Beavah

I hope this helps you understand program planning for the First Year Scout a little better. Yah, sure, it and some of your other postings helps me understand your approach to such plannin', eh? Any others who want to share? Beavah

Wow, Brotherhood! Way to go, eh? All that since last May? Movin' fast always makes bigger waves. Sometimes, those waves can swamp da boat. Sometimes, battlin' those waves can make the helmsman awfully tired, too! Never known a good Scoutin' volunteer who didn't think about quittin' from time to time. But if yeh weren't in it for the 5 year haul, then yeh shouldn't have set about tryin' to change a troop's culture. It takes that long. I wouldn't quit. I'd throttle back just enough to reduce the waves a touch, but stay at the helm. 3-5 year vision, remember! Me personally, I don't care for open, informal "parent committees" in the upper level programs. They always seem to turn things into Cub Packs. So I'd say your direction is good, you're just movin' a bit fast. Gotta build up some goodwill first, particularly with your CO and key committee volunteers . As far as your son goes, dat's his call, eh? Nuthin' at all says he has to quit just because you don't want to be CC . My advice is to go on a hike with the boys and get recharged! Beavah

As a parent, I approve of the graduated driver's license programs. my older son will be driving in a couple of years, and I want to be sure he has minimal distractions while he is still an inexperienced driver. Yah, funscout, so as a parent yeh should be sure he has minimal distractions while he is still an inexperienced driver, eh? There was nuthin' stopping you from doing that before the law. Yeh don't need a law to enable you to act like a parent. Laws aren't things that enable free citizens to do stuff. Laws are things that authorize da state to punish citizens under certain circumstances. The change in the Illinois law allows people with guns to arrest, detain, and punish young folks and their parents if they do/allow certain things. You need a law only when yeh want to punish other parents for not acting the same way you do. Like allowing their son to assist with a BSA-authorized and adult-supervised SafeRides program . SA, I hear yeh. But you'd be amazed at how easy it is. All those steps yeh mentioned lined right up ending with the Kelo decision, eh? Now your local government can seize your house and give it to me, as long as I can show I'll increase its taxable value . Da price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance... especially when we're talkin' about takin' away rights and privileges from individuals based on their demographic group, not on their personal actions. That way lies dragons. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, BW, so share your plan, eh? All we've got so far is that you'd do two NSP's of 4 rather than one NSP of eight. But here's how attendance comes in, eh? If each boy has 75% attendance, there's gonna be a fair number of trips and quite a few meetings where a 4-person patrol "collapses" down to two or even one boy. If yeh have a few boys who only show up 50-60% of da time, then a patrol "collapsing" will be pretty common, eh? So now you're faced with temporarily combinin' patrols, which is a break with da Patrol Method. 50-75% attendance is pretty average for new scouts, eh? If we're honest, some boys are even more infrequent to start. Now, as you've done, yeh could say "our job is only to offer the opportunity." Dat's fine. If yeh teach first aid for snakebite once a year, and assume it's the kid's fault if he wasn't there or didn't understand it da first time is was taught, then yeh do have a plan . But under that kinda FCFY plan, every kid is gonna take longer than one year to complete FC. Which is probably why most of da units that do FCFY actually have most kids completin' FC at around 18 months. Beavah

Here's some other ones to add to John-in-KC's observations Fitness (X, TF, X, X, Pers. Fitness) - big gaps, no repetition at 2C and 1C Service (X, X, 2C, X, S-L-E) - gaps at TF and 1C. Oath and Law (S, TF, X, X, X, X, X) - never brought back except in the guise of Scout Spirit. Plan a Project (X, X, X, X, X, X, E) - no prior project-planning advancement until a lad gets hit with it at Eagle. Position of Responsibility (X, X, X, X, S, L, E) - no prior patrol-level POR before hittin' a troop-level POR. All da places with X's are places where a troop needs to be alert to keepin' that skill alive through other methods, or supplement somehow. Da best example of a good progression is First Aid (X, TF, 2C, 1C, FA MB, Camping MB, Lifesaving MB, Hiking MB, Cycling MB, Swimming MB) - that pretty much guarantees a progression of First Aid development and reinforcement throughout a lad's advancement program. Beavah

Yah, fgoodwin, the only point of the complimicated conditions was to do what Lisa'bob suggests, and try to impose a reasonable approximation of the challenges many troops face. It's a lot easier to do FCFY if you require 100% attendance, for example, or if yeh do three outings a month or meet every day as part of your home school group, eh? As I've said, I certainly know units that offer FCFY usin' signoff criteria #1, which doesn't follow the taught/practiced/applied steps BW and da BSA advocate. I've seen units that pretty much make advancement the only method in year one, too. "Gotta get through this, then they can have fun." I'm just tryin' to cut out all these different permutations. Not that they're "bad", just that they're different enough so as not to be helpful for others. My own experience has been da same as what others reported in the older threads on this. At signoff level #2, FC is typically an 18-month thing. If a unit meets da BSA's proficiency standard, it's usually a rank every 9 months to a year. I'm lookin' for a few examples that break the trend without introducin' special conditions. So for weather, yeh don't have to face a cancellation, but a disruption of the plans every now and then . Can't do the First Aid practice in the field because it's pourin' down rain or whatever. For #8, I meant that if yeh use NSP, you can't be breakin' up the Patrol Method for other patrols. But in your case in mixed patrols, I guess I mean that instruction and signoff should mostly happen within the patrol, not by pullin' the boys off into a "class". Beavah

I'm pretty much of the opinion that most folks have made their own conclusion, data notwithstanding. Nah, F, yer bein' too hard on everybody! I think there's no good general data available. So most folks with experience make their conclusions based on the data they have access to - the unit(s) they work in or work with. For some of us like Eagledad, that includes tryin' a whole bunch of ways to make FCFY work as prescribed, and then switching to something that worked better. For other folks like me, it involves seein' a lot of units try different things, and watchin' how they do with it. What's interestin' is that forums allow us to share all that neat locally-generated data and try to make sense of it. I don't get to see units outside of Central Region much, eh? Except when doin' international stuff, but da scouts doin' international stuff invariably come from really well-run programs. Eagledad's point is very well taken, eh? FCFY seems to generate a lot of angst and confusion across da nation in multiple forums with people collecting good local data. We see some good programs that use somethin' like FCFY, some good programs that don't, and a lot of programs where it seems to generate weird things like rushin' kids through ranks. That gives us more (or less) confidence in our own observations.... and gives us all new, broader ways to think about how to make da program work for our kids. Beavah

Hi BA, Thanks for da one great contribution! (and to LongHaul too!) Sorry I missed it in other long messages. Hopin' we'll get a few more. Beavah

Yah, BW, I reckon at this point da intent is clear, eh? If yeh don't want to participate or yeh want to spin off another thread to argue about whether sharin' different FCFY plans is worthwhile, go ahead. Just please be courteous and stop hijackin' this one . For everybody else, if I've made things too complicated, feel free to share an outline of how you implement FCFY, and perhaps answer how yeh handle some of da challenges. Be aware we all might critique , but you'll be addin' to the discussion by puttin' some meat on the bones! Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I'd sit down with an SPL who asked me that question, and I'd say "wrong question." The right questions are "What am I responsible for?" and "How do I do my best to be of service to others in my role?" Beavah

Yah, MarkS, I understand da legal issues. But if legality is our test for right and wrong, then we're in serious trouble, eh? Special interests manipulate da law in their favor all the time. And it's perfectly legal for a 16 year old to have consensual sex. My question is simple. Would you support restricting the driving privilege of your own demographic group (males) because they have demonstrably worse driving records as a group? Which they do. It would generate substantial safety improvements. It would save lives. I expect yeh wouldn't, eh? If someone suggests that our own privileges be restricted because it would yield benefits, that's when we suddenly say "Wait! You can't just look at the benefits! You have to look at the costs!". And probably "Get your laws off my freedom!". Scoutin' is a dangerous activity. More dangerous than some other youth activities. We kill and injure boys every year. Some get abused. None of that would happen if we banned Scouting. OGE's argument is a different one. It's not an argument for using the law to place additional restrictions on young people. It's an argument that a Scouting group shouldn't be providing this kind of service because it might be encouragin' bad behavior in young people. That's got real merit, and is a very tough call. That's makin' an argument that's trying to balance costs (da risk of enabling bad behavior) against benefits (the chance of saving lives and demonstrating good behavior). Beavah

Yah, philt, that's nice data, eh? Problem is, it's really hard to collect data that actually answers a question. Lisabob's point is that the most likely explanation for your data is that Boys who really enjoy Scouting tend to advance in rank and to stay in Scouting. Boys who don't like Scouting tend to do neither. Dat's pretty obvious, eh? And you've got great data to support it! To answer the question "Does FCFY improve retention?" yeh have to get a sample of all da troops who say they're doin' FCFY and all the ones who say they're not, and compare their retention figures. It has to include even troops that might not be doin' FCFY well, because that's important data when evaluatin' a program. It tells you the program is hard to implement successfully, or hard to understand, or might need more resources than some troops have. Beavah

Yah, BW, welcome back to da forums, eh! Sorry if I wasn't clear, especially when referrin' to recent threads yeh haven't participated in. If yeh want, you can ignore da rules and just post a plan from your troop, eh? It's an open forum. I reckon cut-and-paste would be less typin' than that last response. To clarify for everyone: 1) The purpose here is that kids who show up to most things and are diligent should be makin' FCFY, but we can never assume 100% participation, nor do we want to. Pick a level that accurately portrays such kids in your troop. 2) Should be done according to the recommended BSA program of a meeting a week, an outing a month. Can't assume an unusually high volunteer commitment/activity level. 3) Some of us have more weather than others, eh? Gotta work for folks who don't live in sunshine states. 4) Signoff levels refers to da discussion on this thread: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=176828 5) Anybody who knows anything about teachin' knows that not every learner "gets it" the first time it's taught. No matter how good da teacher is. How many times did Jesus have to teach clueless disciples? 6) Da intent is to not let one method monopolize the time. So yeh can't spend a whole meetin' doing a uniform inspection (but claimin' it's also Patrol Method and Youth Leadership, etc), and yeh can't do a whole meetin' in an advancement class but claimin' it's patrol method, and youth leadership, and outdoors, etc. 7) If yeh think yeh can't use FCFY without age-based patrols, then present it that way. Da BSA materials of course allow both structures, so if yeh know how to do it with mixed-age patrols, feel free to present that. 8) Assume you're done with recruiting season and 8 new scouts is what you've got. For convenience, you got 'em all at the same time. 9) Yeh can ignore anything that in your actual experience is avoidable, but you can't reprogram the real world. If yeh don't want to play, you can sit quietly and politely on the sidelines and watch . If yeh want, you can reference Woods Wisdom/Troop Program Features. In my experience I've never yet seen a troop that either wanted to or was able to implement 'em as designed, but they're fair game if they conform to the requirements. Beavah

There is nothing so difficult about the requirements of Tenderfoot through First Class that they could not be taught, practiced, and applied in a 12 to 14 month period. Yah, BobWhite fudged a bit, eh? Let's keep it to 12 months like it says. This could be a fun exercise. Generate and post a 12-month troop calendar that meets the following conditions: 1) Does not assume 100% participation, but rather assumes between 50 and 80% participation from your "good" kids. 2) Allows for 1 (but only one) outing a month. Your choice of whether Saturday overnights are permitted or not. Allows for 1 (but only one) meeting per week, with no meetings any time there is a school vacation during the school year. 3) Assumes living in an area with Weather. Either oppressive heat some months, cold, dreary rain some months, or snow and cold some months. Or all of the above! Perhaps assume 1 month's outing cancellation for weather, and two more months where the outing program has to be adjusted for weather. Whatever's rational for your area for a decent but "ordinary" troop. 4) Provides for instruction on each T-2-1 skill, followed by multiple opportunities for each boy to really practice, followed by a chance for each boy to demonstrate/test individually, as per the requirements. Assume a signoff level of #2 ('introduction') or #3 ('proficiency') (and specify which you're usin'). 5) Assumes that instruction isn't perfect, and that only half of the boys "got" each skill the first time it was taught. So for half the boys, each skill needs to be re-taught at least once. 6) Makes advancement only 1/8 of the program time (one method out of 8). So out of a 90 minute meeting, 12-15 minutes or so. On a day-long camping trip, 1.5 hours or so. Yah, yah, dat's a bit artificial because there's some overlap of advancement with the other methods, eh? But there's also some ways in which Youth Leadership steers us away from this kind of "organized" advancement focus, and might even throw down for one or more non-T-2-1-related outings. And there's times when, for example, Patrol Method needs more time to deal with an "issue." But if you're desperate, yeh can "cheat" up to 1/6 of the program time. 7) Yeh can assume either a NSP/TG approach or a traditional mixed-age patrol model. But you do have to specify which and use 'em properly. Let's say 8 new scouts. 8) You have to use the other Methods. So you can't, for example, "turn off" the Patrol Method in order to have PLs from an older patrol come and do testing for the NSP. They're engaged in their own patrol's activities. 9) For da cost of only minor chiding, you can declare one (but only one) of the above 8 'rules' to be "unreasonable" for your circumstances, and ignore it. Might give some good ideas to people. Might also prove to be a real challenge! Beavah

Rumors are not a good basis for making program decisions. What is the actual data? The actual data is that Boy Scouting membership has declined substantially since First Class Emphasis was put into effect. That decline is substantially greater than the demographic change for the age group. There continues to be substantial wolfs to webelos, webelos to scouts, first year boy scouting and early high school boy scouting attrition. When yeh change lots of things at once, of course, yeh can't really figure out causes, eh? Lots of things changed inside and outside the program. Durin' the same period, there has been a substantial year-over-year increase in the number of Boy Scout-aged youth playing paintball, and in da number of days playing paintball of individual boys each year. With a better safety record than scoutin', eh? Yah, I think Brent's right. For a minority of SMs and troops, FCFY made some sense and they were able to use it to think about improvin' their program. That's good for them, but it's not how to evaluate a program, eh? For a program, yeh gotta take the net effect, includin' all the damage done. That includes all the folks confused by it, and all the troops where it didn't work. FCFY on the whole has been an unsuccessful initiative, IMO. I suppose we could try again for another 18 years and hope to get a different result . Beavah

Yah, hops, but even if that were true, it wouldn't be freedom, would it? That 20 year old who just returned from Iraq still wouldn't be allowed to buy a bottle of wine to take it home and share with his wife over dinner. :) I gotta say, I'm sorta amused and befuddled by all this. We Scouters are the ones tellin' the world that youth can be trusted to make decisions, that youth leadership and youth running their own activities is something to be valued and worked toward, eh? That you can trust your 11-year-old to the leadership of his 14-year-old Patrol Leader in the wilderness. The Safe Rides program is a Scoutin' (well, Venturing) activity that fits perfectly with our mission - it demonstrates youth leadership and youth-run endeavors, it provides a genuine community service, it says "you can trust us as responsible youth to help you out and do the right thing." We're constantly under fire by those who feel that youth led and youth run are bad things, that youth aren't capable, that adults have to take over and "organize" things, yadda yadda. And now we're agreein' with them? Beavah

Yah, Hi Source! Welcome to da forums, eh? ScoutingAgain gave yeh the lowdown on how SM's are appointed or removed. But let's back up a minute. You say that the troop has a rank requirement for SPL. That's perfectly OK, the Scoutmaster's Handbook allows it specifically. That's a unit-level rule, though, not a BSA rule. There's a general principle that "those that make the rule can make the exceptions." Now it seems to me, that a 17 year old who is very capable, and who gets the approval of his fellow scouts in an election, but who just hasn't been with the troop long enough to make Eagle or Life or whatever the rank is... that might be an OK exception, eh? Now, as for driving, you're right that there's an exception for youth members under 18 driving under some very limited circumstances. Da current wording limits it to "area, regional, or national events." That means not a troop campout, and not a council camporee. Only somethin' like a regional training or NOAC or such. So my guess is your SM is on-the-money in that restriction, eh? It can be annoying and inconvenient. I'll be honest with you though, most troops have rules prohibiting the "youth member exception" even when the BSA would allow it. So your troop is part of the majority. Lots of times we disagree with judgment calls. I'd encourage you to consider whether disagreeing with a judgment call is when you really want to remove someone from a position, eh? Judgment calls are hard, and anybody who makes 'em has to rely on the loyalty of other folks. Removing people is often best saved for deliberate acts and really bad behavior. But hey, tell us some more about what's goin' on, eh! There might be some other ways to "skin the cat" so to speak. Beavah

AND this is not the case in a Troop that uses First Class emphasis? AND it is often not the case. Because program materials that put the emphasis in the wrong place encourage adult leaders to put the emphasis in the wrong place, too. Any of us who work with a bunch of units see this happen all da time, eh? Especially with seat-time trainin' that has no performance component, people tend to take away simple messages. "Gotta get my kids to First Class their First Year." Not many of 'em make it to da right "bigger picture", eh? Leastways, not for a lot of years. Beavah

If you offer to give a kid a ride home when he's loaded, the only message is "cool, go ahead and get wasted, you're expected to do so." Really?? So if I give a co-worker a ride home when he's had "one too many", that's the wrong thing to do? Wrong to take the keys away from the guy at the company picnic who is slurrin' his speech? Better to tell 'em they're on their own, and free to go make orphans of some kids when they run head-on into a parent's car on their way home? Or is it only helpin' young people that's a problem? Helpin' a friend who got stranded because his car broke down or because his designated driver got sloshed is OK. Just don't help a kid. A guy I really like was well known for helpin' out folks like corrupt tax collectors and prostitutes. He was also pretty strongly opposed to authority figures who would put "burdens on other men's backs and lift not a finger to help them." Beavah

Passing legislation to protect children is not the same as restricting liberties of other groups. Yah, that's always the claim, eh? Passing legislation to restrict young adults 18-21 from drinking is not the same as restricting liberties of other groups. It's "protecting young adults." It does mean that a 19-year-old can be trusted with an M-16 doin' convoy duty in Iraq, but can't buy a beer with his fellow soldiers when he gets home. As long as it doesn't stop us folks in "other groups" from buyin' a glass of wine with our meal, it's OK. Passin' legislation to restrict liberties of gun owners ain't the same as restricting liberties of "other groups", as long as we're not in the group that is bein' legislated against. Folks always use the same excuses for passin' laws that restrict the liberty of others. Parents should be free to decide whether their kid can volunteer for and serve in a Safe Rides program. No reason for the government to take that liberty away from parents, which is da real effect of the legislation. Not restrictin' the liberty of kids. Restricting the liberty of adult parents. Beavah

Yah, Lisa'bob. Nice to see Venturing expanding in your area. I'll echo BW and others... Help find capable female leaders! Especially young women who like the outdoors. Offer Powderhorn. In da context of offering Powderhorn, develop a list of "consultants" and outfitters within a good, long driving-time circle from your district. Partner with other districts or neighboring councils for other kinds of unit support. For at least the first few years, whack anybody who proposes district-level stuff over da head with a wiffle bat. Your goal should be on gettin' out and supporting unit-level programming and development. District-level stuff is just an adjunct, and can come later. Work actively to get understandin' and buy-in from area SM's. Nuthin' worse than developing a negative "those crews are going to steal my kids!" attitude early on. Make sure the crew advisors and AA's aren't all Boy Scouting people. In my experience, most of da Boy Scouting people who tryo to move up to Venturing are just like Cub Scouters who try to move up into Boy Scouting. They have to be deprogrammed first or they'll just make a hash of things. That goes for commissioners, too! Try to develop Venturing-only commissioners, rather than usin' cub and boy scout commissioners. B

Simply put, if a person even sits through a training session, no matter how poorly done, they will often pick up something of value they could use later. If they are not in any class, then there is zero chance that any such learning will happen.... If you stop and think about it for a minute, isn't that what we're expecting our youth to do? I certainly hope we're not expecting our youth to sit through poorly done training sessions and rack up seat time for advancement . I reckon we usually expect 'em to learn through formal and informal instruction, then practice, then get tested, eh? Almost everything that's taught in trainin' is available in other ways, like through that old-fashioned skill called reading. Me personally, I buy every piece of BSA literature for the upper 3 programs (I don't work as much with cubs). Even the stuff I've seen in pre-press, and da training syllabuses for stuff I don't teach. Then talk about it with folks, try it out, practice it, troubleshoot it in different units. Learnin' should be a habit, not a class session. Part of what we promise the units or boys we work with, eh? And part of what we want 'em to do, too. If yeh got leaders of the right sort, they're gonna go seek out the resources they need to constantly improve their programs, both BSA resources and other resources like WFA and WFR and group challenge games and more info about youth protection and even on-line forums . If yeh don't have leaders of the right sort, puttin' 'em in a mandatory training session just fills a seat and a checkbox. You can give 'em credit for the "advancement" I suppose. Chances are, the one or two things they manage to pick up will be urban legends or just plain wrong, and they'll go back to their troops sayin' Boy Scouts can't use power tools or the insurance monster will eat 'em. B

My worry is the ever discussed insurance myth(?) that these boys will not be covered if anything really expensive happens. Liability insurance covers the unit, not individual boys. Covers the unit even if the boy isn't registered, is a guest, etc. The optional limited health insurance coverage does have a difference in premium between cubs and boy scouts. That's only based on program of registration, though. Doesn't affect anything here. If young lads are enrolled in Boy Scouts, then next recharter/year they pay the Boy Scouting premium. Functionally, the council is authorized by its charter from National to enroll members. There's quite a bit of discretion there, includin' the ability to authorize members or whole units of members outside the age range. B

I'm with BobWhite, eh? I've never seen mandatory training accomplish anything more than increasing seat-time and resentment. And as often as not, decreasing the quality of training either because of the resentment of some participants or the need or desire to fudge, use weak trainers, etc. Yeh really think a DE is gonna take a loss of a unit over the mandatory trainin' rule, without being at least sorely tempted to "come do a personal, one-hour IOLS? Like dat silly one-day indoor IOLS course in the other thread - a classic result of "mandatory" trainin'. And how many gawd-awful droning on sessions of SSD/SA have we all sat through? To my mind, mandatory trainin' is the cheap way out. The way that requires effort and would achieve results is uppin' the quality of training so that it's perceived as worthwhile. Then all the right sort of adult leaders want to take it. Think WB. And as BW suggests, we can never do much about the wrong sort of adult leaders until the CO deals with it. Beavah

I gotta go with OGE on this one. This program does provide a "safety net" for breaking the law. If the kids weren't drinking in the first place, there'd be no need for this program. Maybe. But we all try to live by the Golden Rule, eh? And to Help Other People at all Times. What would you want if that were your son or daughter who were stuck somewhere dangerous, and couldn't reach you or was scared to because she'd be grounded? How many people's sons and daughters are you gonna put at risk of dying (and takin' our own families with them) because we say it's their fault the guy who drove 'em to the party got smashed? B