Beavah

You are suggesting taht there are no teaching or advancement opprotunities to be done while participating in opening or closing ceremonies? Well, I've been around a while, and I can't say that I've ever seen an opening or closing that taught "campout planning, how to pack a backpack, basic health issues for camping, basic first aid for camping, or the basics of menu planning" which were the topics being "covered" that second evening. Yah, I can imagine a very fun meeting where in da middle of the opening, a guy in a ski mask comes in, opens fire with a plastic gun and some plastic throwin' knives, and all the PL's and SPL end up lyin' on da floor bleeding from moulage wounds. Now that would be fun. I reckon it wouldn't leave yeh much time for how to pack a backpack, though . Beavah

Yah, one of our districts is considerin' a laser tag mini-camporee event to encourage interaction between webelos and boy scout units in a fun indoor venue. Anybody had any experience with settin' these up? Beavah

Hi WDL Mom, No such thing as a bad "no go" call. If you're not comfortable bein' responsible for the kids in those conditions because you don't think they're ready (or you are!) then the only responsible thing to do is cancel the event. Well done. As registered leader, you're on the hook for their safety, not their parents. In answer to your bigger question about older boys in Scoutin' programs, "There's no such thing as bad weather, only poor choices in clothing." Actually, as important as clothing is experience. Lads and adults who grew up in Florida might get themselves in real trouble in da Georgia or North Carolina hills in weather in the 40's. Up here in da Northern Midwest, it's fairly routine for a boy scout troop to be out campin' when the outside real temperature is -20, and the wind chill below that. Just gotta be prepared is all. Those campouts are always a lot of fun, actually. Beavah

Yah, BW, that's an ancient thread that yeh resurrected, that was tied to some other stuff, eh? Or it might have been Maldanorian, he seems to be Lazarus of the threads this week. Rather than create this somewhat tangential side thread, if the topic comes up again, just share your perspective and advice along with the rest of us, eh? I'm sure it would be welcome. We all make guesses about what the Original Poster's "real" circumstances are based on very limited turns of phrase and a lot of readin' between the lines. Lots of times we have to ask for more information. Lots of times havin' different folks answer allows one of us to guess right and be helpful to the questioner. And dat's the only "right" answer, eh? Da one that is helpful to the original questioner. Beavah P.S. Yeh need to move a few hundred miles farther north from where you're at in order to acquire a charming, furry accent, eh?

Yah, BW, the thing is that there are other methods, eh? Da reason why Program Resources limits the instruction time and number of topics is to allow for those other seven methods. Interpatrol competitions and Patrol Meetings and uniform inspections and a game or two and flag ceremonies and all that. I'm sure lots of folks can "cover" or teach a mess of topics in 90 minutes and even be very entertainin' and engagin'. I just know precious few lads who can sit through it. Our role isn't "covering", it's "uncovering" and lettin' kids explore. Our role ain't teachin', it's helping kids learn. Scoutin' is a game, not a course. Just a different perspective. As an adult who has been backpacking since what da kids call the Dawn of Time, I know every time I get a new pack, it takes me at least an hour or two with all my gear in da basement packin' it and unpackin' it and repackin' it before I've learned what I think will work. Then I go outside and go hikin' and have to do it all again 'til I get it right! Somebody jawin' at me and demo'ing packin' his own pack is in da "no help whatsoever" category. There might be a reason Program Helps are written da way they are, eh? B

In da parent thread, BW suggests that troops that are big enough follow an age-based program structure as a way of dealing with whether younger boys are ready for some kinds of campouts. Dat's certainly an option, eh? That got me thinkin' of a different issue. Plenty of troops get older boys who join, not just 5th graders. An older boy who joins is gonna be much more comfortable being in a patrol with his peers if you're runnin' age-based patrols; but an older boy who joins is gonna be no more ready to step into a winter campout week one than a 10-year-old is. For those of us who do NSP's/age based, do yeh put the new 14-year-old boy into the NSP along with da 10 year olds? B

Yah, yeh can still buy da Venture strips, but all of the booklets are gone, the pins and the letters have been reserved for Varsity, and with each new publication the language gets changed to "older Boy Scouts." It's bein' decomissioned in favor of Venturing. But yeh might still see a reference here or there to "older Boy Scouts who might be in a patrol focused on high adventure activities." Final nail will be if da new Handbook eliminates the reference entirely, as OGE suggests.

So, when you say youth groups are not good at stanardization, which groups do you mean? Yah, groups with an educational purpose that run more than one activity, or activities that last longer than an hour. But even in da very adult-run sports groups you mention, OGE, if you look at the quality of coaching, the standards for behavior/sportsmanship permitted by different coaches/teams, etc. you see that they ain't very standardized at all. A few teams are almost always top of the league, some are real disasters, etc. B

All my prayers for the young lady's family, and for the trucker caught up in a tragedy not of his own making. May our Father welcome His daughter home with love. B

Yah, LongHaul. It took me a while to work my way through da document BrentAllen posted, eh? That's quite a piece of work. What a great resource... a whole formal school curriculum for T21. Clearly done by a professional educator. Learnin' objectives and alignment with standards and everything! Well laid out lecture-demonstration outlines. Plus some regular school quizzes on requirements and lesson evaluation forms to be collected by Troop Committee Administrators. Even a sample school calendar and lesson progression. Only thing it's missin' is da standardized No Scout Left at Second Class exam! Do yeh know its terms of publication? Is it copyable? I think such school curricula do suffer in some ways. They assume 100% participation (or students makin' up missed work) like in school, and 100% retention. Schools are willing to give kids a "C" and move on, where in Scoutin', I think our purpose is to let each boy work at his own pace to get an "A". And this makes Advancement an awful big chunk of da program time. First Aid Basics II is a lecture-demo that's 8 major points and about 40 minor points long! In one meetin' night for 10-11 year olds! While I'm tempted to dig up B-P's essay about trenchin' on da work of schools , this is still a very nice resource, and a perhaps a good fit for some programs who have da educator talent to pull it off. Probably a great Scoutin' home schooler resource, too. BW's progression had that same character, eh? But even more was put in a single meetin'. In his second meetin' for example, kids are taught campout planning, how to pack a backpack, basic health issues for camping, basic first aid for camping, and the basics of menu planning. Dat's conservatively about 10 times more than any of the BSA's Program Features do in a single night. Yah, I like fgoodwin's notion of usin' an ASM or a TG as a sort of "guardian angel" for new guys and helper for their PL's in a traditional patrol structure. Sometimes, if a troop is too big or the older kids get too focused on their own adventures, the presence of such a person really helps bring the conversation back around. New guys also have some "backup resources" to turn to. A nice combination, eh? Any other FCFY contributors out there? Those were several new ideas or spins for me. I think we're seein', though, doin' this and meetin' my initial conditions is really hard in practice. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Which allows for Eagle mills and troops that add or subtract requirement so that everyone is playing by differing sets of rules. Yep. Could be tighter. Then it'd be a lot smaller. Can't say that any other youth organizations are that great at "standardization" either, eh? Da schools have certainly tried, with a lot more money and a paid staff.... and very little success. Still plenty of grade inflation and "add and subtract" eh? I reckon the BSA does a fine job by comparison. Beavah

Yah, Lisabob. Since yeh say there are 10 packs in your town, I imagine we're talkin' urban/suburban kids, not country lads, eh? So yeh really can't expect that they've been to huntin' camp with dad, or ice fishin', or snowmobile to school regularly or anything like that? They aren't likely to really have their own cold-weather gear and some supervised experience with it? And yeh don't have a cabin-type shelter with some heat to put 'em in at night if you decide they or their gear aren't up to snuff? In that case, safety first. Cold weather is really tough on small guys, and downright perilous in flimsy cotton gear. Yeh could get by for several years doin' this and start thinkin' it was just fine, and then send a kid home missin' some toes or shedding some skin from his ears and nose. I'd say, "Nope, sorry, wait for next month's campout." One month ain't very long, and the parents will respect you for your sound judgment. If you do keep thinkin' about this, review Sweet Sixteen #2,5,8,9 with a lot of time for reflection on what you'd want your son's first campout to be. Then take a real hard look if you have the adult and older scout resources to supervise each one of these lads tightly. Like almost one-on-one, just like in webelos. I think you're mostly pickin' up risk and a lot of extra duty for your older scouts who were lookin' for a fun challenge, without gainin' much at all. But I reckon' yeh already know this in your heart, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, MarkS. Sorry to hear about your old friend. I've been First Responder on any number of teen and adult auto accidents. It's always a sadness. Though I do cheer for the seatbelt wearers! That's a law with near zero cost and nuthin' but benefits. I know in my state, though, that drivin' curfew would hurt some families, especially single moms with shift work who often rely on teen drivers for things. When the school you attend is 30 miles away from your home on rural roads, the evenin' practice for the school play can put yeh into the curfew zone. Sometimes junior is the guy who closes up and cleans up the family shop at 10pm, and might not get done until 11 (plus he often stays to finish his HW, since it's quiet at the shop). Those are real, live, honest-to-goodness hardworkin' young people and their families that I know personally who would be hurt by this law. And they're solid citizens and responsible drivers to boot. Prohibitions have costs, as well as benefits, and law is unfortunately a blunt and unforgivin' instrument. Beavah

I dont know but a shared vision among the Scouts and Leaders is critical to the success of any unit as I see it. They should all sit down and ask the question, are we all headed the same way? Do we all want the same things for the unit? Yah, I absolutely agree with this, eh? And that would be a much better way to approach things than quibblin' over obscure features of the Transportation Guidelines. Usually, though, differences in vision come out in objections to bigger issues, eh? Da ones mentioned seem really trivial to me, and ones that very few SMs would delegate (and probably shouldn't delegate!). That's why I'm confused. I'm wonderin' if Source can give us some other examples of "sets his own rules that may be different than BSA rules and says he has the final say." Since both of the examples so far were the same as BSA rules, where he should have the final say. It might be a SM who is tryin' to get or keep a troop on the straight-and-narrow, but running into some resistance from some boys or parents who want things to be more "loose." In that case, he's allowed to be "the ruler". Edited to add: Source, can you for example tell us what the ASM's decision that "would be better for the boys" was? The one the SM overruled? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, greenSM, yeh do have a point. If you follow the postings of Kudu, he's really quite vociferous about the matter of stickin' with traditional BP/Bill Hillcourt Scouting, eh? There is somethin' to be said for the notion that the program had been pretty fined tuned after its first 50 years. Da "adjustments" over the last 35 years or so designed to make Scoutin' more "relevant" and whatnot may have done more harm than good. NSP, FCFY, and age-based patrols were part of the 1990 revision, which also did away with youth on BOR's (another 80 year old feature). Combination of makin' the materials more friendly for our LDS colleagues' age-based program, and some efforts to deal with first-year scout attrition. Beavah

BSA's lack of oversight breeds rouge units that do things their own way Yep, Avid. That's the way it works, and is designed to work. Da BSA provides materials, and every unit implements Scouting in its own way. No rogue units, just units. It's a system that puts its faith in the people, not in the central office. B

Yah, Mr. F. Steady, man, steady! What I described was the text straight out of the Scoutmaster's Handbook, the Patrol Leader's Handbook, and the Scoutmaster Specific Syllabus, eh? Ain't nothing in any of 'em that suggests or even hints at rotating NSP Patrol Leaders. NSP Patrol Leaders are supposed to be elected by their peers for a fixed term. There's an option for any patrol to have more frequent elections than the nominally recommended six months, eh? So, sorry to say, if yeh pick up and read the materials, rotating NSP PL's is a tweak and a made-up idea. Might be a good one, too. I've never seen it tried so I wouldn't know. I'd support you or BW or anybody in givin' it a whirl if you'd really thought it out, considerin' both why the BSA doesn't suggest it and why yeh think it might get you to a good result. I certainly wouldn't call yeh "wrong" or "not doing Scouting" for using it. The point was that All Four of the scenarios I described are BSA Scoutin'. Every one of 'em is "the program." I support the lot. I know good people in fine units that do each of the four and then some. They each have their upside and their challenges. Personally, I don't think Webelos 3 is ridiculous at all. There's a lot of demand for it, and in some ways it's developmentally appropriate for pre-pubescent boys. Gets good retention and advancement figures, if yeh have the resource and da right sort of folks to run it. But it is what it is, eh? It's functionally identical to a webelos den, except yeh don't need each parent on the outing and the TG should be takin' more of the work than the den chief did. There's a good reason for usin' that technique - it's in the webelos program because it works if done well. And if it worked well for a lad at the end of January it's probably gonna still work well for the lad in mid-February after he's crossed a bridge . Major CO's make it a vital part of their young mens' program. But if yeh want my preference, you know it already, eh? Eagledad and I feel very similar on the matter. I expect ScouterTerry, too, because of his close ties to Greenbar Bill. Everything else bein' equal, I'd steer folks to consider traditional Patrol Method scoutin', where younger boys learned primarily from bein' in patrols with older boys, and gradually moved up in rank and leadership within their own, permanent patrol. That to me is the method that has really stood the test of time. Beavah

Yah, fgoodwin, I didn't see any flamin', eh? MarkS and I and others were havin' a friendly and animated discussion about issues. Nobody was rippin' on anyone personally. I certainly don't feel like I was bein' flamed. I think MarkS and others are bein' passionate about their viewpoint, and tryin' to make a case for their perspective. And vice versa. Besides, I agree with you. I think it was sad that the law played this way, and I'm opposed to the law for that reason. By adding restrictions to a group, you can do damage to individuals who are doing nothing wrong and indeed many things right. That hurts society, eh? Not just from the direct damage done, but the indirect. It ain't a precedent I like to see, because folks who deal with the law see it manipulated in bad ways all the time. But I get MarkS's perspective, eh? I don't really have that many objections to GDLs. Just to da sloppy and special-interest nature of the legislation. Poor and scary precedents creep in this way, eh? "How can anybody be against safety??" and all that. I'm just remindin' MarkS that if he can do it over one percentage figure, someone else can use exactly the same justification and a lower percentage figure to place restrictions or additional burdens on him and his family. Lives saved is lives saved. Auto accidents are a big killer, and probably da biggest maimer/medical cost source outside of chronic disease. But they wouldn't go after him first, eh? It'd be males from certain races and income levels without college degrees next. Beavah

Got a question of my own - what's the point here? Yah, gotta agree with Ed. Can't see much of a point. Though I'm guessing that it's It seemed a worthwhile topic. When I teach knots and lashings I first try and find out what knots the participants already know. So sometimes when I discuss a topic it helps me to find out what participants already know. which probably translates to "you all are a bunch of kids and I'm testing you so that then I can teach you ignorant fellows the right way." But I may be mistaken . Online accents are sometimes hard to understand, eh? Beavah

Yah, F, thanks for da emoticons, eh? You can make 'em by putting a : next to a ) like : ) and it just comes out like magic! A ; and a ) works . So does a : and a ( . John, I honestly don't think there's that much of a dispute. I think all da regulars here for the last year or two recognize that the BSA's business model is delivery of program materials through licensing arrangements. That means the BSA should do their best job to make a coherent, well-thought out program, and by and large they do. Dat's why we all use it, eh? That also means that once the program is licensed to a council or a community organization, it's theirs to implement and make their own. All da good folks at the National level understand and support that. It's a central feature. It's how you get the Catholics to start a minigoogle of new Venturing units and such. It's also how you protect National's assets when someone in a council does bad to a lot of kids or mismanages funds. Now, in my experience folks involved at da unit level are proud of their units, eh? That includes most district-level and some council-level folks whose "on the ground time" has been primarily with one unit. Each person thinks he/she does a great job. And they often do! What gets tricky is when they go just a bit farther and start thinkin' their way is da right way and the only way. In my experience that's when they stop learnin' and growin' and become a bit of a pain. Those folks tell other people to do it their way without first askin' where the other guy is startin' from, or where the other guy might even have a stronger program than they do. Me personally, I think the two schools of thought on this board turn more on a different assumption. They turn on whether our fellow volunteers are good people to be trusted, or whether they're screw-ups who need to be dealt with. No doubt, there are a few screw-ups out there. And whether yeh believe it or not, I'm among da first to take 'em to task. They say I get downright scary . In my experience, though, they're really very very rare. Good people who occasionally screw up, or who are respondin' to a situation I don't fully understand as best as they know how - those are a lot more common. If yeh really think someone is a screw up, da proper answer really is "get with the program or get out," and the CO should be havin' that conversation with 'em. Just last month I helped a CO escort a SM to the door in just that way, eh? But for da other 99.9% of the time, anybody puttin' on olive and tan, or grey and green, are really good people. They have their quirks and their limitations, like all of us. But they're tryin' to do what Barry Eagledad describes - they're tryin' to use the program materials to do the best job they can for kids, and are constantly findin' places where somethin' isn't working for them in some area and they need to try something different. That's the same thing that we do in da BSA at the National level, eh? Da program hasn't been some carefully refined and adjusted thing slowly improvin' for the last 100 years. We've tweaked here and there, messed some things up completely and gone back to where we were before, had folks with agendas or foibles insert things they liked that turned out not to be that effective. And Boy Scoutin' Division Program is a committee, eh? It thinks and acts like a committee. Doesn't always have a uniform vision, because folks are comin' from different CO's and regions and backgrounds, and they all remember their troop. So I like assumin' that the volunteers are our friends and our biggest asset, and trustin' 'em. Which means not takin' materials that are designed to be helpful and friendly and usin' 'em as a club to whack 'em with. Order of the Arrow is the only nationally approved Boy Scouting Division honor society, but yeh gotta love those Mic-o-Say guys . Beavah

Yah, I'm still wonderin' what the issues really are, eh? The SM made a judgment call about the application of an internal troop rule about rank for SPL. Dat's like arguin' balls and strikes in my mind. Was it his own kid who won the election, so folks are resentful because of that? Then the SM upheld the G2SS transportation policy. Da kids didn't like it because they wanted to drive. So what? There's gotta be somethin' more here, Source, doesn't there? Perhaps somethin' like awesome's delegation example? Beavah

Anyway, the Smillie was because I didn't really intend to dicuss the rotation thing, I figured BW knew it was a tweak. We were more talkin' about how different programs envision PLC's and NSP. The technique BobWhite describes places an ASM and a TG in charge of the whole NSP program. They create a tight, fun, advancement-focused set of activities, mostly autonomous from the rest of the troop. Some folks call this the "Webelos 3" model, because it's so close to the Webelos Den Leader/Den Chief running the same kind of tight, fun, advancement-focused set of activities. Just more emphasis on da Troop Guide than the Den Chief. I see it most in large troops. Kids and parents find it very "organized" and comfortable; just like cubs, they get lots of awards quickly. Retention rates are often high. Those are up-sides, o'course, there are also some down-sides. And yeh have to really choose ASM-NSP and TG for the right "personality." Weaker folks in these positions can do a lot of damage. Da technique Lisabob describes is in my experience more common in medium-sized troops. There the PLC is actually planning the troop outing to incorporate the needs of various patrols. They're choosin' the highlight activity and campout for the month, rather than workin' off a pre-arranged New Scout progression. They might choose a troop monthly activity theme that doesn't easily mesh with a first-year advancement focus. The PLC also chooses skill instruction related to the monthly activity, the games at the meeting, and the interpatrol activity/competitions both in the meetings and outings. You know, just like they're taught to . To some extent, Program Helps/Woods Wisdom model this. If da troop goes dogsledding (like Lisabob's troop this year!), the NSP goes dogsledding with 'em. Even though there's no T21 mushing requirement. So a PLC has to be very much involved with selecting activities and such if they are to be stitched together for FCFY. Troops like Eagledad's or some of da bigger troops in our council that don't use NSP rely on the PLs to teach their new scouts by example and in patrol activities along the way. Da notion of an adult introducin' a separate program for new boys wouldn't fit at all, eh? In these troops, PLC discussions about makin' sure outings were age and skill-appropriate for new scouts, and tips shared among patrol leaders for how to help out their new guys would be pretty normal. If they were to do a FCFY thing, it would very much be discussed among the PLC members, because they'd be da ones doin' it. And then there's small troops that really function as one patrol, where da youth leaders/PLC will be intimately involved in plannin' for and helpin' their first year comrades. Yah, and then there's all kinds of other combinations, eh? Before we even get into Chartered Org. differences and emphases. So there's lots of different roles for a PLC in First Class Emphasis, if it's tried. Scoutin' is a big, beautiful movement that puts questing kids together with adult friends. We gotta be careful not to put it in a box when it belongs in the wide-open world. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

As part of the New Scout Patrol program the scouts rotate through the position of Patrol Leader so that each scout attends a PLC and sees how a troop administration is designed. This is a really fascinatin' Scoutin' urban legend that seems to be particular to Scouter.Com. Leastways, I'd never heard of this permutation before readin' it here. Certainly, it ain't the BSA's recommended program. In the BSA materials, a Patrol Leader in a NSP is a regular patrol leader. He is elected by his patrol members for a fixed term. Troops can choose to hold elections on any term they want, and might do 'em more frequently than every 6 months for NSP, but the boys are free to elect the same boy over and over. There ain't an adult-mandated "rotation" of PL. Not that I'm against units doin' their own thing, mind. But I'd have a discussion with a SM considerin' that kind of tweak, because it takes boys some time in a position to learn the lay of the land before they can be successful or contribute. A rotation would tend to mess with that, eh? Particularly some folks suggestions of 1-2 month rotations seem pretty odd to me. Kinda adds a whole new dimension doesn't it? Yah, it does when yeh quote da full text, eh? Which I was doin' Many troops have a New Scout Patrol for 11-year old boys who are just joining. [For the troops that do that] The new Scouts function as a patrol... etc. Sort of like The new Scout Patrol elects a patrol leader just as the other patrols do // Most troops select patrol leaders and other boy leaders twice a year, though a troop might want to hold elections more frequently in order to allow more boys a chance to lead, particularly in the new Scout Patrols. Beavah [And yah, F, da use of smillies is a way to convey "voice tone" and "facial expression", particularly when it's possible that the raw text might be interpreted in a harsher manner than what is intended, as is often the case when discussin' things online. Yeh gotta imagine a friend sittin' around a campfire and smilin' or winkin' or whatever. ]

By the time we were done, we were able to provide the commissioner staff with stats by unit. I know they talked to the units showing a small level of advancement. Yah, good on your district for usin' this data, Philt. I've always found da unit-level advancement and retention reports to be interestin', and they can help a good Commish think about things before visitin' a unit. It's really easy from advancement reports to see "badge mill operations" in particular. Taken in combination with tour permit stats, LT camp info, and things yeh know about the neighborhood/community, CO, and some of da characters, yeh get a sense for the "outlines." Then yeh go out and visit and observe and talk to people, and yeh get a better sense of what's really goin' on. Beavah

Yah, that's one way to structure it, eh? Of course, there's no such thing as a "Temporary Patrol Leader" What Lisabob was askin', and what all good SM's ask, is "What is the role of the PLC going to be in our vision for a FCFY effort?" Many troops, but not all, have a NSP. Some that do have a NSP phase their new scouts into regular patrols after 3-6 months, some don't. Some may adopt a tightly organized, ASM/TG run program parallel to WDL/DC and very independent from the "regular" troop program. That can be very comfortable and fun for kids crossin' over, and familiar to parents. Some may do what Lisabob's troop might consider, which is have the PLC involved in more detailed planning of troop outings, including the activities that support new scouts. That might introduce more youth-run influence and less "organization", but be a faster introduction to other aspects of Boy Scouting. and on and on... Beavah