KC9DDI

It was my understanding that FCFY was originally introduced to address two concerns: First, it was supposed to be a rough gauge of the quality of a unit's program. In other words, a Scout in a unit with a quality program should be capable of earning the First Class rank in roughly a year. The unit should be doing enough hiking, camping, swimming, orienteering, etc for this to be a possibility. It also helps units gauge how much emphasis should be placed on the advancement method, versus other program areas (so it may be indicative of some problems if Scouts are routinely earning First Class well before or well after a year of active membership in the troop.) I agree that 12 months may not be an ideal time frame to use (14-18 months seems more reasonable to me), but I think that was one of the general goals of FCFY. Now, I think the problem that developed was that certain units, Scouts and parents were looking at FCFY as the only important metric used to evaluate the advancement method, rather than one of several indicators of the quality of a unit's program. So rather than using FCFY as a goal of offering a strong, diverse yearly unit program, unit's started easing up on their interpretation of advancement requirements to make it easier for Scouts to hit First Class within 12 months. The second goal of FCFY, to my understanding, was to provide fairly regular positive feedback and recognition for Scouts' achievements. I don't see a problem with that either, in theory: The T-2-1 requirements are quite numerous, and quite varied, and it's important to recognize and congratulate Scouts who master them. I believe that there was a concern that providing recognition too infrequently was hurting retention of Scouts during the first year. FCFY provides a goal that Scouts working on the requirements diligently should be able to be recognized with a rank advancement every few months for the first year or so. Again, in theory, I don't see anything wrong with this as a goal. But what seems to have been forgotten is that we need to recognize Scouts for putting in the time and effort needed to really learn and master the skills behind each requirement, rather than just recognizing them for attendance, participation, or putting in sub-par effort. So, getting back to whether we just need to do away with it entirely... yes, I think we do, but just because the "FCFY" name/idea has been so tarnished that it can no longer do us any good. But I think that some of the concerns that FCFY tries to address are legitimate concerns. Is there a better way that those issues can be handled?

I'm not saying that the online training, or even our training program in general, are as effective or efficient as they could be. But keep in mind that there's a difference between a brand new leader who's legitimately never been exposed to this material before, and a Scouter with several years of experience that has the material committed to memory. I think a step in the right direction would be to implement a "refresher" training curriculum, separate from the "initial training" curriculum. So the first time a Scouter is signed up, they need to go do through full shebang training program. But then, every 1-3 years, depending on the training course, they can take a much-reduced refresher course that can introduce new best practices that have been introduced since their last training, and maybe re-enforces some selected sections of the whole curriculum.

BD - Fair point, and I agree that the "other thread" has taken a sharp turn from the Scout-like values that we should be applying here. It's possible to politely disagree. You're right, there's probably some overlap between religions who take a dim view of the OA, and religions that take a dim view of the BSA in general. But then the OA shouldn't really be an issue, as you can't be in the OA unless you're in the BSA... I worry that attacking religions who object to the OA is equally offensive as attacking Scouters who disagree on how to interpret a fairly vague rule. I don't necessarily think these religious groups are making any active attack on the OA - they're just opting not to participate. I don't agree with that, but it's really none of my business. You can opt out of the OA, or the BSA for that matter, for any reason or no reason.

Eagle and Beav - That's very interesting. At the very least, it shows that there are (at least) two credible positions on the matter. I have some questions about that specific article, but I too am certainly not an expert in the field. Beavah, I need to ask you for some clarification on your position, so that I don't waste time arguing something that's not being disputed :-) Are you saying that units should look only at experience, and not at age when selecting a unit leader? So a 40 year old who served as an ASM for 7 years would be on roughly equal footing as a 18 year old who spent the past 7 years as an active Scout? Or are you saying that preference should be given to the younger man in a case like that? MIB - I guess I'd have to admit that I'm a bit surprised to learn that. I've never attended a Scouting event where adults took turns discussing how they'd do violent harm to another person - even a child abuser. I'm not sure that's something I'd brag about. But I guess I agree with your point - bad decisions can be and are made at all ages. But I strongly disagree with you on theme of "extreme situations." I've found that how a person reacts to an extreme situation can be a very good gauge of their maturity, their character, and generally their ability to handle "normal" situations. Having been in a few myself, and having handled some well, and others poorly - I maintain that even "extreme situations" require proper handling. Perhaps even more so than "normal" situations.

If there is a spiritual quality to Scouting or OA, it certainly can't be of any particular faith. Can it? Well, it certainly seems like Native American spirituality influences the OA to some extent. I doubt that very many people have a huge problem with that, but its easy to see why some religious groups may be uncomfortable with it. What else is there For starters, taken from the OA's website: "As Scoutings National Honor Society, our purpose is to: Recognize those who best exemplify the Scout Oath and Law in their daily lives and through that recognition cause others to conduct themselves in a way that warrants similar recognition. Promote camping, responsible outdoor adventure, and environmental stewardship as essential components of every Scouts experience, in the unit, year-round, and in summer camp. Develop leaders with the willingness, character, spirit and ability to advance the activities of their units, our Brotherhood, Scouting, and ultimately our nation. Crystallize the Scout habit of helpfulness into a life purpose of leadership in cheerful service to others." A lot of fluff, and nothing I personally find offensive. But certainly an easy example of "stuff" beyond cheerful service. There's also, obviously, the appropriation of American Indian dress, ceremony and symbolism. And the secrecy/mystery/"closely guarded information"/whatever its called these days. What part of anything anywhere in the OA is intended to brainwash an innocent young mind? Nothing that I'm aware of, why do you ask? I'm being generous, giving 1% if somebody actually has a credible issue. I'll wait here. Thanks for waiting, and your generosity is appreciated :-) The question was not whether you find the OA to be objectionable to your religion. You obviously don't, and I don't either. But clearly there are some religious groups that do. I don't understand why that's so offensive. If a Scout feels that the OA is incompatible with his religious beliefs, and feels strongly that he needs to follow the guidelines of his religion, he just doesn't join the OA. What's the problem?

Beav - All very good points. 7+ years experience in Scouting is quite an accomplishment, and I'm sure a very attractive qualification, regardless of age. If I could just ask you to expound on one more point for me: "experience that counts, because experiences causes brain development" -- can you point me to the research that indicates that inexperience is the reason why certain regions of the brain aren't fully developed until age 25 or so? Also could you maybe PM me with info on the EMT-W cert?

Right Beav, I see what you're saying. But I don't think that it's all about experience either. I know I included experience as an example, but there's also maturity and good judgement, correct? And, contrary to what you said, it has been well documented that the parts of the brain that regulate risky behavior and overall maturity aren't fully developed until the mid- to late-20s. It may not be fair to judge one particular young adult based on that generalization, but it's not any less fair than judging an older adult based on the generalization that they will be slower to learn or to accept change. I'll leave the EMS discussion alone. I'm not sure exactly what type of service you work under, but having worked in a variety of environments myself, I can assure you that a desire to help people is not necessarily high on the list of things that attract some young people to the profession :-) (On a side note, can I ask what state you're in that you have an EMT-W certification? I'd like to learn more about how it works in that state) I'd say who we give preference to depends on the needs of the specific unit at the particular time the applications are being considered. If the unit is best served by a particular young adult, by all means give that young adult preference. But to always give the young adult preference, based only on age, and regardless of the needs of the unit - well, that's just discrimination in the opposite direction, right? :-) So I'll take moosetheitalianblacksmith and his willingness to beat the crap out of a guy raping a kid over an "experienced" older athletic director who carefully and responsibly acts to limit liability and damage to public reputations like a mature, responsible adult. Well, I guess it's a good thing that most leaders fall somewhere between those two extremes, and that I have more choices than just one or the other. Because, honestly, both would be unacceptable to me.

SSS - I personally don't have any objection to the OA on the basis of religion, but I do think you might be somewhat trivializing the arguments being made by religious leaders: That said, I find it hard to understand how any person, religious leader or not, can object to an organization whose goal is the encouragement of selfless service to others. Isn't that what Christ was all about? Well, two things: selfless service to other's is not the OA's only goal or practice. And Christ was not all about it either. And I think that's where religious leaders might be getting a little uncomfortable with the OA - in the "other" areas. Modern religions seem to have a very complicated set of beliefs, rules to live by, rituals and philosophies. I think it's somewhat of a disservice to a religion to reduce these types of discussion to "Well, the OA says to help people, and you say to help people, so what's the problem?" Because the religion in question probably has a long, rich history that's much more complicated than your simplification. I guess I don't see it as a huge problem. I personally have no great love for the OA, but I'm very much in favor of making it available as an optional supplement to the main stream Scouting program. If it's something you're interested in getting involved in, great! If you don't want to get involved, that's no problem either - regardless of whether it's incompatible with your religious faith, or because you just don't like dressing up as an Indian. It doesn't necessarily mean that there's anything wrong with the OA, nor does it mean that there's anything wrong with a religion whose traditions aren't compatible with the OA.

Hello Again Beavah - I noticed you added a bit about EMTs before I finished posting. Well, it's not a perfect analogy, comparing EMS to Scouting. I brought it up because someone else brought it up first, and it's a comparison that seems to be made often around here. But you have to keep in mind how far you can reasonably make the comparison go. I will say, in many cases, that age and experience are linked. Frankly, there's only so much experience that you can have at age 18. That's one area where the EMS analogy is not perfect - an 18 year old might start working as an EMT with zero experience, whereas an 18 year old might start serving as a Scouter with several years experience as a youth leader in the program. I'm not denying that at all. I'm also not sure what you're basing the theory about older EMTs on? Sure, an older EMT starting out may be slower to learn, or more resistive to change. But I would say that, in general, the older new EMTs that I've worked with have usually had a more mature personality, treated people with more respect, etc. But notice that in making this argument, you are acknowledging that it is possible to make generalization about a person's personality and capabilities based on age. In EMS, there's a difference between specific job skills, like establishing IV access or splinting broken bones; and maturity. Likewise, in Scouting, there's a difference between Scout skills like camping and hiking; and maturity. I agree, I don't think that unit's should discriminate on the basis of age alone. But I think that the connection between age and maturity and experience is a bit tighter than maybe you'd like to admit. When a unit is selecting a unit leader, they need to evaluate whether the benefits of having the potential leader outweigh the investment that the unit will be making in that leader. Every single one of us brings both positive and negative qualities and personalities to the table. This has nothing to do with investment banking or diversifying stock portfolios or any such complications - it's a simple, though important, calculation the unit needs to make when evaluating whether a potential leader will strengthen or weaken that particular unit. And that has just as much to do with the unit internally as it does with the potential leader. And I happen to believe that a unit is not in the wrong to consider the age of an applicant when deciding whether he or she will be a good fit for that unit.

Hi Beavah - I know we had a lengthy related conversation on the age of Scouters a few months ago. Please don't misunderstand me - I'm in no way linking young adult Scouters with sexual predators. All of my comments were directed at the behavior of "GASers" (I love that term) in general. Sexual offenses aren't the only concern when selecting adult leadership. As far as beating the crap out of someone goes... Sure, it's an extreme situation. And hopefully one that you never need to personally face. But, even extreme situations have boundaries pertaining to how to address them appropriately. And, as a role model for our youth, and also as an adult responsible for the safety of our youth, I think it's fair to expect that your response to an extreme situation will be within the acceptable boundaries. And, even given the specific extreme situation in question, the priority is to quickly and effectively remove the youth from danger - not to take out your own anger and fear in order to make yourself feel better. Also, if you demonstrate that you are responsible and effective (not to mention trustworthy, loyal, helpful, etc) in the face of an extreme situation, I would feel comfortable making the assumption to you behave equally responsibly in the face of normal situations. As far as older adults being more "problematic" than younger adults - what evidence are you basing this on? Not saying that it's inaccurate, but I am questioning how the conclusion was reached. My guess is that if you're examining a unit with 20 "old fogies", and 1 "GASer", you're more likely to see problems in the larger group. I wonder if you've ever examined units with a roughly equal number of old fogies and GASers, and seen where the majority of the problems originate from?

There's a couple of discussions going on across the forum right now with a shared theme: A perception of a lack of an ability to have concerns, questions and suggestions regarding the Scouting program heard and addressed by folks at the National level. To hopefully avoid another nonsensical thread lamenting how National is physically impossible of doing anything correctly, I'd like to focus my question on the specific area of our training course content and syllabuses (syllabi?) Pertaining to NYLT, for example, I know that National has run pilot programs at a handful of councils prior to rolling out nation-wide changes. Presumably feedback from these trial courses was incorporated into the final syllabus. My questions are, how are those trial councils identified? Are there any existing processes to become involved in the evaluating and revision of our existing training materials? What exactly is the process that National uses to evaluate its own program? Now, I don't realistically expect an organization the size of the BSA to individually respond to each and every complaint, question or suggestion raised by it's volunteers. I also understand that it's not possible to make everyone in our organization 100% happy, 100% of the time. What I'd like to be able to do is develop an understanding of the existing processes, before I start offering criticism or suggestions for improvement. Does anyone whose worked at a National level have any experience in such things?

SP - Can you identify the difference between these terms: encouraging, allowing, discouraging and prohibiting? There is a rule against prohibiting parents from attending OA ceremonies. There is no rule against explaining to parents why we would prefer that they not attend. That is a fact. If you feel that discouraging parents from attending should be prohibited, you need to focus on changing the rule to reflect that -- not on re-defining simple words to twist a rule into what you wish it meant. But in this case I think that the BSA rule is pretty much irrelevant. Any adult who actively prevents a parent from having access to his or her child is, I believe, engaging in kidnapping. Or at least some illegal activity. Any legal experts care to chime in?

Eagle92 talks about a catch-22. I think there is some truth to that, but I also think that we're not necessarily talking about Scouting-specific KSAs. I think much of the maturity and good judgement that an "old fogie" may be worried about will be developed just as easily outside of Scouting as inside of Scouting. Remember, we're not talking about some National policy that would restrict Scouters to be 21 and older. I'm not even suggesting that units should shy away from "GASers" as Eagle92 puts it. What I'm saying is that there's a strong enough correlation between age and immaturity and poor judgement, that I can understand if a unit uses age as a consideration when deciding whether to accept or reject a unit leader application - especially if the GASer in question is personally unknown to them. Remember, a unit's obligation is to it's youth, not to those applying for a leader position. Taking on any leader represents an investment on the part of the unit. The unit hopes to take on leaders where the benefits provided by the leader make the investment worth it. And I think that age is an important factor when weighing benefits vs. investment. Sure, unit's could get to know you, could check additional references, could do any number of things to allow you to show them that you're worth the investment - but they don't NEED to do these things. And they definitely don't need to do them just for your benefit. MIB - I'm not trying to make this personal, and I'm not debating your suitability to serve as a Scouter. But you've perhaps unintentionally provided some excellent examples of what I'm talking about: I also grew up to be very blunt and brutally honest. That's a quality I admire. It certainly helps in forming an impression of what I can expect from a person. I also admire the ability for brutally honest people to respond well to the brutal honesty of others. And, to be brutally honest myself, if I were evaluating your application to serve as a Scouter in a unit I was involved with, and I knew you to be brutally honest, but then also heard you make a comment about beating the crap out of someone.... well, that would make me question your suitability to serve in my unit. Now, maybe you say that actually you probably wouldn't do that, but you're still causing me to question your judgement. And there's probably some correlation and some causation with your age.

Well, I didn't expect the issue of "credentials" to be the point of contention. I was merely objectively pointing out that it occurs. On that issue, it was not my intention to debate any one individual's suitability to serve as a Scouter. What I am saying is that units and their chartered organizations are responsible for providing a quality scout program. And are responsible to recruiting quality leaders to aide in delivering that program. They are not required to recruit you or to recruit me, regardless of our qualifications. And, while I would hope that a unit in need would not turn away an offer of help from a young adult Scouter, I can at least understand why a unit may chose to pass on the young adult in favor of someone else.

I personally don't buy into E61's opinion fully on this matter. But, after thinking it over, I can see there being, maybe, a nugget of truth beneath what he's saying. Whenever any question arises pertaining to the suitability of "young adults" to serve as Scouters, several "young adults" regularly pipe up listing out their qualifications ("I'm an Eagle Scout, an EMT, a lifeguard, I've saved someone's life, etc etc). For some reason, it seems like the EMT angle comes up again and again in these discussions. Being a paramedic myself I'll pick on that for a second. I was an EMT at 18, and a paramedic at 20. For a while I was the youngest EMT employed at my service, though the average age was probably somewhere in the 24-26 area. So overall a pretty young group, with a couple of "old fogies" in the mix as well. Now, based just on my own observations and generalizations: the younger EMTs and Paramedics were generally more prone to poor judgement - driving erratically, treating patients poorly, unprofessional interactions with hospital staff, etc. They may have been smart enough, and qualified enough to do the job, but in most cases were still developing the maturity needed to become true "professionals." Often young adults still try to see the world in black and white, and try to solve complicated problems with overly simple solutions. It's not uncommon, both in my experience as an EMT and as Scouter, to see young adults want to barge into a situation and save the day, but do so in a hot-headed, over-the-top way. Let's see if I can find an example... oh, right here: "I know for a fact I would have on in and beat the crap out of those adults" Now before everyone get's even more upset than you already are - I'm not saying that age is a 100% reliable indicator of this stuff. I worked with young people who were responsible and professional, and I worked with "old" people who were juvenile and unprofessional. But, generally speaking, I can see a strong correlation between age and maturity. This seems to be supported by some scientific studies, which suggest that full mental maturity is often not reached until the mid to late 20's, if I recall correctly. Tieing this back into Scouting - I aged out of my troop at 18, but stayed involved in my troop and at a district and council level. Looking back at my first several experiences as a newly-minted "adult" Scouter, I know that I made several mistakes and errors in judgement in my interactions with youth and with other adults. That's not a huge deal - mistakes happen, and I was working with more seasoned, experienced Scouters (who were also more seasoned and experienced adults), who were able to help me see the error in my ways and make corrections. I've seen other "young adult" Scouters make similar mistakes. So, I think it's a fair generalization to expect that a troop's collective leadership may need to keep a closer eye on a young adult, non-parent Scouter, than an older adult Scouter. This in and of itself isn't a reason to categorically deny young adults from serving as Scouters, but it may be enough of a reason for individual units to consider the application of a young adult Scouter in light of the unit's current needs, strengths and weaknesses, and come to conclusion that the young adult would not be a good fit for the unit at that point.

E61 - correct. Neither owning nor wearing a uniform is a condition of membership in the BSA. It is also not even a component of any advancement requirement that I am aware of.

Well, short of just copying and pasting my previous post... Yes, the BSA sells some items that are more expensive than similar items found at other retailers. REI sells some items at a higher price than at Campmor. Target sells some items at a higher price than at Walmart. I propose a boycott of the BSA, REI and Target due to their "predatory pricing." You, as the consumer, can chose where you spend your money. You are not required to purchase anything from the BSA, other than the $15 annual membership fee. If you wish to purchase official BSA merchandise directly from the BSA, you are free to do so at the prices they set. Or you can purchase uniform items second hand, often at a much reduced cost. Or you can forgo buying BSA merchandise at all. It's up to you. I don't understand why you feel entitled to receive a product at a lower cost than what the vendor is charging. These are Scout uniforms for pete's sake, not critical food or medicine that you can't live without. If you feel it's worth the money, fantastic. If not, fantastic. You're not being forced to purchase these items.

Yup, really. A non-profit organization can be, and usually is, a business. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization

Wilton - To some extent, I can feel your pain. But the BSA is a business, that sells and licenses products and resources to its customers. So yes, it's membership in some cases is a "profit center." And I don't see that as a problem. If they're providing products and services to a customer, they are entitled to charge what they want for those products and services. If the customer doesn't want to pay, they don't have to. Capitalism, right? Let's take a step back and look at the only required fee that a member of our organization must pay to be a member of the BSA: an annual $15 fee. That's it. Everything on top of that - Boys Life, uniforms, patches, council and national camps and activities - is OPTIONAL. And, as a member of several organizations other than the BSA - I feel that the organization delivers an exceptional value for it's annual fee. In many ways, I feel that the BSA is being quite thrifty by offering a variety of OPTIONAL programs and activities, like the Jamboree, and using them to finance it's other programs. I just don't understand the mentality that thinks that the BSA needs to provide all of it's products and services either at cost or below. There are plenty of optional events and activities provided by the BSA that I can't or don't want to pay for. So I stay home. If I wanted to go badly enough, I'd find a way to come up with the money. But I don't hold anything against the BSA if their offering a program that thousands of other people feel to be worth the money. I recently paid for a membership to REI (at a greater cost than my annual dues to the BSA.) I can't afford, nor do I need, every product that REI sells. But I don't accuse them of being an "economic predator" for daring to offer products above my price range. What's so different about the BSA that encourages this attitude? Also, the term "BSA National" is a bit of a misnomer. There's the Boy Scouts of America, an organization that offers a Scouting program to youth in this country. Then there's the National Council, which is the division of the BSA that operates at the national level.

So, since a cell phone might run out of batteries, or might not have a good signal, we're going to refrain from carrying one? What's wrong with turning it off (conserves batteries), wrapping it in a ziplock and storing it in the bottom of your pack? Because, if you get lost or injured, it might have batteries, and might get an adequate signal - and might substantially contribute to your safety.

Maybe I'm over-simplifying the issue, but... it would appear that the illegal drug (marijuana) is less dangerous than the pseudo-legal pseudo-drug in question...

I'd be very cautious about going that PayPal route. PayPal isn't a "real" bank, and isn't required to abide by the same laws pertaining to privacy, insurance, fraud protection, etc, that a real bank has. Sure, it's not bad for doing a bit of buying and selling on eBay, but I'd recommend carefully evaluating how much of your troop's funds you want to tie to PayPal. Not saying that a debit card is a great idea either, but I'd go with a debit card from a real bank over PayPal myself.

Your concept and how you relate to that "higher power" is not necessarily the same as how everyone else relates to that higher power. Well, of course. That's been the driving force of the past seven pages of discussion on this thread, and the thousands of hours collectively spent discussing this topic in general. The problem is that many religions treat their own sacred texts and traditions to be more authoritative than a recommendation from the USSSP. Religion doesn't need to be a source of division What do you mean? Religions can and do prescribe fairly strict expectations of their members. Different religions have different expectations. Some of those involve the particular rituals and practices that their members need to engage in. That's why required participation in Scouting's generic one-size-fits-all "services" can be regarded as worthless, or borderline offensive, to people who associate with certain religions. So that's the question: why do we continue to do these things?

I think the absolute most important thing a Scout can learn with regards to religion is to respect each others' beliefs If we stipulate that there is in fact some higher power, I would think that the absolute most important thing a Scout can learn is about that higher power, and to strengthen his or her relationship with said power. Not that respect is unimportant, but "absolute most important?" that definitely connects with how a Scout is reverent. Can you explain this connection in a bit more detail?

There's different kinds of learning, and there's different kinds of cognitive and psychological function based on the skill set that's being learned. A boy who knows how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide still knows arithmetic after a whole summer of not usin' it. Seriously? You really think that anyone over the age of 4 can go a whole summer without having to add, subtract, multiply or divide? "How much more money do I need to buy this computer game?" "What meal can I get at Burger King for $5 or less" "How many hours left until bed time?" Sure, maybe they're not writing out practice problems with a pencil and paper, but simple math is something that you start doing subconsciously after a while, right? So, essentially, you're always using it. But what about higher-level math like trig or calculus? Something that you're not subconsciously using every single day. Sure you may retain most of it between school terms. But baring either repetitive use, or an above-average natural aptitude, I'm going to guess that most of what you learn will fade away after a year or two of not using it. And, remember, upwards of 5 years can pass between earning the Tenderfoot Rank and appearing before an Eagle BOR. There's different kinds of learning. Learning how to swim or how to ride a bike may not be something that you'll forget over time, but it's different from learning how to tie knots, setup a particular kind of tent or operate a particular kind of computer program. For example, I worked for several years as a paramedic in a certain city. Obviously I needed to know my way around in order to do my job - and I really and truly learned my way around. Then I moved away from that city, but returned about a year later to visit. And, guess what, I didn't remember every interaction, every highway exit, etc. Sure I was able to find my way around without needing a map, but I certainly didn't "know" the area like a did while I was still working there. So I can accept that a Scout who learned how to tie a sheepshank 5 years ago may not remember it now.