qwazse

You're asking to hoe a long row. But, I agree that it's worthwhile. BSA would need to get input from proper industry experts (e.g. OSHA, Iron Workers Union, ... is there a timber lobby?) We have to make it about the balance between job security and safety. My observation is that my oldest brother and I are more confident with roof-work than my boys or my brothers who weren't scouts. I attribute that to summer camp working on monkey bridges and three-story towers (by the time our troop's week rolled around, we were usually on the 2nd level lashing up the third). My Victorian house is hardly any different when it comes to cleaning gutters and checking shingles. That said, son #1 is a useful partner when I (nowadays, we) prop up the 24' ladder. He is thorough with the safety check and catches things that I would otherwise ignore. It would behoove our country to have more boys entering apprenticeship with experience working at height with an understanding of safety apparatus.

So, when Scouts Canada's membership policy changed, how did they placate LDS?

Pity about campfire. (I'm saying that as a nephew of one of the nation's oldest living campfire girls.) Knock on keyboard about your council's contact. If it's a good troop, it's never too late. If not, we'll brainstorm some more!

@@Hawkwin, welcome to the forum! Your experience is not exclusive to fathers, btw. Have you sought out American Heritage Girls? Campfire USA?

BTW, @@kscouter, welcome to the forums!

At least GS/USA is capable of calling out "family accessible" for the tripe that it is.

Regurgitation journalism. Interesting how it trivializes the record-setting loss of membership in years following the revised membership policy. It makes no effort to name Trail Life and interview any of its leaders. Nor does it acknowledge the loss of MoU with AHG and the chilling effect it may have had on developing that elusive "parallel unisex" structure.. It doesn't seek to report on BPSA and it's lack of national presence after decades of inclusion. Most importantly, it does nothing to call homosexuals to consider supporting scouting at an inclusive CO. Evidently dismantling BSA's bias towards theism is the next laudable task. And certainly LDS has been a stakeholder (no pun intended). So, yes. If you're gonna be relevant, their opinion will matter. It's just one more "sacrifice the many for the sake of the few" tomes.

The uniform police will need more space under insignia to calculate the correct number of palms on the Eagle knot. SPL: Sir, may I have the date of your board of review please? Thank you. Now, MB and award cards in chronological order, please? Ooops, looks like you're one palm short. That's -5 points. ... No sir, solidarity with Eagles whose BoR was a month before yours does not garner leniency.

Mr. SPL, you may doc 10 points as needed for any off-the-cuff remarks.

Nice try sneaking that in there Attendance? Well, that's useful if you're scoring a patrol or a unit based on the membership roster. Someone present at least bumps the average.

That would include Wood Badge Jim, right? He was active in a troop as of that date! (It wouldn't include me ... I was only active in a crew.) My point is, when someone makes a completely unnecessary stipulation, don't take the bait of making an equally unnecessary stipulation. (That might be my rule #2: don't beget one foul rule from another foul rule.) Let whoever wants to show up at the scout shop with blue cards in order request what extra palms should be conferred under the new definition. Simple. Fair. Voluntary. If the new definition is truly ideal, BSA might be swamped with orders. If the majority of scouters really don't mind their uniform deviating from the new definition, supply won't be a problem. The only thing that national will have to worry about is boys turning down palms because they want their insignia to match their scouters old-fashioned ideals. Either way, nobody "loses," and we save ink.

Hitched a ride in to the office with the 'scope today. Got some good projections of 80% both from the sight scope and the main reflector. When it wasn't hazy, I saw some sunspots rolling around the crescent. (Anyone in parts north of the path would have seen it.) I couple of strangers stopped and looked at my rig. Worth the price of admission. Bonus: I volunteered Son #1 to come in and test the new protocol my colleagues our developing, so the 'scope has a ride home!

That problem exists now. But, it goes in both directions. I see some boys choose to be in a crew so that they can have a patrol in action, not in name only. Six to eight youth hiking and camping independently with their mates, by any other name .... I know some SM's accuse venturing of wrecking their patrols. My experience, however, is troops with strong patrols don't have boys running off to Venturing.

@@Stosh, Or, they could just have boy scouts who are co-ed earn eagle, and venturers not bother with advancement ... since most of them don't and will likely continue to not do so. I mean, if anyone really wanted to manipulate the advancement scheme so as to bolster venturing, remove the age restriction and allow one to continue working on Eagle so long as they were an ASM or an adult venturer between age 18-20. In this way, Venturing's membership.woes are a curse and blessing. There aren't many venturing youth to campaign for a co-ed scouting experience. But, if a wholesome co-ed troop life would draw off most venturers, the continued decline of this division would hardly be missed. In fact, I could see O/A completely replacing venturing ... were it to welcome young women. Again, not a problem to me.

Could go the other way. Exploring grew first as a unisex program. It was demand from females desiring to participate that made it go coed. It wouldn't hurt for what few venturers who remain to go back to their roots.

Managing ASMs ... Herding cats. Pretty much the same thing. But to answer your question ... When I became an ASM of the troop I grew up in, the MC's were removed from daily workings of the troop, so it was the SM or nobody. He might let you know what he expected of you, he might not. That was okay. You basically let him know what you were up to, and that was it. Usually, that meant looking for odd jobs here and there and talking to the occasional homesick scout. (There was no advising patrols, that whole notion would have been laughable.) Son #1's first SM, his wife managed us, inasmuch as she could. Getting us to hustle with paperwork and forms, etc. The ASM's were of two types: the pantheon of former SM's and us new dads. We did our own thing, and sometimes the boys would come over and ask us how it's done. SM's wife became my co-advisor (at the time the SM was moving into the "pantheon"). I actually thought we were a pretty good team, but we also had some high functioning youth. Second SM was more of a manager and asked for a lot of help, which got the poor man a heap of conflict. Half the ASM's wanted to have more time at the helm. He was the first one to ask each of us to "advise" a patrol. (Which I did by telling the PL where I'd be making coffee should he have any questions.) Third SM (son #2's) was more like a partner than any of the other guys. Not sure who managed who. But by then, I learned to run interference for the guy. On the flip side, patrols didn't really hold together. Current SM delegates a lot. But, the CC is also in the mix. (I guess me and the 3rd SM are now in that pantheon.) The crossover dads are stepping up. I admire this group of boys. There is a little bit more patrol pride. But the rift between the older scouts who merged from our troop and the younger scouts who out-vote them never quite healed. A lot of my time as crew advisor has been spent nudging these guys to mentor more ... which works about half the time. So there you are. If there's a lesson to be learned, I guess it's that the grass ain't greener. My best advice, get as many of these guys to roundtable and other training. That's where you as a CC have the most clout.

I had to do some last minute work on a family cottage, pretty much on my own through the day. Neighbors had invited their troop to camp in their yard so the group could spend the day at a reenactment. I was invited to supper once the boys came back. I had a few more things to do, and a roll of carpet to move. (Definitely a three-man job.) There were four scouts and their parents who were a bit helicopter-ish. I came over carrying a rope and called the scouts, who were pretty wiped out from the day and from meal prep, to come on by. They asked why, and I said "Who among you knows the scout slogan?" One or two of them shouted it back to me, then they got the message and snapped to. I showed them the task, and told them, "I figure there are two ways: stretcher via kayak paddles, or rope." (All the while their adults were offering to step in, and I shooed them back.) They figured "rope", which I handed to them, they turned to their Eagle Scout, and he said, "Looks like a timber hitch should do it." They got right to it and dragged that bad boy into the garage in no time. I allowed them and younger sister to have their pick from my family's ice cream stash to put in their coolers for when the meal was done. (I don't think any actually waited for dessert.) The adults, they were offered their pick from the family candy jar.

That ship has already sailed round here with venturers fielding patrols at camporees.

Why did it need to be simplified?Not for the scout. Most can text coherent paragraphs better than you or I can type. Not for the parents. One boy asked me to help him with his draft plan at summer camp, which he was writing in a notebook. His mom was going to type it for him when he got home. I thought his handwriting was good enough. Not for the beneficiary. They get stuck waiting for boys to log in and download before writing up manicured project plans. If they want paperwork, it's probably not NESA's PDFs. Not for any of my adults. In these parts, we've accepted handwritten bids and recieved work well done. (The Mrs and I just lined up an Amish builder to do work ... all on a handshake.) The reason I drew a table for my project report was because I felt that I needed a schematic to show the parts I purchased. The reason I needed to type three pages was because it took about 30 scentence story answer the questions on my project instructions. The reason I typed was because my penmanship was hopeless.

Scout house: growing up we had the entire basement of a mansion next to the church. Entirely ours to renovate and maintain. Upstairs was for the senior center and youth group. To my knowledge, nobody else ever used it. Best part: SM lived two doors up. I visited recently. It's a parking lot now.

@@skeptic, that might be all true. But, the truth is, Americans don't believe it in large enough numbers, and disenfranchising thousands of boys of unisex-believing parents is its own form of "bailing out."

Yeah. Eagle is much harder to earn today. I show scouts my three page (typed, triple spaced) project report and hand drawing of a table. And they are jealous. Ban the workbook .pdf, give the boys a rubrik. Have them bang out a free form report in plain text, and you'll go a long way in making service project planning great again.

@Wood Badge Jim Welcome to the forums! I guess here's where you and I disagree: if something isn't "the most fair" why pursue it? I mean, if some revival preacher is telling me his "isn't the most fair" savior, I'm leaving the tent meeting! They way I see it, this is a matter of uniforming. Devices on uniforms have meaning. When the meaning of a device changes, it's not rational to say that for one class it should mean one thing and another class it should mean something else. This general line of thinking is what has routinely been applied to BSA awards. For example if a scouter earned a "Webelos award" before 1967, he qualifies to wear an Arrow-of-light knot. Why? Because, for the sake of uniformity, we want boys to know who among their leaders had similar accomplishments. (Yes, cubs ask me about my knots from time to time, and I explain all three of them, and encourage them to read insignia like an young brave would read a totem pole.) I understand that as scouters, we see our currently enrolled youth as equals among one another. But, the fact is, Lord willing, these Eagles will spend more years as adults than youth with this award. And, I encourage scouters to see all Eagles as very much our equals. Thus, if you think you or I should be restricted at the scout shop from picking up palms that represent our accomplishments on the same scale as today's Eagles, then you should fine restricting last month's scouts. Last month's eagles stand next to us as much as they stand next to this month's or tomorrow's. If they aren't, we're doing it wrong.

What does it say? It is equivocal at best. http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/02/coed.aspx While these types of teaching approaches may be thought to improve grades, test scores and college acceptance rates, there’s little empirical evidence showing that sex-segregated classes improve educational outcomes. A 2005 U.S. Department of Education comparison of same-sex and coeducational schools found a dearth of quality studies examining academic benefits and concluded that the results are mixed and not conclusive enough for the department to endorse single-sex education. The difference, if any is far from "HUGE" in any sense. And, might not be in the direction one thinks. The APA's Monitor concludes ... ... segregation is very seldom a beneficial form of “choice†and that fostering diversity within schools, rather than across schools, is the best option. Note that I have no inclination to put the APA on a pedestal. Nor do I believe they have much of a clue when it comes to outdoor education and teaching kids patriotism. But, I would advise against treating education science (art?) as gospel when it doesn't even tell you what you wish it would. I'd rather let you rely on my administrative assistant's perception that GS/USA should be for girls and BSA for boys. Feel free to cite as "water cooler conversation."

Great sound (text?) bytes: And, all of the parents who were interested in their daughters joining my crew agree. It wasn't about the adventure, it was about the male role model that they (rightly or wrongly) saw in me and many of the advisors on the VOA. The female advisor up the road selected her co-leader based on his track record as a male role model. I have to confess that I was not nearly as judicious selecting my female counterparts. Night and day? For a while, with our scouts, it was "we rule the night" -- special goggles included. (I made no never-mind, they were still in bed by ten. The coyotes helped motivate that. ) Sounds to me like it is the difference between a continuous distinction and discrete distinction. A couple male 16 year-olds mixed with as many or slightly more male 11 year-olds and a couple males in between ... male 11-14 year-olds mixed with a couple of female 11-14 year-olds. Which mix is the greater impediment to everyone mastering first class skills and living up to the promise of the oath and law? I've really only experienced the former. CSE Mike seems convinced, on hypothetical grounds that the latter is hugely problematic. Folks from across the pond are telling me otherwise. And the Indonesians are off-the-charts with their "together, but different" strategy. So, a difference? Certainly. A HUGE one? Untested.