was poor preparation too. If he'd stammered and stuttered and fumbled around with the words, but knew what he was there to tell us about, I wouldn't have thought twice about any problems. But he didn't know much about it and seemed a little surprised when folks asked questions. He went through the motions, he didn't actually do the task. That's what flips up the red flags for me. Okay, back to recharting. Got your YPT in? You can do it on-line. Here, let me send you the link...

The vast majority of American kids have been in co-ed schools for over a century. For decades, those schools failed girls at a shocking rate. Over the last generation or so, our public schools have made significant changes in order to better serve girls, with the result that girls are doing much better and getting better educations. The results are also pretty indisputable that our schools are now failing boys at a shocking rate. Surprise surprise, boys and girls are different and respond better to different environments. Most boys will learn better in an environment and program tailored to boys, and most girls will learn better in one tailored to girls. Thats true at nearly all ages, even before puberty and the distractions of boy/girl-craziness kick in. However, there are also important skills that kids need to learn in co-ed groups. To me, that means that the ideal program would be one with both single-sex and co-ed elements. Considering that our schools are unlikely to change any time soon, the co-ed parts are mostly handled already. Scouts is one of the last bastions of single-sex development. It would be a terrible tragedy to squander that critical resource by going to all co-ed units. If BSA wanted to extend the program to girls below Venturing age, I think it should be done as separate programs, from Cubs on up. Even with the programs covering largely the same material, making them non co-ed will provide a better experience for the youths. Wed need more leaders? Wed need more if we made it co-ed too, or were folks thinking of just doubling the number of Scouts without adding more adults? My 2 cents, if the need for this is because GS are dumbing down their outdoor program, start a pilot Webelos Girls (somebody please pick a better name though) program for 10-14 yo girls that is adapted from the Web/Boy Scout programs. As they age-out, they can join Venturing crews. If it's a success, expand it and then try a pilot Girl Cubs program for 7-10 year olds.