Beavah

Now in his senior year, he's in jazz band before school, wind ensemble for a school class, marching band practice every evening (through fall), and competitions/FB games every weekend through the fall. Zero time for scouting. Yah, this probably belongs over in da challenge thread, but do yeh have a sense of why your son went that way, Gern? To me it seems the level of dedication give the lie to the notion that kids won't do activities (whether Scouting or band) which demand a high level of time commitment. In fact, by high school, they seem to relish the activities that demand a high level of commitment. B

IMHO, the prime failing of BSA training, from what I've learned about it online, is that it isn't clear on what the hell it wants to do. It'd probably be quite good, if only it focused and quit being like a kid with ADD chasing the shiny. Goin' to have to remember that quote

Yah, the punishment thing comes up in a lot more places than the parent thread, so I was talkin' more generically than that, eh? But in that respect, I reckon in an ideal world all communication is crystal clear and we never have to live with the results of others' decisions. In the real world, of course, referees make bad calls all the time; folks come with different perspectives on da rules. While arguing and complaining about referees is a bit of an American pasttime for fans, isn't there an element of sportsmanship involved in such things when we talk about participants? If a ref made a bad call, is that "punishment"? If an Recognition Committee made a questionable call on a Silver Beaver decision, is that "punishment"? I just don't think so, eh? I think it's da folks whose job it is to give out awards making an arguable call. To which the proper response is to be be a good sport. Go camping again, it'll be fun. Get the award next month. Keep doing scouting, it's fun. Get Silver Beaver next year. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

OK, my language is corrected. The choice is the same, though, isn't it? And I think that's what the other poster meant. There's more value in a program that puts participation and performance demands on kids, and therefore such a program should be "privileged" as you say. Hence Scouting has less value in his eyes as a parent. In order for Scouting to have the same type of impact on kids, the same value in the eyes of the parent, it would have to have similarly high expectations, eh? And that would require a choice between programs. Just curious... do yeh think a band program would survive in a high school environment if it were run like a Scouting program, with that same sort of lower level of commitment? Or is it the commitment and teamwork and performance improvements that come with that what makes a band desirable? Beavah

Yah, Sherm What's fascinatin' is how this stuff gets passed around in viral emails and never seems to die. I'm on da conservative side politically, but I just don't have much patience for the out-and-out lying. It suggests that we conservatives don't have a strong enough intellectual argument about da proper role of government in a society, that we have to resort to creating this kind of silly fiction. So, Mr. Boyce, President Obama was invited to attend da Jamboree either in person or by video. He chose to "attend" by video. No different than Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush in his first term. As mentioned, lots of folks were relieved, because an in-person presidential appearance can be a real mess, especially now with "terror alert" security measures. Like da GWB visit to the 2005 Jambo where not allowing bottles of liquid resulted in all those kids with heat injuries. And his signature does appear on Eagle certificates. I'm looking at one right now. Beavah

Yah, Eagle92, it's different for Eagle BOR's, eh? Any community member can sit on an Eagle BOR (other than a parent/relative of the scout). It's only for the lesser ranks that they're nominally supposed to be Committee Members. Generally speakin', I think that's honored more in the breach than not. If I were to guess, I'd say that most troops use unregistered parents or community members on BORs in addition to MC's, just as they would for an Eagle BOR. It is odd, isn't it, that we allow a more open BOR for Eagle? So while the letter of the guidebooks is only MC's on a Tenderfoot to Life BOR, the actual practice is more diverse. In some units, there just aren't enough committee members to handle the number of boys, eh? And they want to keep the committee small and focused for other reasons. So such troops must add outsiders. For others, it's just a nice way to help plug parents into the program and get 'em an understanding and appreciation for what's goin' on. I agree with Blancmange that it's nice to have folks on BORs who actually have a bit of training in what they're doing. Some folks just aren't great at talkin' to kids, and it helps to know the program. But Committee Member training isn't required and doesn't include how to run a BOR anyways, so most MC's don't have a clue. Just like a non-MC parent, they tend to learn OTJ. I wouldn't let it bother yeh, cdroberts94. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

If the kid wants to become a musician or music educator, or certain engineering or medical fields. Scouts it pretty much 2nd Chair (to use the musician's term). You're goin' to have to explain that one to me, Engineer61. I get da musician or music educator bit. But I can't for the life of me figure out how being in Marching Band prepares a lad for engineering or medical fields. If anything, Scouting tends to be the one place in these parts where kids get the best introduction to medical fields, through first aid training and volunteering. I can point to any number of former scouts who went into medicine because of their experiences in Scouting. Same with engineering, eh? From da Radio MB/JOTA crowd learning electromagnetic theory to the Climbing MB kids learning forces and vectors to the pioneering and catapult projects to da Space Exploration MB rockets, seems like kids get a far more fun and thorough introduction and mentoring in da engineering disciplines in Scouting than they do by marching around a field banging a drum. Perhaps yeh can explain? Beavah

Yah, in da previous thread if I was reading him right, Engineer61 hinted that band (and before that, sports) were better activities than scouting because they demanded more of the kids. Band requires practice 5 days a week, and as a result the teamwork is more integrated, the level of performance is higher, there's more camaraderie because they're spending more time together, better fitness development, etc. Lisabob, by contrast, suggested scouts should be more a more available activity or at least not be so much of an obligation that it would conflict with the level of commitment demanded by the band and sports programs. Da problem is, if yeh made sports or band the same sort of "as available" activity, yeh would never get beyond beginner level as a group. That eventually frustrates the lads who want to do more and need a group to do it with. It also makes it hard for da parents on the sidelines to keep their enthusiasm up, as they watch their kid's "team" stay at mostly beginner level. Is Scouting like that? We see that in many troops that don't hold on to older boys. They try to make up for it sometimes by givin' out badges, often for somethin' less than real proficiency. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, so maybe I'm an old guy who is just out to lunch. I believe that people are not entitled to awards or recognitions. Awards or recognitions are something that other people give people who they feel deserve to be so recognized. I know I'm buckin' the modern entitlement mentality and da helicopter parent "my Johnny is so wonderful he deserves to be recognized" crowd. I don't mind. I'm a contented traditionalist in this regard. So to me, not receiving an award is just not receiving an award. I don't do Scouting to get awards, I do scouting because I love scouting. I know there are some folks who get their shorts in a knot when they don't get a Silver Beaver because they feel they "deserve" it or are being "punished" or some such. I've never understood that. Just keep havin' fun Scouting and doin' good stuff. Maybe you'll get it next year. Same with kids, eh? Not getting Canoeing MB is just not (yet) getting Canoeing MB. You're not being "punished" because you didn't learn J-Stroke as fast as your friends, you just haven't (yet) learned J-Stroke. Not getting credit for a POR we can argue back and forth about rules-wise, but it's not "punishment." It's just not (yet) having demonstrated leadership or responsibility at an appropriate level. Kids who don't receive Eagle are not being punished. They could be fantastic kids. They just didn't earn Eagle. I think da notion that kids are entitled to awards probably comes out of da way a lot of folks do Cub Scouting, eh? Junior will feel bad if he doesn't get the same awards as his friends, and maybe he "did his best." Advancement works as a method because it's a positive reinforcement, eh? Not giving positive reinforcement is not the same thing as negative reinforcement. Not buying your son ice cream is not the same thing as grounding him for the weekend. Just my thoughts. Beavah

Yah, hi mikeb. Good question, eh? As others have mentioned, there's a range in severity, and yeh have to check with the parents and the doc to find out how sensitive the lad is. Some units handle high-sensitivity cases by buying the lad a small backpack stove and utensil set so he can keep the utensils and the meals peanut-free. Then having a good friend as a tentmate who agrees to keep peanut-free as well rounds out the proactive protection. Slightly lower sensitivity cases can usually be handled just by the PL being alert to it in meal planning and cooking. Lots of peanut allergy kids are pretty good at sensing the presence of nut oils by the time they get to Boy Scout age, as long as they're not masked in some kind of differently-flavored sauce. On da reactive side, it's important that the adults and key youth leaders get trained in appropriate response. When and how to use epi injectors, how to manage follow up field care with antihistamines, etc. It's good to ask the boy's parents to provide extra epi kits for the patrol or troop first aid kits, since lads don't always remember to carry theirs on their person. I recommend requesting the TwinJect variety rather than the standard epi pen, since that provides an available second dose which often becomes necessary in the field with longer evacuation times. Beavah

Yah, there are all kinds of ways committees work, eh? It's one of da things in scouting where there's the most diversity of approach, and where the guidebooks are really just guidebooks and are very, very sparse in their description of things. That's why these committee discussions on da forums get all confusulated. Everybody is comin' with a different notion of committee. Moosetracker's committee apparently consisted of all da parents, or at least most of 'em, and is used as a training ground for the ASM position. That's interestin', eh? Very different from da BSA model, where the committee is a "board of directors" who selects ASMs and da SM. Lots of folks on da forums are from troops where there's a "strong SM" thing goin' on. That's not surprising, because it's those types of scouters who are da most passionate and most likely to read and post on electronic forums. So in those units, the expectation is that the Committee should be worker-bees who provide background support for the Scoutmaster who really runs and is responsible for the program. That's not really da BSA "board of directors" model either, where the Committee must review and approve the events calendar, budget, etc. In the BSA model, the committee works for the CO, not the SM. But it works well enough unless the SM dies or goes renegade. Some committees consist of three fellows from da CO who act as the CO's voice. Not a parent among 'em. That's not really the BSA's model either, which envisions some support and oversight functions. But it works for those units. On and on, eh? So I think we just have to be careful about any blanket statements about what a committee's role is or should be. Fact is, da roles are different from unit to unit. And not receiving an award is not punishment. Beavah

For God's sake, the BSA would like a 10 - 11 year old to earn 1st Class in the first year so what we are asking from a "scout skills" perspective is only what we are asking of a 12 year old boy. I think that's not too high of a bar for most adults. We ask a boy to do that after a year of 40+ meetings, 11 weekend outings, and a week long summer camp. That's a total of about 70 training days. Of course, the lads don't come on everything, which is why most troops find that it takes longer than a year for the boys to earn First Class. Even longer if da troop follows da BSA expectation of the lad being really proficient in da skills. So how much better learners do we think da adults are? Twice as good as the boys? That means they'd need a two week training course plus 20 evening meetings. Me personally, I think the youth are better learners than the adults most of da time. Ever try to teach one of us old farts something new? So that means we'd need a month-long Outward Bound course plus several years worth of round table. Just to make First Class at the not-really-proficient level. Of course a First Class scout is just beginnin' to take on leadership, eh? His personal campin' skills should be solid, but he's really not quite ready to be completely trusted with the health and welfare of his fellow scouts. But da SM we do expect to be responsible for the health and welfare of da kids. How much more training would that require, do yeh think? Hopefully at least da equivalent of Camping and First Aid MB or WFA, eh? Then it'd be nice to have some trainin' in teaching and workin' with kids. And judgin' by da fact it always seems to come up here, legal issues. What do you figure? To be an Eagle Scout, we expect a year and 4 months of genuine leadership/responsibility experience in scouting past First Class. Do we think our expectation of da key adult(s) in a troop should be less than that? How much less? When yeh add it all up, it's a lot of trainin' to truly have the skills to deliver the Scouting promise. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm.... I think sometimes bad habits from professional/employment environments carry over into how we raise kids. Like too much "policy." Also like when passin' on information, only give positives or neutral "facts." I think that's nuts. Children are children, not employees. They need all the caring adults who are involved in their lives to be appropriately informed, so that each adult can contribute to the youth's growth and development without needing to take shots in the dark. I'm with Eagledad, eh? I've never seen anything good come from being coy and not passing on information about a boy, and I've seen many cases where it was helpful. For those who would wait a month... this lad pulled a knife on other kids, if I'm rememberin' the story right. If I were the SM and we had an "incident" with the boy the first month that we could have prevented had we been alert to da potential problem and I find out you withheld that information, I'd be furious. What can yeh do differently if you know about something in advance? A million things! Have additional conversations with the parents or the boy at joining, set some explicit expectations, assign the boy to the patrol with the most alert patrol leader, task an ASM who is good at workin' with that sort of kid to be his "buddy" for the first few months, be more alert to early signs of similar behavior to cut it off before it goes that far, on and on... It's not "professional" to keep a fellow scouter in the dark about a kid's needs. It's mean, to both the scouter and to the boy. Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind.... all of those require us to share whatever we think will be helpful with our colleagues who are continuing scouting work with a lad. Beavah

Yah, only difference between a three season and a four season tent is that da four season tent is built to be able to handle getting a load of snow dumped on it without collapsing. Also tends not to have as much bug netting area so yeh don't get as much spindrift inside in a breeze. So it's just a bigger/heavier/more expensive version of a three season tent. In da winter I hate tents. Tend to prefer snow shelters or tarps. Much better insulation in the first, much better ventilation in the second. But it's just fine to go out in the winter in a 3 season tent. Only thing yeh need to do is if you are getting a lot of snow wake up occasionally and shake the snow off so the weight doesn't get to be too much, and ventilate as much as possible. Usually it's a good practice as soon as yeh get up to haul your sleeping bag out of the tent and hang it up in a tree. All the moisture you sweated out inside da mini sweat lodge of the tent has to have a chance to escape, otherwise that sleeping bag is goin' to be much chillier the second night. Yeh really should never be counting on a tent for insulation value, eh? It doesn't offer much, and it's really inefficient to heat up that sort of space. Far better to get a good sleeping bag and heat up less space. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, packsaddle, I have Kudu squelched, eh? Cuts down on da noise. But yeh can always tell when he's jumped in on a thread because of how it veers off to one of his "issues." A bit like Merlyn, but worse, actually. Merlyn doesn't use posts to advertise his own website. I like Kudu's ideas and his site is a fine resource. I even agree with him on most things. Not that leadership and outdoor skills are mutually exclusive, they're not. But teaching leadership in a vacuum is silly. What a Patrol Leader needs to do for leadership is very different than what a politician needs to do for leadership is very different than what a general needs to do for leadership is very different from what a CEO needs to do for leadership. Da notion that yeh can just teach "leadership" outside of da context in which it applies is absurd. So it's best for a PL to learn his role in the context of the outdoors, workin' with fellow kids. Not indoors reading Hershey & Blanchard and signing a contract on his job description. That's a problem with WB21C, eh? And a fair criticism. We all recognize that there's a big difference between how adult leaders act in Cubs and in Boy Scouting, so much so that it's often worthwhile to have adults who make da transition take a step back until they can "reprogram." Similarly there's a difference between what a SM does and what an MC does, eh? Leadership in those two roles is fundamentally different. So why do we believe that a single leadership training course is appropriate for all of 'em? The challenge we face, however, is time. Volunteers have limited time, either as trainees or as trainers. And to teach an adult all da outdoor skills and all the working-with-people skills and then develop their leadership ability in that context and then develop their teaching ability in those subjects is an awfully tall order. Well nigh an impossible one. Which was Penta's original point. So we count on adults coming in with some experience, and we count on adults being lifelong learners who go out and find information and learn and try things out on their own. Da BSA training courses at best only give someone some pointers at da beginning. Good leaders take those as a starting point; poor ones take 'em as an ending point. As a starting point, they're really not all that bad, eh? Certainly not da disaster Kudu intimates. As an ending point, though, they are. Beavah

Yah, da parking lot wait is one of those things, eh? It happens occasionally. It happens most often to the SM who is stuck waiting around for the one parent who got held up. It happens sometimes to da parents when the usual unanticipated problems of weather, road construction, road accidents, sick kids, flat tires, rangers slow checking troops out of camp, etc. etc. add up. I think yeh would much rather have junior come back half an hour late than have the ASM speed down the highway weaving in and out of traffic in order not to inconvenience yeh. First rule of scouting: Be understanding and kind to the men and women who give up their nights and weekends in order to do something nice for your kid. Beavah

Not sure it's your (or our) business to inquire, Troop24. If yeh feel troubled by it, drop a note to BSA Legal and then go back to doin' fun stuff for kids. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Thanks for da clarification, oldsm, though I'm not sure it's really that much clearer. Let me approach this in a different way than da others (who I also agree with completely). Your COR is a member of the council (a corporate, legal member, not just a registered leader). As a member of da council, he or she has been notified of an abuse allegation that required da removal of one of his/her unit volunteers from the BSA. That is an internal corporate communication. To then reveal that communication to others in a board of review setting puts your COR at risk of a defamation action... either by the mom or by the boy. Abusing your children, or false accusations of same, are da sort of thing that do seriously damage a person's reputation in a way that can and should lead to financial recovery by the person slandered. Yah, yah, it's not a great case, dependin' on what the COR actually says, but the COR doin' that is also so out of line that it may well be worth pursuing. So, if we start tallying things up here... POSSIBLE BAD OUTCOMES *COR gets named in a defamation suit *other board members and council representative think your unit has lost their mind *boy sticks by his story, and repeats allegations of abuse and neglect. Now all of the board members are obligated to call DCFS and make a report to the SE, and perhaps call law enforcement. *boy breaks down in tears and refuses to talk to any of you, and the board is forced to adjourn. The other board members who had not previously known about this are obligated to call DCFS and notify the SE, because they now have reasonable suspicion of abuse or neglect. *boy says sullenly that he may have exaggerated.... NOW WHAT? Yeh have no way of knowing whether he's now telling the truth, or whether he's worried that your buddy his stepdad is going to hear whatever goes on so he's lying to you in order to avoid consequences at home. And again da other board members may feel obligated to file a report, because base on the boys affect they have reasonable suspicion that something's up. POSSIBLE GOOD OUTCOMES ??? Yeh got me. Maybe the boy tells you about more abuse at home and it's enough to trigger a custody action for younger children in the family? Beavah

Hiya Maethros. Welcome to da forums! The problem I see with da national committee structure and in fact all of da national structure is its level of insulation from da field. Most folks workin' district or council level have stopped working with kids in units themselves, eh? Some because it was time, some because they really weren't very good at it. By the time they're movin' "up" to contribute to area or regional stuff or national committee work, they're pretty far away from the day to day life of da program (which they might not have been good at to start). And in order for most ordinary mortals to really push for change through da national committee structure, they need a lot of time and hudzpah, eh? Those committees are ridiculously large and diffuse. Plus, as we've seen with issue like lasertag "safety", a lot of da decisions really ignore the committees and are just taken by Irving staff during the document editing and promulgation process. So the organizational structure is pretty insulated from da rank-and-file, and there's no incentives at the exec level to change that. Nuthin' in their evaluations or bonuses or other organizational structure to encourage anything more than a token effort. It's an organizational structure problem, mostly. Beavah

Scouts, especially 1st class and above, are supposed to know how to camp. Looking at the recent threads on patrol camping, being able to camp without adult involvement is something many look at as a goal to strive for. A patrol should not need an adult who has attened IOLS in order to camp. Yah, but that's not quite what they're saying, eh? I think it's closer to the MB example than you think. What they're saying is that in order to earn First Class or Camping MB, your time in da field should be supervised by an adult with the necessary training and experience. Without that, there's a question of whether yeh really do "know how to camp". And if da troop is doing adult-less patrol campouts where they're relying on First Class scouts having the skills to be safe on their own, then it would be even more important that the adults who were signing off on their First Class requirements (including field time) were properly trained. That's the same as the MBC example, isn't it? Beavah

We too as a committee put in a rule for our troop that to go on outings, the adult leader had to do all the on-line required training available, and had a year from registration to get the required training.. We never as a committee applied it to a punishment on the boys if they didn't get trained. Except that yeh would cancel an outing the boys had planned and worked toward because yeh didn't have the necessary adult leadership as a result of your local rule. Then some other scouter who heard about it from a fellow at round table could post it here and talk about how awful your renegade troop is for punishing da boys because the adults weren't trained, especially when their son needed that campout to advance and can't do the next 3 months worth of campouts because he's da captain of the underwater basketweaving debate team. There's no way around it, eh? Mandatory training is goin' to hurt some units and kids. It's perhaps worth it if it makes things substantially better for all da others. If we believe that. Beavah

Yah, first let me just say that not getting an award is not a punishment. It's just not getting an award. If yeh don't make valedictorian, yeh aren't being punished, yeh just didn't make valedictorian. Despite what those helicopter parents who sue school districts over the valedictory claim. Blanc, we just don't know anything about da circumstances, eh? And neither does moosetracker. Could be there was no annual calendar, or this wasn't on it. Could be da committee thought another trained leader was goin', but didn't. I wouldn't go about assigning blame in any event, but I certainly wouldn't do it on da very little information we have. A disgruntled SM looked for a sympathetic ear at training. Moose gave it to him. Happens all the time. Yah, seems like the committee yanked da SM's leash and he's annoyed by it. Perhaps they also wanted to make clear to the parents the difference between an official and an "unofficial" outing, which is perfectly reasonable. Too hard to say from afar. Now, just like da MB that gets disallowed because the counselor wasn't approved, I'd expect the adults to then work with the boys to make sure they can proceed ahead. But it sounds like their leaders are gettin' trained and so they're doin' that. Like I said, this is da sort of thing we're goin' to see all over the place as we move toward mandatory training, so it's a good thing to think about. Beavah

If yeh think it's a tool that works for yeh, that's fine. Like any mental mnemonic, it's a personal thing. I remember learning da classifications of stars OBAFGKM... "Oh, Be A Fine Girl, Kiss Me". Yah, that line even worked on Mrs. Beavah one starry night . You know me, though, I'm always skeptical of simplistic solutions to somethin' that's complicated. I think it's better to teach kids da real deal. I'd much rather they really learn how to do something than learn someone else's mental mnemonic. That way they can really do the thing, not just talk it. And that way it's theirs for life. B

Beavah, what you describe is the Demonstrate Guide and Enable part of EDGE. Yah, da problem with these pithy little acronyms is that they're so malleable, eh? So an experienced fellow says "What I do is EDGE", and another less experienced fellow says what he does is EDGE, and they aren't even close to da same. Somebody who is truly experienced can fit what they do into almost any acronym. If I came up with CRAPPO and published it, it would work too. Da things are so malleable that the experienced person goes "gee, well that's just like teachin' kids to build a fire, first you CReate an environment for learning, then you get their Attention, then...". Da problem is, it's really all CRAPPO. The experienced person succeeds because he's experienced, not because of da acronym. And the inexperienced person goes, "well, I'll just follow along like it says" and doesn't end up with anything at all like what the experienced person does. All he ends up with is CRAPPO. Like the shy little fellow in da other thread, eh? He's not goin' to succeed with an Explain and Demonstrate thing, but he's great with coaching. So if he's goin' to teach, he's goin' to want to set up a situation where he can coach or work alongside his charges. But we insisted on EDGE, so he thinks he's got to sit da group down and do an explanation and a demonstration. EDGE doesn't take into account da personality, style or skill of the instructor, nor does it account for anything about the learner. When yeh ignore all information about the teacher, the learner, and the environment, then you're really livin' on the EDGE. And it's CRAPPO. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Deep Breath, people. Just outa curiosity, what's da difference between a unit committee saying "yeh can't take boys on an official campout if you're not trained" and national saying "you can't be registered if you're not trained?" Sounds to me like it's completely within da committee's purview to say that adults can't take kids on a campout until they're trained. And if those adults do it anyways, then it's not an official campout for da purposes of advancement. No different than if some fellow claimed to be a MBC who really wasn't trained or registered, eh? The boys may have "done" the badge with him, but it wouldn't count for advancement. This is da sort of thing we're all going to be facing as we move toward "mandatory training". Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)