Beavah

Yah, good point jblake. Dat was true around our area, too. Especially durin' WW2 and Korea when a fair number of SM's shipped out. Older dinosaurs than me recount tales of hiking 10 miles out of town and settin' up camp on their own for the summer. An adult would come out and look in on 'em about once a week, and they'd have to hike in to get food on a fairly regular basis. But that was it, eh? Beavah

Pappy asked for this topic, eh? And it seems worthy. I reckon most of us volunteer for units that have a mostly secular, multi-faith style and membership. Those folks will possibly need to be patient with folks like Pappy who represent a religious CO that draws boys mostly from its own membership. The exchange of ideas might be interestin' and informative for everyone though, eh? B

What would happen to a troop or pack if they were no adults Beavah? I serve a bunch of units, eh? But let's keep this to troops and crews, not packs. We all know that the roles of adults in packs are different, eh? Ed's probably given yeh the answer you want - they wouldn't be able to recharter, sign tour permits, or go on troop outings under G2SS. Barry's probably given da real answer . Settin' those things aside... In the most adult-run units, with the absence of adults the unit would collapse instantly. In the most youth-run units, there might be some difficulty with keys to the meeting room and with paperwork or payment for camping fees, but yeh otherwise wouldn't see much difference. Gradually, over time, you'd see some degradation, both from parent inappropriate intervention and from just a touch of loss of ideas, gentle guidance, or an occasional push to meet a planning deadline or to do a better job of communication. Mostly, the kids would just miss havin' their friend SM White around to talk to at the campfire. That's probably a good test of how well a unit is doin', eh? Shoot the adults, and see what happens. I remember last spring I got a mid-Friday call from a local unit. SM's mother-in-law had died, ASM had been sent out of town on a business trip, no registered SSD/SA trained leaders available for a weekend canoe trip, but a few dads still committed, could I help? Sure. I brought the signed check for the outfitter. Youth ran logistics. Youth ran safety (I got assigned to canoe with a non-swimmer adult). Youth ran instruction, not with lesson plans and classes, but each skilled youth givin' pointers to a younger lad here and there as the need arose, and the younger lads watchin' the older ones with great admiration, soakin' things up. Youth ran camp while I kept the dads entertained cookin' chili. I got to tell stories in the evenin' while some of the PL's sat a ways away plannin' some other upcoming event. After the PL's got da young ones to bed they planned a venture patrol climbing gym trip (adultless), includin' meetin' at somebody's house to teach two new guys CoS, knots, and belays before goin' to da gym. The adults did go away, eh? Didn't faze the lads in the least. I reckon that's why da SM Handbook says what it does, eh? If we keep that vision in mind, then we'll do a bang-up job of makin' boys into self-confident, independent learners and fine young men. What would happen with no adults in da troop you were affiliated with, BobWhite? Would they have been able to clean up a cabin if no adults were there to ask leading questions? If so, why would you ask them? If not, what might you do differently to improve? Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

oops sorry I forgot you don't see scouting as educational. dig, dig, dig... Nah, I see scouting as very educational, if by that we mean kids as self-directed learners. I don't think scouting should be formal education, like school. Leastways, not until scouters get enough trainin' to hold teaching licenses that show they're qualified to make good lesson plans and learnin' sets, eh? Beavah

Yah, I agree with that, eh?! Or at least I can see that bein' a fine and dandy program choice. So, BobWhite, are yeh in favor of droppin' the knots and lashings bit from T-2-1 this revision cycle, then?

Puffery? School teachers conduct hands-on activities all the time. Part of science and music and art syllabuses at least, I should think. Having teacher-chosen and directed activities to "cover" certain material in a specified period of time is... school. As yeh write in the other thread, boys don't lead the program, only the activities. A teacher can choose a student to be a "captain" for a classroom activity, eh? It just doesn't mean much in terms of leadership; more an administrative/classroom management tool I reckon. Kids learn things in school, too, eh? Or at least we hope they do. Memorize things for one-shot tests, at very least. Baden-Powell admonished us not to "trench on the work of schools" in that way, though. Because we don't have the expertise or trainin' to do it well. I'm not a middle school teacher. Neither are you, eh? (especially not when yeh propose 6 learning sets in a single night! ). If I were to take da T-2-1 lesson plans that were done by BA's middle school teacher I'd probably just make a hash of it, though I reckon they're reasonably good lesson plans with some great ideas. Instead of school, B-P proposed scouting as a Game. A kid playing with the world, and with his friends both youth and adult. Not sittin' in on T-2-1 curriculum and the Scoutmaster's Lesson Plan for the day. Goin' out with buddies for a pick-up game of their choice and havin' older boys give 'em a pointer or two, a SM occasionally whisper encouragement or an idea in their ear. Exploring and learning through natural inquisitiveness. Chasin' frogs. Playin' with fire. And most important - absorbing the examples of older brothers. In my opinion it ain't the skills we teach that make it Scoutin'. It's the way kids learn. If it's more like school than a game - something we have control of rather than something they have control of - then it probably isn't Scouting. At least not Scouting at its best. Beavah

Empowering boys to be leaders is the core of Scouting. Scouts learn by doing, and what they do is lead their patrols and their troop. The boys themselves develop a troop's program, then take responsibility. - From the Chapter "The Boy-Led Troop", #33009. I dunno. That sounds to me like youth lead the program, eh? In fact, I'm not sure we could find a place in the SM Handbook that suggests otherwise. B

Yah, hmmm.... Do all of your scouts have "handles" or nicknames, Pappy? Or were those just for the particular event? I gotta admit that if all this is done in a spirit of zany fun, I think it would be great. If it's done with a bit too much seriousness on the part of the adults, it gets a bit weird, eh? Rescue/disaster drills; great! We all do those. Commando-rescue the trapped missionaries? Reminds me of a bunch of B-P's games. Ideally, I think T-2-1 should all be done this way, eh? Fun! Rescue scenarios, lashings to get through obstacles, navigation to help with both, etc. A game! A patrol contest! A trial-by-fire weekend adventure! So my vote is "keep it a game!" Don't let your fitness stuff or marching and such become too adult-serious. If there isn't a lot of laughter we're probably not doin' this stuff right, eh? (I confess yeh lost me with the dense theology stuff there at the end. All I can say is "Paragraphs, lad, paragraphs!" ) Beavah

Bein' with European scoutin' friends and other scouting groups from places around the world has added a lot of perspective for me. One very common notion is the "Group" - one scouting unit for everyone from 'micro' scouts on up to Rovers and Adult leaders. It has a nice feel to it, and I'm a better advocate for CO's doing more tightly integrated programs because of it. The other of course is seeing scouts run with a lot less adult direction and a lot more youth freedom... and no medical forms, permission slips, liability waivers, highly-specified safety regulations and the like. It always impresses me how much less "wimpy" (whiny?) and how much more self-directed many of our brother and sister scouts are around the world. They remind me of what is possible when we do scouting well, and focus on the youth.

Ah, an enterprising DE! Mine gets matched by me and reinvested in Scoutin'. Not FOS, direct contribution to troops I know are doin' good work and need the help for camperships and gear for kids who otherwise couldn't make it, or need just a touch of incentive to do somethin' new and special. I figure it's their future the Congress is trying to steal from, I'd better at least try to reinvest it in them! BTW, I think that should be a requirement for Committee Members and Unit Commissioners in any unit - every year, yeh gotta give both time and treasure to the unit. We all know the unit leaders are, eh? Only way to be credible is to do the same. B

Following a syllabus makes for a better trainer, in the same way as having a plan makes for a leader. It would be difficult to prove that good leaders do not have good plans. What good troop does not have a program plan, a troop meeting agenda, a campout schedule, a writen program for courts of honor, a budget? Yah, this is true, eh? But it hides a subtle difference that I personally believe is vital. Leaders who have good plans made those plans themselves. A troop program plan is something the troop youth leaders put together themselves. A troop meeting agenda, same thing. Da campout schedule, the court of honor program, the budget - all of those things work because they are put together by the people runnin' those events. They're personal, and personalized. Pickin' up someone else's syllabus and teachin' from it is a very different thing, eh? That's the equivalent of the SM handing the SPL a meeting agenda and saying "you must follow this". That wouldn't be how we would do Scouting, eh? All are plans that teach and support leadership. First Class Emphasis is no different than a teachers lesson plan. Are Scout leaders not teachers with the outdoors as a classroom? Why would we reject the notion of having a lesson plan. Yah, I think this is the difference of philosophy that was at the core of this whole thread, eh? Is Scouting school? With classes and lesson plans and homework? Or is Scouting a game, with fun and some coaching and a lot of learning-from-play? The Founding Fathers of the movement were all adamant that Scouting was Play - a great game. They rejected, often emphatically, the notion of Scouting as School or Scouting as Business. FCFY comes from the folks who are in the "Scouting as School" camp, eh? There's a certain amount of material to "cover" in a certain specified period of time. Syllabus, learning sets, exercises at school and homework. Same age kids in the same "grade" and classes. It's familiar to kids and to parents. It can certainly be "hands on". But it isn't play. They will learn stuff, eh? Though perhaps not as deeply or as practically as when they play. I'm an old-school, conservative sort, eh? I think da vision of the Founding Fathers was the better one. Beavah

Yah, so, the previous thread got hijacked because of the way I set it up, and other things . So, let's try again: Use this thread to share tidbits you have learned by lookin' at past program materials or other scouting/youth program materials - ideas that have enhanced or improved upon your scouts' experience. Those ideas can be from anywhere, eh? And we all recognize that they are not part of current program materials, so that's not goin' to be an issue for discussion.

As I mentioned before if 99% of adult volunteers follow the program and only 1% did not, that would mean 12,000 adult volunteers are not following the program. Imagine the damage those 12,000 adults do every year. Yah, seemed like a separate discussion of what we can learn from the past - past program features, etc., and what we can learn from others - other scoutin' programs internationally, other youth programs nationally - was in order. I think BobWhite's quote above misses da mark, because it assumes that all former BSA program materials and all other scouting/youth program materials are so bad that they cause damage. Yah, I don't think that's been our lived experience, eh? Quite da opposite - I think what the BSA has done has often been successful, and what Hillcourt and BP wrote was successful and insightful, and what our brother and sister scouters in other countries do is successful and offers real ideas and perspective. In a year and a half when the next Boy Scout Handbook revision cycle happens, will it make defenders of da current program "wrong"? If First Class Emphasis is done away with, would that make all the units that have been successful with it "bad" if they keep using it? Nah, I don't think so. Our current program should continue to inform the future and be used as a resource where it's helpful, eh? I kinda think the only "wrong" is when something doesn't do its job for helping kids grow. So I for my part appreciate Kudu's insights; they've helped me help units do a better job with Patrol Method and other things. I think there's a great deal to be learned from past successes. I also think that the BSA program revision model is quite a committified thing, eh? Writin' by committee has its advantages and drawbacks. Yah, it smooths out rough edges, but it also tends to set things toward least-common-denominator mediocrity. That may be why the BSA books written personally by Hillcourt seem to have a tighter, clearer vision. My perspective, anyway. Feel free to use this thread to discuss. Even better, use it to share tidbits you have learned by lookin' at past program materials or other scouting/youth program materials - ideas that have enhanced, rather than damaged, your scouts' experience. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Thanks, F. FWIW, I'm not sure which version of BadenP's posting that I saw. But from my perspective, while it did address an individual poster directly, it really was addressing the individual poster's ideas. In fact, I remember it as being more positively worded than his current version (?). At very least, it did not rise to anywhere near the level of messages unapologetically calling people frauds and liars and such, which remained without deletion. Many of GW's odd sniping comments, like those Vicki pointed out, remained undeleted - except perhaps when directed at certain people? From my POV, it sure has da feel of a double standard. But we all have our friends and those who annoy us, eh? Sometimes it's hard to recognize our own biases, myself included. Anyway, feedback is a gift, so I'll shut up now and let other folks offer their feedback. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Leasing government property for $1/year is subsidising the BSA, which is a discriminatory organization. They can stay if they pay market rates, because then the city won't be subsidising them. Leaving aside all the other issues, a savvy BSA negotiator could turn this around to the BSA's benefit. With the city now needing to pick up maintenance & renovation costs, wrap utilities into the lease as well. I guarantee the average city will screw up their utility cost estimates. It could wind up a net gain for the BSA. Beavah

For the record, I was the member who raised the issue and suggested the response. Those threads were pretty "raw" in many places. While I think Pappy's willingness to come forward when accused of being a fraud is commendable, it did create Google links that might be unfortunate. Some of that text could be pretty off-putting to a parent considering enrolling their child in the school in question. So blame me if you disagree, I can take it, eh? And I hope Pappy and others can find a new thread to continue discussion of his unique "vision" as friends and fellow Scouters. Yours in Scouting Service, Beavah and a good ol' Beavah too

Nah, local1400, he's talkin' about deleted posts - similar to what BadenP commented on in the FCFY thread. There's been a lot of that happening lately. Deleted posts don't show up in the count. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, so we've had several folks lately complain that their posts have been "vanished" without comment or shifted between threads. I have to say, I have seen several of these messages before deletion, including the original message by BadenP from which this thread is spun. I did not find BadenP's posting offensive or off-topic. It certainly did not rise to the level of utterly bizarre and deliberate personal attacks like those in the "Plants" thread. What's up, guys? It wasn't very long ago that we had some community input that suggested moderation should be "signed". I agree with that, eh? More to the point, I reckon it should be even-handed and light-handed. Beavah

Beav, Webelos hasnt changed in the last 10 years, so why dont you look at what has? Yah, just to be clear, I haven't posted anything on this thread yet, eh? The original post was written by RememberSchiff. B

Although I agree with a lot of what you say, I'm not so sure I agree with what's stated above. I think I do want some people--people with training--to know that they have a legal responsibility to report. Why is that, Hunt? I think yeh could get by with keepin' the statutory immunity provisions in place, but not making the report optional. That eliminates the fear they will be sued for a false report. What do you think the benefits vs. cost are for professionals being required to report? B

Yah, I think there might be some differences in what we're talkin' about, eh? There are Venturing Crews that get spun off from a troop. Often add sisters of troop members, etc. Run as a separate unit. I agree with everybody, those do a poor job of recruitin' and tend to die out. Can't figure out why. I think OakTree is suggesting using a Venturing Crew in place of a Venture Patrol in a more tightly-integrated program. My experience is that these have some persistence and can be valuable to a troop. It may not be much different than the original Venture Patrol program - except that it gets you more program resources, better training, flexible uniforming, age-appropriate recognitions, etc. If it stays tightly integrated, yeh get new boys every year moving up into the (within-troop?) Venturing program. B

So...there's at least some protections for this sort of thing in some states. Yes and no, kadeira. Those folks risk losing their jobs and even being prosecuted themselves if they don't follow up on a report, flagged file or no flagged file. Often it's a "bluff", to try to get the person to stop. Many of us are nosy enough to want to know a little more. We would ask the kid, "Hey that's a nasty bruise you got there John, how did you get it?" And yet trainin' is pretty specific, eh? It's not our job to investigate, and we should not be playin' investigator. Just report. Someone just followin' the trainin' is going to report on the nasty bruise. There really aren't that many detectives and case workers, eh? In many small cities, the cops don't even bother to investigate half the burglaries because they don't have enough manpower. It doesn't take more than 1% of da population deciding to "play it safe" and report the quiet, shy, sad kid to swamp the system. And da folks you recommended letting out of jail to save money for more investigators, well, they've committed a lot of these crimes, eh? Let's face it, most citizens will report anything they find genuinely disturbing without the need for any legal requirement that they do so. I reckon not a single person on these forums, nor any of our neighbors or coworkers would hesitate for as long as a heartbeat droppin' a dime if they felt a child was really at risk or things might be genuinely amiss. That's a fine thing. Same with professionals, eh? So mandated reporting really only adds additional reports on top of those. That might not be all that helpful, eh? Yah, then there's da final, coldest observation. The only societies that have mandated that neighbors report on other neighbors or face jail themselves have been societies we would consider "evil." There's a reason for that, eh? It's a mechanism that is easily abused, and plays to people's prejudices and fears. Protestants suspicious of Catholic priests (well, a lot of 'em are abusers, aren't they?). Atheists suspicious of Scouters (just look at Merlyn). Everyone suspicious of Mormons. All of 'em told they must report their suspicions, it's their duty under the law, if they don't they'll face jail. And yeh can count on a fair number of citizens saying "a citizen is Obedient, and follows the law as written, reporting all suspicions!" And when yeh have that many reports, the government gets to pick and choose who gets investigated or prosecuted. Based on whatever agenda or latent prejudices they happen to have, eh? Yeh don't imagine for a minute, do you, that a died-in-the-wool Republican won't be just a little bit tempted to take a look at those reports on folks who are Democrats? or vice versa? That Hillary's folks won't leak that there was once a "suspicion" report about Obama and that he was investigated for child abuse? Or even file one, just for that purpose? That when OJ someday changes jobs a new level of background check doesn't pop up such a "suspicion" report on him, submitted by his nosy neighbor "just following the law." Yah, it's an effective mechanism for breaking down trust between people and creating a culture of fear. And a culture of fearful people always supports the State. IMO, yeh gotta look at unintended consequences and costs when considerin' the merits of a public policy. Beavah

Yah, in general, trademark law is another area which has run completely amok. Too many congresscritters getting bought, I'm afraid. It is disappointin' to see da BSA jumping on this particular bandwagon of legal abuse. Beavah

Is this really and different than reporting a suspicion of child abuse? I'd say "yes." If I'm your neighbor, and someone I don't know is breaking into your home, I don't have suspicion of a crime. I'm witnessing a crime. There is no legal obligation to report, but we all would appreciate it if our neighbors did. Now, if any of us witnessed child abuse (a father beating the crap out of his kid), I rather reckon we'd call the cops, eh? If we didn't take matters into our own hands on the spot. But we're not talkin' about witnessing child abuse or a firsthand report by a kid. We're talkin' about suspicion based on our observations of the child one meeting a week, one outing a month. Makin' guesses based on bruising, poor hygiene or clothing, behaviors like withdrawal or overt compliance, sleep disorders, or a lad bein' defiant. Sadness, sensitivity to teasing, low self-esteem, etc. (I'm just readin' signs and symptoms from Online YPT). We're tellin' people to make reports based on these things, eh? Now, a medical or educational professional with training and experience, I think that has some costs but it at least makes sense. A trained professional who has seen a lot of kids in the ER over the years will recognize the patterns of bruising or injury that are unusual. An education professional with training and experience of a wide range of children can be presumed to reasonably identify behavior combinations that are unusual, and thereby have reasonable suspicion which is helpful to authorities. But do we really want everyone to be required to report to authorities based on the signs I mentioned? I'm not sure an average neighbor can tell da difference between a bruise from fallin' off a bike and a bruise from gettin' hit by dad. But if the neighbor doesn't report, he could go to jail?! That's what some states are doin', eh? It's a tough place to be in as a neighbor! Beavah

In da parent thread, RememberSchiff writes: Fifty some years, A scout worked on his Bear rank in 4th grade. Webelos was a much shorter program (months) at the second half of fifth grade (Lion rank) and focused on becoming Boy Scouts (no distracting activity badges). There was no Webelos badge, a scout worked as a Webelos for a few months on his AOL. Cub Scouts was a 3 year program (oh for the good old days!). Yeah Webelos is broken, just look at how many scouts drop-out during the Web years. The excitement is elsewhere. Some of my random thoughts - Web I requirements are BORING. The Citizen and Faith requirements should wait another year. Focus on exercise, games, outdoors, cooking, knife safety, first-aid. OUTDOORS, did I say OUTDOORS. Rework FITNESS. Break off food pyramid into a new COOKING badge. Every Web should be a SWIMMER. Whatever happened to swim lessons at scout camps. I have been to 3 different Cub Scout camps and the waterfront is Camp Splash! Think about what skills scouts should have as Web 1 (4th grade) and Web 2 (5th grade) and rewrite the requirements. Don't worry if they will repeat skills as Boy Scouts as they will go in greater detail. - if a scout joins in 5th grade as Web 2, no way can he earn AOL. Fix that. - the handbook is awful, no, it is GAWD AWFUL. If nothing else, get the information presented to be consistent with the Boy Scout handbook, e.g. what to do if lost S.T.O.P. Rewrite. - the program can't make up it's mind if we should make one more trip to the Cub Scout badges candy store or get ready for Boy Scouts. Drop the Compass patch. Overhaul, focus on becoming a Boy Scout but make it FUN. - the program does not formally draw in parents as "activity badge" counselors and hence as future merit badge counselors. So if no parents sign up as Craftsman counselor then no Craftsman badge for Pack XXX. - Get Webs outdoors with troops. Not just once for AOL. Currently, it is just too informal, make it a requirement for Troop recharter or Quality Unit. Start at Web I, don't wait until Web 2. - get the Web 2's crossed-over in Feb (Scout week) so they are present for summer camp presentations and can make an early deposit. Some Web 2's don't join their new troops until April and the summer camp full payment is due in a month. This is often insufficient notice to parents. Sorry for the grumpy mood.