ParkMan

I'm not suprised to see that older girl advancement is like older boy advancement. Honestly, having a son and daughter about the same age that's what I'd have expected. I know there's a lot of sage advice on this forum that a lot of Scout development comes from being proactive and willing to learn and traverse the advancement process in the BSA. In our troop, we've always taken the approach of making sure that advancement is available to all those who show the willingess to pursue it. I think this is a very good thing. As a Scout, I was less comfortable tracking down adults to earn merit badges. So, while I was a steller Scout until I hit Star, I imploded after that. I did not care for having to find adults to advise me on merit badges. I became frustrated and to an extent withdrew as a Scout. I never advanced again. Was it better for me to simply stop advancing, become frustrated with Scouting, and quit, or would Scouting have served me better if some troop adults had made it easier for me to grow accustomed to asking adults for help with merit badges. In hindsight, I think I would have grown as lot more with the latter. It's a great sadness in my life that there wasn't someone who held me to overcome my insecurity and reach Eagle. So, I tend to applaud your approach to making sure it's within reach for Scouts to have a path to Eagle if they are interested. Thank you for thinking it through on these new Scouts behalf.

I don't know if they have a superiority complex or not. One could certainly interpret it that way. It certainly does seem the GSUSA strategy is to try and elevate the GSUSA brand as the premier Scouting program for girls. They are trying to do it through exclusivty. I can't imagine it working in a case like this where it's about real families trying to find programs that are exciting for their daughters. Both the BSA & GSUSA can stand to learn from each other - just as all Scouters do. Our Cub Scout pack used to regualrly hold joint events with a Girl Scout troop and it was GREAT! We learned a lot as leaders from each other and it really strengthened all our programs. That the GSUSA is retreating to it's own group is a real shame.

Hah - yes, I hear you! Really, the BSA doesn't define what "within 2 years" means. It could be the numerical integer approach, it could be literally born withing a two year period from the day that the Scout was born. I have to think that if the BSA really was that concerrned about 24 months vs. two numerical years, they'd say so. But, they don't. I myself suspect the discussion at National was something like "should it be two years or three years? Hmm, yes - two years it is. Ok, next topic."

I do the 24 month thing, but if someone else did the two year number difference apprroach that would be fine too. In moments like this, I'm reminded that it's a youth organization and that there's such a thing as overthinking it. Really, ether approach accomplishes the intent.

That's always been my answer to. Seems pretty straightforward and the math isn't too hard.

Very sad. Local partnerships between GSUSA units & BSA units have been a great thing. In fact, I thought it was one of the best reasons against needing to expand Scouts BSA in include girls. The GSUSA making these kind of decisions seems like completly the wrong idea to me. From a marketing perspective, it seems completly backwards to me. This would seem like a great time to show strength by continuing to engage with the units in the BSA - show the world that girls don't need to join the BSA in order to have the occasional joint activities.

It strikes me that this is the way to frame the conversation. That the BSA is proactively looking to determine a way to both responsibly compensate victims of abuse fullfill it's Congressionally mandated responsibilty to deliver the Scouting program to the youth of the country - both today and for decades to come. I've had some hope for a while now that Congress would get involved and create some sort of fund from which these sorts of claims would be paid. While I acknowledge that the BSA's mistakes contributed to the crisis - those mistakes happened well before the current BSA leadership was invovled and that happened well before the current members of the organization were involved. But, I 'm realistic to know that this won't happen.

We determined in our district that the workbook is optional, but encouraged. We went round and round on it, but in the end no text in hte G2A showed that it had to be completed and so we deemed it optional. On a general Eagle application form - I don't think it's terirble that there is a specific form for this - even if the fields are redundant. There are a ton of times in life that Scouts will have to complete a form. They will also have to document successful completion of projects as well. Given the big deal that is earning Eagle, it doesn't see unreasonable that they have a form for this. I fully agree though that the form ought to be online so as to move it expeditiously through the approval process.

I'm very sad for the youth hurt by those 50 adults. I'm also sad for the countless thousands of other youth who will be impacted because of the money and resources the BSA will now need to spend in the aftermath. Who knows - this may even push the BSA into bankruptcy.

Around the country, forms significantly more complex than this are submitted online every day. The only things keeping it from happening are time and money. Someone has to expand the Scoutbook infrastructure and build the forms to make it work. Not an insurmountable task - but like anything it takes time.

It would seem that the philosophical question is - "who is responsible for the sexualitzation of girls bodies?" Is it the girls who wear revealing clothes, or is it the boys who respond to the girls choice of clothing? I imagine that most people would say - both. It probably also leads to a more general discussion of appropriate vs. inappropriate clothing and how the determiniation of what is appropriate is made. You could even then bring in a historical context - i.e., there was a time is was a scandal to see a woman's ankles. Now, no-one thinks twice about it. I'd agree with @qwazse - you want to focus on both. For me, I think we want to get Scouts thinking about how they make their own determination of what is right and wrong. Once they decide right and wrong, what they do with that knowledge is the big question. Ultimately, deciding what to do is a big part of leadership.

We've had a few trailers over the years. Off the top of my head, I can't think of the brands. Looking around online, they look alot like the ones made by Haulmark. The pack had a single axel trailer with a side door. I really liked the side door as it allowed us access to gear without having to open and close the rear door. The troop has two. One is a small single axel - kind of like a small uhaul trailer The other is a larger double axel - again with the side door. We switch back and forth based on need. We utilize trailers more than family cars because we also have access to a small bus. This lets us load us the bus with Scouts & a few adults. All gear fits in the trailer. So, usually a trip is just the bus and a car or two. This model has simplified our transportation coordination quite a bit. I second the comment about having some budget to put in shelving. For the first few years the pack trailer had no shelves. They stored all their gear in the trailer and as a result, it was constantly a mess. Shelves were a good upgrade. The troop trailers don't have much organization, but we use them more for need driven carrying of equipment and gear and so that contents are constantly changing. The troop doesn't permanently store any gear in the trailer - we utilize storage at the CO for equipment. The pack mitigated the theft concern by first buying a wheel lock. Later we moved the trailer to a fenced in storage area where people stored boats and trailers. Cost us a few hundred dollars a year - but it was well worth the peace of mind.

Ugh! We want to live the Scout Oath & Law, but we have to trust our scouts to recognize a silly skit from reality. If we can't trust Scouts to make that choice, then I don't think we've accomplished much as a program.

If I were there, I'd use this as a reason to discuss resources. "You're sharing a storage location. You are anticipating acquiring some for the new troop. Since you'll now have two troops sharing similar equipment in the same space, there are bound to be unintended issues. People using the wrong gear, people returning that wrong gear in a less than clean state, etc. You want to respect their equipment and get ahead of any issues here." That sounds like a great premise for a meeting to me. I know I'm answering this backwards. We scouters seem to love to jump through hoops to get around dealing with difficult volunteers. To me, I think you've got to fix this issue. When you get cases like this, people are not on the same page and conflcits start to happen. In the end - adults get in the way of good program. I don't know how to solve this, but I think you've got to try.

If the troop committee of both troops is the same (as you say it i here), then the committee is going to have to figure out how to get access to resources for the girls troop. After a little while, they may come around to the idea that sharing is inherently good. Or, they may come around to the idea that they just need to purchase new equipment and acquire new funds. In our case, they have establshed a non-linked troop at our CO. The girls troop has a different committee - but it is composed of several experienced adults from the boys troop. The girls troop has really taken on their own sense of "we want to build up our own equipment and be self sufficient". They want to stand on their own. I think people are generally impressed with that ethic and as a result are willing to help out as much as possible.

I continue to think this is the key point for the BSA. I think recent changes will help with the first part (parent time) - families will be more invested in the BSA and willing to volunteer because they have both daughters & sons involved. The second (competing activities) I still see as a challenge for the BSA. I still think that to fix that, the BSA needs to focus more on unit program quality. Pushing for higher quality district activities, more an increased focus on unit leader development would be two good steps. That said - I'm optomistic like @Cburkhardt. I see a 200,000 number for girls in the BSA in Nov 2022. I think there will be slight growth in boy numbers compared to Jan 1, 2020 - but not compared to Dec. 2018. I could see a return for 2018 numbers for boys in 2025.

Hi @AltadenaCraig, I think one of the areas of disfunction we has as a movement is in how loosely connected the three layers of Scouting are to each other. 1) units 2) districts/councils 3) national. My district team has a hard enough time communicating with the unit leaders in our district. I can only imagine how hard it is for national people to communicate with unit leaders. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. At the national level, I imagine that people think they have more impact than they really do. I'm sure there were meetings where they said "We need to send a message that leadership development is important. So, we're going to expand our three aims to four." I'm sure this was felt to be a signficant action. But, most unit level folks I know would struggle to tell you what the aims and methods are. "Don't bother me about Aism & Methods - I have a camping trip to get ready for." I similarly don't recall seeing much news about this. I think I became aware of it about a year back. I agree fully that this was a lost opportunity to make some press for the change. If all they did was was you suggested, it would have made an impact.

I get your point on the patrols. The patrols might be a technically unneccessary grouping, but I think they accomplish a few practical things: they break up the monotony of doing everything as a large group. There are some presentations to the group as a whole, some to a small patrol sized group. Some people like big lectures, some small venues. This lets you experience both they provide a way for there to be a more personal staff/participant interaction. As it is now, it ensures that at least one staff member is spending time with each individual. it may be superficial, but it gives off a Scouting vibe. That the group is at least pretending to follow a known Scouting structure makes it feel a little more "Scoutlike" for some. they help facilitate networking. By constructing the patrols to generally consist of people who don't know each other and then keeping them very busy, it creates a lot of momentum for those adults to get to know each other. I know that when I was a participant I was a pretty new Scouter. I was a bit intimidated by the experience levels of my patrol mates. It took about a day for that to wear off as we were so busy, I really forgot about any insecurities I had. By the end of the course, we were great friends and enjoyed each other's company. Also, because we didn't pick our own patrols, it avoided the normal ways people might group - existing friends, same district, experience level, same program, etc. It helped me build a more diverse network on the course. it introduces a little levity. Patrol totems, cheers, names, etc. Critter identification and the Wood Badge song. Sure, these are not really neccessary, but they can add to the fun. So, while I see your point about needing to have the patrols really be in charge, I think that for the purpose of a training you can get benefit out of using patrols as a small group of adults who work together. I do think for me, as a pretty new Scouter taking Wood Badge, I was pretty open to the theatre of the course. I didn't mind playing along and going with it. Sure, maybe I spent two weekends playing Scout, but I had a good time. For experienced Scouters though, I can see that perhaps it's more like fingernails on a chalkboard. I'm not sure how to mitigate that though.

Welcome to the forum!

This seems like the right approach to me. What's funny about the skit is the idea that the Scout is left in just his underwear. I'd suggest something similar to @T2Eagle. Have the scout in a white undershirt and funny boxers. Under that have him wearing black or skin colored gym shorts. The Scout doesn't need to be in his underwear to make that point. Doing that, the Scout is in appropriate attire. Also, the Scout is now thinking about showmanship and has gotten people to think he's in his underwear without really being in his underwear.

As a former CC of a large troop, my opinion has evolved on this. When I started in the role, I would have said that bylaws are a useful way to make sure that everyone has the same sets of expectations. I realized that while what we do as a Scout unit is has a lot of details, it really is about Scouts interacting with people and be consitent in your dealings. If your leaders are generally pretty consistent in their approach, are open with communications, are empowered to make decisions that are appropriate for their role, and work collaboratively to solve problems, then bylaws are not really needed. Further, I'd argue that if you think the leadership team doesn't exhibit those behaviors, then as a Scout unit, they are probably better served addressing that instead of writing bylaws. It seems like many of the discussions that arise on this forum about bylaws usually come from some sort of contentious situation that has occured because people are not working together. Just my .02.

THanks @SeanK! I think those are all great suggestions and worth reading for any trainer - not just those invovled with Wood Badge. By way of full disclosure, occassionally I serve as a Wood Badge staffer. I would share that our team really tries to do several of the things you write (staying on schedule, being interactive, being a rehearsed trainer). Seeing that you felt the opposite in your course suggests to me that not all Wood Badge teams have those same goals. That's really too bad and your experience shows me why it is so important. That said - I know our team isn't perfect and we make mistakes too. But, I think we do our best to avoid them. Some of these things are kind of the point of the course: developing a ticket, strangers coming together to work as a patrol. So, if you felt that these didn't work, then again, something didn't work here. I think that's very good feedback for people to digest. Point well taken on removing content that is unneccessary to "trained leaders" in favor of expanded learning on content that is new. Again - thank you for taking the time to share these. As they say in Wood Badge - "Feedback is a gift."

I fully agree that more frankness from the BSA would help. Some of these recent decisions are pretty contrary to the principles we all understand that Scouting is about. But, I feel like the "inconsistencies" that often get discussed are overblown. I suspect that authors of the G2SS know that Scouters pour over the G2SS looking for loop holes for the rules. I think a good example is the recent topic about how a parent serving as the second adult for their child's merit badge counseling session turned into a discussion about how that rule could be extended to parents at a patrol meeting. So, I tihnk they write less in an attempt to reduce the opportunities for loop holes. I'm not sure it's working as they'd hope - but it's my guess.

Thanks to the Scouters on this forum, I've come to realize that there are councils out there that do a pretty poor job in recruiting leaders to attend. Your points are all well taken. Wood Badge is not an outdoor skills course. It's not a secret group with a secret curriculum. A good Wood Badge "recruiter" should be very clear about what it is and it is not. Slogans, arm twisting, etc. do no one any good. A strong course will be filled with participants that know what they are there for and interested in that learning experience. I went into the course familiar with management theory, group dynamics, and the like. Even with that background, I got a lot out of the course. I enjoyed learning about the application of these skills in the context of Scouting. I enjoyed focusing on developing as a Scouting leader with other like minded people. Like @WisconsinMomma I too enjoyed meeting the staff and learning from them. @SeanK - if going forward you think of some more specific things that might have helped the course itself be more useful for you, I'd love to hear them. A Wood Badge course follows a pretty defined curriculum. But, within that, there is always room for an indviduals staff members to think about how they present the material and support the participants. There are forum members who do serve as Wood Badge staff members, so it's always helpful to share nuggets that might help them be better staffers.

Thanks for the candor @SeanK. You make the comment: Now that you are familiar with the course, what specifically would you do differently?