ParkMan

There's a positive side to why they use the structure they do. If you look at my daughter's group, the friendships are certainly stronger that in my son's troop. Parent involvement is higher too. I'm balance, I think the BSA has the better approach - particularly around ease of joining and continuity of program. I'd wager that's why the BSA is larger.

Got you - I'm following you now. My guess is that your scouts are a lot further along the boy led spectrum. We seem, for whatever reason, to require more adult involvement. I'm trying to break the reliance of scouts on committee adults for that. I've been getting a continual stream of requests from the SM - an adult to advise the scout organizing the backpacking trip, and adult to advise the canoeing trip, etc. Instead of recruiting committee members for that, my push is leverage the 10 ASMs you already have for that. But it sounds like the real goal ought to be to figure out how we rely a lot less on adults in general.

I used the phrase "guideing" the scouts in the sense of the EDGE method. On things like setting up tents, making dinner, figuring out how to run the troop election, I'm there with you that ASMs sit in the background. If a committee member is around, they are on the other side of the room carrying on with adults talking about troop finances or something like that. In the case of something like organizing a camping trip, there would be enough of a skill base that the SPL & others could organize that. But, in the case they do not, it would seem to me that a SM/ASM would have some sort of role. Ideally, it's just to ask the occasional question - check status, etc.. But, if you've got a bunch of scouts who's idea of trip planning is to send out an email to the troop saying - "come to my camping trip", it would seem there's mode EDGE involved here. I'd think in this case, the SM/ASM would meet with the scout, talk about the process, give him some pointers about getting started, and then check in from time to time. if the scout picks is up quickly, then maybe it's just an occasional question. But, if not, I'm thinkinthe SM/ASM would have to do some more prodding. i.e., perhaps he coaches the scout to put together a timeline of when he needs to get things done. perhaps he asks the scout to show him a schedule for the weekend. If the schedule looks weak, then perhaps he points the scout to some resources to take a look at. When I say guide, that's what I'm thinking. But, the troop committee should not be organizing trips for the scouts to attend.

There's a subtle, but important difference between how GSUSA and BSA. In the GSUSA, troops are organized around an adult. The troop continues as long as the adult continues or the leadership transfers to another adult. In the BSA, we have our chartered org. concept. On the outside, this often gets lost - but it's a key reason I believe that GS troops are smaller and harder to join. I think it's also why the GS program is less consistent. My daughter's troop is 10 girls her same age. They started together, they will end together. When they decide they've had enough, her troop will end. My son's troop has been around for 40 years. It will go on for another 40 years. My daughter's troop constantly gets requests to join. They always say no. They're not interested in being anything more than a troop of about 10 girls. If they start saying yes, they will be 20 girls and the dynamics of the group will change. It's not that not that they don't want girls to join scouting, but that they don't want to become something different than they are. My son's troop constantly gets new members, but they also have boys leave. They go from 70 to 60 to 65 to 72, etc... There's a whole different level of organization going on in my son's troop. I'm the Committee Chair - my scouting experience is more about adult recruitment and organizing. That concept is foreign to my daughter's troop. In my area, we are seeing the emergence of what the GS call multi-level troops. They are more like Cub Scout packs. There are daisy patrols, brownie, junior patrols, cadette patrols, etc... They have leaders who work with girls and leaders who organize logistics - it's much more like the Cub/Boy Scout structure. But, it's also much rarer. The plus of the small GS troop is that has led to the girls in her troop having a much stronger bond. Their retention is dramatically higher than in my son's troop, their friendships so much stronger. It also make it impossible for new girls to join. I've heard stories in my area just like you've described. If you are "in with a group", then you're fine. But, finding a spot is tough. I suspect that if the GS went to a system more like the BSA, their membership numbers would jump up instantly.

Thanks again for all the thoughts - especially the words of encouragement. It's been a frustration road to say the least. I've got a couple of items I'll follow up on after work. I wanted to jump in quickly on the last two posts as we get hung up on this too. My view is that the committee should limit it's trip planning role to some logistical/equipment support. Seems like trip planning is a scout (or perhaps patrol) function. The SM should explain the process. Maybe he recruits a parent to teach a class on trip planning. But the actual trip planning is the scout's job. The SM asks questions at the right time to keep the boys oriented correctly - but other than that, the adults stay out of it. Now, I'd have no problem with an ASM who worked across multiple trips and was the person who scouts went to as they planned trips. He'd explain it, answer questions, guide the scouts. But, the committee is pretty much not involved here. Is this what you see?

Thanks for all the responses here. I was off on a business trip and away for a few days. Back to Scouting! Perhaps a few follow-up thoughts, questions, or points of confusion on my part. I may have mis-used the phrase "manage". I work in a business world, so that's a phrase that comes to mind. But, I do guess the better term might be lead. I'm assuming someone needs to provide leadership and direction to those folks. I suppose with clear roles and responsibilities - then perhaps the SM doesn't need to provide much leadership and direction. But, that's not us. What I see in my troop is that the SM does most everything. There's a few named ASMs. But, by and large the SM takes on most other program functions. The SM Corps is generally not very structured. If the SM was keeping up with everything, that's fine by me. He's the captain of the ship, he decides how to sail it. I fully support that concept. But, when he's not keeping up with the program responsibilities and actively saying "find me someone", then what? As I write this, I think you all really answered my question - even if I used the wrong term and maybe the wrong question. It's the SM's job to lead the ASMs. If he's not doing it, then it's probably because he doesn't find those functions all the important. We've offered time and again to help, but since he never really accepts the help, then he perhaps really isn't that interested in it . I suppose I could try to come up with a scheme to make it work, but in reality - if the SM doesn't think those functions are important enough to do them, then it's probably a futile effort to try to make those happen. I think some of you asked the million dollar question. Is the program the SM is running beneficial/harmful to the scouts. That's a really tough question. On the one hand. We have an active program. The SM camps a lot, regularly throws leadership opportunities to the scouts a lot, and is a generally a good person. On the flip side, camping participation is low and troop meetings adult led and lightly planned. Our boy lead approach is basically - SM leads the scouts to most of their decisions. When the scouts are in charge, the SM not only leaves them alone, but pretty well lets them sink or swim. EDGE is pretty much "Explain and let's see what happens". The annual planning meeting doesn't really happen. Patrols, don't really happen. A health number of boys leave because the troop meetings are most often announcements, some activity, game. Most scout PORs are poorly done because either the patrol functions are non-existent or the troop positions are not very structured. In terms of youth positions - the SPL is VERY busy. Scouts leading events are kind of busy. Other youth PORs don't do much. Camping trips never have enough participation that there is any kind of cohesion from trip to trip. Yet, advancement is good. As CC, I struggle. If someone asked me if do we have a good program that is boy-led, I'd have to say no. As the parent of a scout, I think it could be a LOT more fun and challenging. In fact, my son is not enthused by any of it. Yet, there is about 30-40% of the troop that attends troop meetings once or twice a month and attends camping trips a few times a year. The committee adults do a good job of organizing advancement such that boys that make first class can generally get to Eagle if they stick around. Boys that make it past a few years have a good relationship with the SM. So - is it a rewarding scouting experience - I suppose. Do I think it resembles the promise of the BSA - not really. Should I force a SM change - not sure. Am I ready to force a SM change - I don't think so. Again - my appreciation for the replies. This helped level set me.

Hi all, I'm the CC of a troop of about 70 boys. I've been struggling to wrap my head around a problem we've got. Our Scoutmaster has been in his role about 25 years. He's a friendly guy and always willing to go camping. He's generally not terribly interested in developing his ASMs. If a really active ASM shows up and starts filling a role, the SM seems content to let him/her have at it. But, for the majority of ASMs who signed up, but are waiting for something to do - he doesn't seem terribly interested in cultivating that. Most show up for a while, but then stop bothering to come. They are really just another parent at the meeting. The SM constantly says he needs more help and is willing to let all kinds of things slide by. Last year, I nudged him to try to work with the boys to get patrols to work. He said "find me adults to advise the patrols". I did just that. The patrols lasted for about 2-3 months before the fell apart. The SM never really leveraged the ASMs we provided for him. I really don't want to micromanage him, but he seems dis-interested in leading the program. He wants to be the SM, but not lead the ASMs. I keep thinking that we need an ASM program, but the SM really doesn't seem interested in that. I'm about ready to resign as CC over the frustration from this. I'm curious what other troops do - does the SM manage the ASMs? Someone else? Anyone ever been down a road like this and have a solution that worked? Thanks!

Agreed. I disagree with coed scouting, but if it comes to pass, I will give it a try. As much as I like Scouting as it issue, it's far from perfect. I've stuck with it so far because of the bigger picture benefits. I don't see those going away because the boys would have to interact with girls.

I'm not suggesting that they'll rush it. I'm suggesting that they'll look at it as a strategic decision based around perceived future health of the movement. As the BSA isn't a for profit organization they're not really looking at profit. They're looking at cash flow. i.e, does the organization bring in enough money every year to enable it to stay solvant, pay the staff, accomplish the tasks it wants to do, . In that, the amount of cash flow becomes important - but only to an extent. I expect that at it's most senior levels, they're looking at 3-5 projections on membership. I am certain someone has a chart that shows modest membership growth as a result of adding girls. Ultimately, I expect that it's that chart that will drive the decision. Yes, someone will do an impact analysis on going. What is the cost to councils, the national organization? But, it will be seen as an investment. We will spend "X" and the councils will spend "Y" so that in 5 years, we will see membership growth. That's why I think facilities won't drive this decision. The senior execs will not prevent this choice because it's too expensive to invest in the future of the org. It's like businesses taking on debt to fund an expansion that's in the long term interest of the company.

Sort of. It was said in jest - but there is some truth there. Admitting girls to the BSA and making the program coed would be a huge deal. For the BSA to delay a decision of that magnitude because they didn't have the right bathroom facilities would be surprising. If they do this, I expect that the national organization will announce a timeline. i.e. - The BSA will become co-ed on Sept. 1, 2018 - Councils will be expected to have sufficient temporary facilities to support this that that time - Councils will be expected to update their permanent facilities by Jan 1, 2021. Something like that. The President of the BSA will never say "we'd like to go co-ed, but the don't have enough bathrooms."

Ultimately, if the BSA decides to embrace a full co-ed program, I presume that bathroom facilities at camps will not stop them. That's easily solved with a little money. After all - so many girls will want to join that the new revenue will easily outpace any expenditures for new bath facilities.

That's the big question. In the larger society, is this a discussion about girls having the same opportunities as boys, about really having co-ed scouting, or about ending a boys only activity. This article seems to suggest the first option - this is about providing girls the same opportunities as boys. if so - then it's easily solved. I'd support that myself. For those folks who are really interested in co-ed scouting. Well, I think that's a reasonably conversation. However, at the end of the day I just don't think the benefits outweigh the costs. For those folks who are interested in ending a boys only youth activity - I don't have much time for that argument. There's no discrimination here.

Any luck in sharing this? You've got me curious

This really doesn't seem that hard if you charter only single sex units (i.e. all boy or all girl packs & troops). Summer camp - in the short term, reserve one or more weeks over the summer for all girl weeks. Longer term, if there is interest expand camps or build new facilities. Camporees - Hold separate camporees - one for boys, one for girls. Doing what's best for boys - this doesn't impact that. Its still parents of boys running boy scout troops. How does this impact that? Separate but equal - During the civil rights movement, accommodations were not equal because the quality of those accommodations were not determined by those groups. In the case of all girl troops or packs, the quality of those units would be determined by local leaders. The BSA has little to do with unit quality. This all doesn't seem like that big a deal.

I imagine they'd rather compete with all girl packs & troops than co-ed scouting.

Hi Jason, I'd recommend that you volunteer to lead a summer camp contingent to the other camp. Then, get the word out and get a good list of scouts to attend. Once you've got that, you'll find another adult to attend with you - I'm pretty certain of that. Good luck! EDIT: Sorry folks - I saw the last append was a few days ago and didn't realize this was an old thread.

I still think that the BSA could easily get ahead of this by just offering to charter girls only packs & troops. If girls want into the program, let them into the program. This is easy to solve. All the BSA is really doing is providing the framework for the program - it's up to local units to implement it.

I've seen a few unrestricted races happening. I've not seen it done as a fundraiser. Mostly just something tacked on to the normal derby & just for fun.

That's what I've found too. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. Wood Badge is great - but even in the best courses the staff are not miracle workers. I know plenty of "my way or the highway" scouters for whom Wood Badge is a waste of time. I'd like to think you could get them excited about the materials, but it's just not their thing. I'm also a realist enough to know that the Wood Badge content isn't perfect.

hHi ladybug_scout, I wanted to add. In your situation where you've got: Cubmaster, Committee Chair, Treasurer, & Den Leaders Myself, I'd look at splitting up the tasks somewhere along the lines of: Cubmaster - plans pack level activities - pack meetings, campouts, and other pack level activities Den leaders - plan den meetings and other den level activities. Provide manpower for pack activities Treasurer - manage finances and registration of the scouts Committee Chair - recharter, membership, and volunteer recruitment. I'd find yourself an advancement chair ASAP.

Welcome to the forum ladybug_scout! If you have not, I'd suggest looking over the Cubmaster & Committe Chair position descriptions on the BSA website. Google "Pack Committee" and "Cubmaster". As I see it, the CC is the leader of the team of adults who together run the pack. The individual adults who volunteer in the pack are part of the CC's team. The Cubmaster is part of that team. Ultimately the Committee Chair is responsible for making sure that all the functions of the pack are covered, getting done, and getting done well. It's not the job of the CC to do all the tasks them self. In a large pack, the CC's job is pretty much all leadership and management - making sure you've got sufficient adult volunteers, that those adults understand their roles, that those adults are getting things done. In a small pack, the CC may do some of those jobs them self. The Cubmaster is responsible for the program of the pack. The Committee sets broad goals on what that program is, but the Cubmaster implements it. That means the CM is responsible for pack meetings, pack activities, providing leadership to den leaders. It's not the Cubmaster's job to do all the work himself, but the CM leads the effort.

A while back, I heard a course director say about Wood Badge: "is it for everyone, no. But, if you approach it with an open mind and a desire to get something from the course, many find it to be a great experience."

The problem isn't boy led though - it's getting a consistent definition of what it is and how to implement it. I often run into people who think boy led means - give the scouts something to do, a little guidance, and then let them have at it. If it works out - great, if not at least they learned something. It's like EDGE is really "E" and then hope for the best. To me boy led without the "demonstrate, guide, and enable" is what causes folks like the TC to want to give up on it.

Much of that I agree with - troops don't know how to implement the program. Is not that adults want to do it all. It's that troops donto know how to do boy led. There's a skill to running a troop that is not taught anywhere.

I read this as "if the BSA wants to make Scouting co-ed, it could." I think that's the reality anyways. Perhaps a lawyer or two might have to get involved, but if the BSA decided to go co-ed, it clearly could make it happen.