ParkMan

I agree that these are the things we do today. My bigger point though is that I think the movement needs to regroup a bit. We're I in charge of things, I'd do three things: - clarify the program. There needs to be much clearer guidance on how to implement much of this stuff. There should not be arguments on wherther the scouts or the adults should buy tents. This kind of thing ought to be more clearly spec'd out. - improve the mechanics. Just about every troop has boring troop meetings. It's great that some troop has this figured out. It needs to get captured, distilled, and rolled out. Not the hokey program notes kinds stuff. But a real, simple recipe that even I cannot mess us. - improve training for volunteers. I'm not talking about the "so you're a new ASM class". There needs to be a real continuing education program for leaders.

I'm optimistic. In our district, there is a very uneven distribution of scouts in troop. A few large troops (50+) and many smaller (~20) troops. The packs are the same way. What that tells me is that the scouts are out there and some packs & troops are better at attracting them than others. What I think is going on is that adult leaders are really struggling to figure out how to deliver a good program. The days of hanging out a "Scouts welcome" sign and getting a full pack or troop are gone. The proliferation of other activities has taken care of that. So, to have a successful unit today, you've got to run a good program. When I read threads like this one, I struggle with things like "scouting is supposed to be a challenge, and an adventure", "Scouting is a culture that challenges the masculinity of young men", etc. I've got absolutely no idea what that means. What are you supposed to do to challenge their masculinity? I've been a Committee Chair for four years now. I cannot count how many discussions we've had about "boy led", "patrol method", etc... Folks who have been doing this for over 10-20 years see those concepts and implement then differently. I was sitting at the Troop meeting the other night listening to some of our more active parents talking about how their kids hate troop meetings and are tired of canceled camping trips because the boys can't get them together. We're arguably one of the most successful troops in the district and one of the better ones in the council. We can't figure this stuff out. On top that, training is so basic no-one goes. Roundtable covers superfluous topics, so no-one goes. I've come to the conclusion that our problem isn't the boys or their parents, it's that we are getting so bogged down in stuff that we're forgetting how to run a scout program. Now that competition for their attention is tougher, it's more important that ever to be on our game. But, we're not.

Well said. This captures my thoughts. This is why I think it helps for us as adults to remember this balance. We can't make it all game or all purpose. But, we orchestrate the game to achieve the purpose. In the context of this discussion, I'm struck that no-where in the BSA literature does it say "turn boys into men". We talk about boys developing character, but don't talk about what that means. What does character mean for young men today? So, as we orchastrate that game, how would we do it differently for boys than for girls?

I don't think there is anything in the G2SS that says a scout has to tent with his parents. Just that the only adults he can tent with are his own parents. I think he's fine to say in the cabin with the other boys.

I tend to take a little more optimistic view of the councils. I've gotten to know our DE and some of the council staff. Yes, they have goals for new units started, but they also have goals for membership. A successful unit like this one is gold to a DE and the council. It helps make membership numbers, it helps make FOS numbers, etc My gut tells me that this isn't the "Council" so much as it is the DE & maybe Director of Field Service. I'm thinking they are trying to figure out how to make a successful pack more successful. They probably fear that the unit is getting too big to be sustainable under the current leadership structure. Let's face it - many units struggle to get enough volunteers, so taking a big pack and then asking them to add 25% more volunteers to make it work is a big ask. Easier to just try a split where it's more easily managed by a smaller group. Also, if all goes well, you get two strong smaller packs which are well poised for future growth. Me - I'd sit down with the core leadership team and figure out an organization that's sustainable for 120 cubs. 120 cubs is two boy dens and a girl den at each level. That's very realistic for a large pack. Define the jobs you need filled. Don't worry about who is going to do the jobs you need done them, just start by figuring out what they are. Once you have those defined, you can go out and recruit for them. It may take a couple of years to fill them, but at least you've got a goal then.

Me - I'd just stick with having a big pack Splitting any group like this is tough. There are always some hurt feelings from families or leaders that go to the group they didn't want. I'd just take a look at.how you manage your packwide activities. You just need more planning and organization as you get bigger. Bigger also brings more adults and more resources too to help you manage that.

Congratulations! That's wonderful!

My point exactly. These are completely different things.

Yes - I'd wear the uniform. This is a district event. You and your son are members of the BSA. It is wholly appropriate for both of you to attend in uniform. More importantly. You're there with your son. Seeing you there in uniform is a great example to him. Go for it! BTW - nice call getting the official pants. I'm a believer that wearing the uniform correctly is a good example for the boys. We all get to the full uniform at our own pace, but when you can acquire all the parts, I think it's the best example for the boys.

My instinct is to put someone with that much enthusiasm to work in the pack. However, I worry that he's more into being a Scouter than he is in being a pack volunteer. I'm worried that he's going to bring unneeded drama to your team that may not be needed. The "Paper Trained" patch bugs me. I've got several adults in our troop that refuse to get trained, think they know it all, but really don't. I hear the same kinds of comments from them - the BSA doesn't know anything, the council guys are stooges, etc. It's not that they're bad people. In fact, they're generally great people. It's just that they're a little too cavalier with the program as a result. I'd welcome a bit more humility. That said - I think I'd still try to build bridges to the fellow and find out how to get him engaged. I think I'd talk to him about what he'd like to do in the Pack and see if you can find a fit. I wouldn't sweat the title - Committee Member, ACM, whatever. Figure out if it's possible to bring him into the team and leverage some of that enthusiasm.

I'm as sympathetic to the financial plights of councils as any, but an Eagle fee is just wrong. You make it this far, there should be no fee. Here's hoping they reconsider.

I'm sad if this is true, but can understand it. I was never an OA member. So while the ceremony is impressive, I don't have an emotional attachment to it. I think my instinct would be to capture the themes and pagentry of the current ceremony, but remove the Native American imagery.

To that I'd add that your troop needs to have a defined program. Our troop is far from perfect. But, one thing we have is a sense of what our program is and how we work as a troop. The SM has a plan for what he's doing. As CC, I have a plan for where we're taking the troop. If some adults start showing up at committee meetings, troop meetings, or camping trips and starting problems, we'd all look at them and collectively say "what are you doing?". I think the key to that is the core group of troop volunteers coming up with a shared vision for who you are as a troop and then going in that direction. It may sound like I'm advocating adult led - I am not. When I say "defined program", I mean things like - are you boy led, do you use patrols, what is the relationship of adults to scouts, etc. The boys should be planning the troops operating activities and program. What I'm suggesting is that higher level of who are you as a troop. The other thing I'd advocate is for you and others to spend a lot of time explaining why you do things. If a parent wants to clean his son's dishes, it's one thing to say "HEY, don't do that, we're a boy led troop". It's another to have a conversation with that adult about how letting the scout do it himself is a step down the path of self reliance, confidence, and developing leadership skills.

Those are good terms. I'm confused though. I've not heard of a "familization" change for Boy Scouts.

But, I'd think this is the wrong direction to go. If you've got families on a camping trip, it's the time to show the troop being it's most responsible. You get to "show off" the program and get those families interested in helping.

Yep - I also don't see anything in there about throwing away Scout led or the patrol method. I don't see anything about the end to backpacking or making Boy Scouts a family camping club. The FAQ has: Q. Will there be new curriculum for girl participants? Will you change the program to accommodate girls? No. Our existing programs are relevant for young men and women. After all, the values of Scouting as outlined in the Scout Law – trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent – are relevant and important values for both young men and women. "family scouting" is just another phrase for "adding girls". It's a way of saying that all the kids in the family can participate, not just the sons. It's a way to say that all parents can volunteer because all their kids can benefit. It's not a way to say that Boy Scouts is now a family camping club.

Can someone please point me to the new leader's guides or training materials that has changed how the program works with respect to scout led? I'm not aware of any. As best I know, we're still as boy led as ever. Sure, there's some marketing stuff about family scouting, but I've not seen any program changes at the Boy Scout level. I cringe reading this because it feels like troops freelancing with the program.

We have a number of parents who teach classes. Some of those meet before the troop meeting, some at a time convenient to all. Most meet every couple of weeks for a couple of months. This has worked really well - we normally have 8-10 such classes a year. I think the key for us is that we almost never teach merit badges at a troop meeting.

I'm the Committee Chair for a large troop. In that role, I've seen the impact that well trained leaders can have. To me, money spent training adults is money spent on the boys. I could hope that council would make it free - but, I know how strapped they are for funds. I don't mind building $10 per scout per year to cover getting leaders trained. Money very well spent in my book.

Our council has always run trainings such that participants pay a small fee that covers costs, materials, and a few dollars back to council to cover their administrative fees. Fees typically run 10 to 20 dollars for basic position trainings. More for things like IOLS. I have never heard of scouters balking at the cost. Most seem pretty accustomed to paying their own way. Most units around here reimburse, but few folks submit the paperwork.

But even if makes are statistically likely to be abuse youth, doesn't the existing two deep leadership approach provide sufficient checks?

I'll be interested to see how single sex dens end up working out in practice in these early adopters. I'm assuming it will be a royal pain and we'll end up with coed dens all over the place.

I read it differently. Two adults are needed. At least one of those two must be 21. At least one must be a YPT trained female. You could meet the requirement with just two people.

I think this sounds like a wonderful idea. In my experience, objections to attending Wood Badge generally are either: - lack of interest - lack of time - lack of money You're removing one of those (money). By increasing focus on Wood Badge, that can lead to improving interest. More people attending means more people talking about it, more good stories, etc... As for whether it will work - it's tough to say. I think it depends mostly on the culture of your troop. But, I think it's worth a try. I think you don't keep it private. If I read between the lines, I get the impression you're trying to promote attendance. It will be less likely to serve as a promotion tool if no one knows about it. Further, just because their attendance is funded doesn't have to imply anything about need. Just that you see the benefit of attending and want to share that with others. Our troop, for example, budgets enough every year to pay for one person to attend. No one looks at it as a reflection of need - just that if someone wants to attend, they submit the receipts. A couple of times we've had two people attend, but other years no-one, so it all worked out for us.

The separate den policy is a challenge. Our pack has 60 boys and 8 dens today. It's going to be tough for them to go co-ed. They will have to add at least 1 new den every year. They'll be 90-100 kids and 10-12 dems I'm no time. I'm not sure that's a good thing.