Beavah

Beav implied there was no real difference in programs between Exploring and Venturing. Not sure I went that far, eh? They have the same historical roots and because of that they have a sorta similar structure. Emb's got the right of it, though. Exploring is the pre-career program now. So it's only in Exploring that you'll find program materials and association with other units that do pre-career stuff. That's the "proper" program for a fire department, in all likelihood, and it's natural that they'd want to set it up that way. As an Explorer Post, though, they can also go camping, use BSA facilities, and participate in a wide range of other activities besides sittin' around the firehouse. In fact the same wide range of activities as Venturers . Nothing stopping boys who want to do Boy Scouting Advancement to continue on in their troop, which is the proper place for Boy Scouting Advancement. Boys belong to multiple extracurriculars all the time. Beavah

we do not count LFL members toward our district and council membership goals. So there is a strong push to register new units as crews rather than posts. Ah, now there's the cart waggin' the horse, eh?

Yah, I think this is another example of a special-interest invadin' the program. Sorta like the anti-gun crowd and the lasertag bit. There's lots of societal problems out there. Scouting can't begin to address 'em all. We don't have the time or the talent. Cyberbullyin' really gives me a chuckle. Half the scouters out there have trouble gettin' the council email, and they're goin' to be savvy to MySpace, YouTube, and private blogs? I don't think this change was thought out that well. We will have parents in our area who will strongly object to anybody other than them talkin' to their kid about some of these issues. Plenty of parents in our council won't let their Boy Scouts see PG-13 movies. The issues are sensitive, eh? Not every parent is ready to trust someone else talkin' about sexual behavior and abuse. For the bullyin' thing, I'm with Lisabob. It's a current fad, but there's no evidence at all that the anti-bullying programs do one lick of good. Remember DARE? That was also a fad, but when the evidence came out it had no effect, or even made drug abuse more likely. Just watch, this will be the same. Beavah

Sure, Explorers can be da best kind of citizens. They just don't have to be in order to join Explorers. Of course, they get to see that workin' tough jobs like EMS, Fire, and Law Enforcement, yeh see people at their worst and most vulnerable. In that environment, the kids may well learn that there's a real benefit to Faith. Probably a topic for Issues, though, eh? B

Although I suspect the boys would rather have a campout with an activity the can do, rather than watch. Hmmm..... like choosin' a camporee instead of NASCAR . Sometimes it's fun and even educational to watch! Especially if yeh get to look "up close" and talk to people doin' it. And they could take orientation flights, includin' going up with the skydivers and watching them jump out, all while working on Aviation MB. Or watchin' or helpin' work on the demolition cars while doin' Auto Mechanics MB. And both are great topics for Safety MB, eh? Sometimes, when we close doors on the kids too early instead of lettin' them pursue their interests, we can miss a lot. Our job is to enable their dreams, not steer 'em toward our own. Just a thought! B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

These are completely parallel programs? That doesn't make sense. Yah, sure it does, if yeh understand da history. Exploring had its start similar to what Venturing is now, eh (and what Ventures are in the rest of the world)? An outdoor adventure program tailored to mature teens. Along the way, Exploring sort of shifted with the addition of career exploring, centered mostly in da public service areas - police, fire, and EMS posts in particular. Da pre-career interest stuff kind of drove the program, but there continued to be "high adventure" Explorer posts. The "specialty" nature of pre-career posts also encouraged "specialty" posts of other kinds, tied to hobbies like historical re-enactment and such. Then along came Chicago and lawsuits over government entities like police and fire departments being involved in the program. So, in a bit of a rush, the BSA spun off LFL, along with all the pre-career Exploring posts, so that they could continue collaborating with public entities under different membership standards. LFL kept the Exploring name. All of the high-adventure and hobby Explorer Posts were transferred over into the new BSA Venturing Division as Venturing Crews. BSA revived some of the old, old high adventure Exploring stuff (like the recognitions) and relabeled it. 'twas a bit of a hasty job, eh? So for most of their history, Exploring and Venturing have been tightly associated. They're growin' apart a bit now that they're under separate management, especially as Venturing builds up its materials. But yeh can see where a lot of folks still kinda think of 'em together. 'Round here, a few of our most successful crews were former Posts. And yeh could probably still play around the edges if yeh wanted. A private, Christian-based EMS service provider could charter a crew and run it like a pre-career post if it wanted, or a public high school could charter a post and run it as an outdoor adventure program. Numbers are numbers, eh? Beavah

Yah, what OGE said, eh? There aren't really any different activity restrictions, but there are more materials and support for career exploring in an Explorer Post - a network of other Posts of similar interests, training and materials and awards that are more targeted toward career interests, etc. The other reason is that Exploring is under LFL, a separate organization with different membership standards. This eliminates any government/political/PC/etc. issues and allows a government entity to charter a Post with less fear of legal or political reprisals. Beavah

After the SM/SAs scratch off skydiving and the demolition derby (they put them up every year, the rascals) Why scratch 'em out, eh? Let the boys try to plan them. The cost and the fact that no establishment will take an under-18-year-old will dissuade them on their own. And yeh might just end up with a fun campout out at the skydiving airstrip where those guys demonstrate all kinds of cool stuff. B

How do you guys handle transportation costs for long trips. Do you do special fundraising, or make the boys pay the drivers something extra, or just let the drivers "donate" their gas?

Yah, I agree with OGE's conclusion, eh? BOR's noticin' repeated skill issues should be looking at the program. Passing the boy still does the boy not a lick of good, but it might save the SM or others from embarrassment in havin' it public in front of the boys that there are program weaknesses to be addressed. But I'm not sure about these bits: That depends on the skill but no matter how well a scout learns a skill, if its not used, it will evaporate. I don't think this is really true. We're talkin' kid timescales here, eh? T-2-1 all happens within less than a year or two. If a kid really got proficient at lighting a stove, do we really think he'd have his entire proficiency "evaporate" in the 3 months between the signoff and the BOR? Do we really think a kid who passed his swim check or swimming MB at a proficiency level is goin' to lose that skill very quickly? If that's the case, then we're really in trouble when it comes to First Aid! Even the American Heart Association expects CPR proficiency to last for 2 years before it's time for refresher/renewal. And we better be sure to do swim checks every time we go out, not just once a year as the BSA recommends. Then there's once every 3 years for a BSA Lifeguard! Good heavens, we're basing safety on evaporated brains! Nah, I reckon a kid who has really learned something shouldn't have much of a problem retaining it until his BOR. Then dont sign the skill off until the scout shows he knows the skill. This is what's really goin' on, eh? Poor signoffs. Like I said above, in the real world of Scouting we have PL's and ASM dads and Summer Camp staff and they're not perfect. We try to train 'em, but they don't always get it right. Some QC is necessary, eh? Those program weaknesses do happen. I'm with Eamonn, it's easier to review for QC at a SM conference, and young lads are less nervous that way. That's not the formal program, though . Beavah

Yeh know the answer. If they're ready to lead, let 'em lead. If they're not, then yeh need to work on your Troop Leader Training plan instead of messin' around with their April outing schedule! B(This message has been edited by Beavah)

However, if the Troops program is such that the ability to tie an inverted klubel hitch is important, the need to tie it or the opportunity to tie is consistently presented to them, guess what? You will have a troop full of competent Inverted klubel hitch tiers. Yah, this is true, eh? At which point we don't need Advancement Method . Outdoors Method will do. But if we are going to use Advancement Method, then the award and public recognition that goes with it shouldn't happen until a lad is proficient at da Inverted Klubel Hitch and such. Because that's what da BSA's standard is, eh? Proficiency. Which means we better have an active program so that kids really learn! And if they really learn and the program is really active, then they're bein' retested all the time. A kid who really knows something loves showing it off to adults. Beavah

I bet if we polled some boy scouts, especially New Scout Patrol kids, they'd want their parents to cook for them and plan outings. But adult run isn't a method in Boy Scouting, so yeh don't do it, eh? Now what would you think if those same boys wanted their parents to plan & run fun outings, but only for the blond boys in the troop, or the "in" clique? Yeh'd also say "no", because we're Loyal to each other and we do things together as a troop. Same with a crew. Crews don't do advancement as a program feature because it's not a method in Venturing. Crews don't do Boy Scout advancement as a program feature because not everybody can participate, and because the challenges often aren't age-appropriate. Most importantly, crews don't do that stuff because the boys care about what the girls think . Follow da program. There's good reasons for it. Beavah

Faithhopelove, I think you have a choice here. I think you have to content yourself with small, incremental changes or yeh have to go start your own pack (and then your own troop). Your vision is right, and your heart is right. Poor kids need people to believe in them, and to expect 'em to achieve! Lettin' them by with gross underachievement is just another way of keepin' 'em in poverty. Beavah P.S. Next time, though, start by approachin' a parent on the side yourself (about sleepin' in an SUV). Give 'em a campout or two to think about it and change. Only then go to the CM or a bigger group. Just plain courtesy. Never say behind someone's back what yeh haven't said to their face.

Great! It'll be fun if he wins to see him take it to the next level. I'd add another thought for yeh, though. If it worked OK, why not add all those First Class boys to the PLC? Even if they don't win the election, use 'em! They're ready, willing, and able. Make up titles if yeh need to, or keep it informal. B

Yah, gwd, don't look a gift horse in the mouth I'm a firm believer that a SM should have a light touch. Never do with a rule (like a rank requirement) what you can do with just a nudge. Just asking or planting a question or two during the speeches/campaign can help draw boys' attention to issues of experience or maturity. "Which outings this last year did you help plan? Were any your idea fro the start?" That and some basic instruction on what to look for when electing anybody... not just da best looking or the most dynamic speaker, eh? With that many lads, though, yeh might consider a nominating process or a runoff election. For those thinkin' about rank requirements in bigger units, here's a thought: APL: Must be First Class. He needs to know the basics confidently before he can start tryin' to lead. PL: Must be Star and/or a former APL. He should have some leadership experience, deeper skill, and some troop-level service before gettin' the most important job in Scouting. SPL/ASPL/QM: Must be Life. JASM: Must be Eagle Beavah

"The review has three purposes: (the first of which is) To make sure that the work has been learned and completed" That seems pretty simple to me, too, eh? From the very same book no less. Rules & Regs has "In Boy Scouting, recognition is earned through... proficiency in activities related to outdoor life, useful skills, and career exploration." So the standard is proficiency, and the BOR's first task is to make sure the boy has learned to proficiency. Yeh don't have to agree with it, or like it, or as we see from the occasional Badge Mill yeh don't even have to comply with it, but that's the BSA's program, too. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

The time for "Quality Control" is in step one and two. Once a requirement has been signed off or a Merit Badge has been passed. The deed is done. Yah, it would be nice if that were da case, eh? But the thing is, in Scouting, we're not just teachin' the kids. We're also teachin' the leaders. Sometimes I wish we had skilled outdoorsmen who were outstanding teachers and rigorous examiners. But reality is we have Joe's Patrol Leader, who has OK outdoor skills, is still learnin' how to teach well, and sometimes gets a bit soft on testing. And often Joe Patrol Leader's dad who is helpin' out is in the same boat, eh? That's Scouting. And there's room for quality control on that step. Which is what the BOR step is for (or the SM conference in troops like Eamonn's, or da instructor conference in troops like Trevorum's). Is it the fault of the Scout that someone else didn't do what they were supposed to do? Or didn't do their job? Should the Scout be penalized for something that was beyond his control? I think this is part of learnin' citizenship. We all get penalized as citizens for stuff when our leaders or fellow citizens don't do their job well. It means our taxes go up and we have to work harder, eh? Just the nature of the world. Might make us select better leaders next time, or not. But I think Eamonn's thinkin' that not getting the award is somehow a penalty. That ain't it, IMO. It's not learning that's the penalty. That's what's goin' to stick with the boy for the long haul - the embarrassment of not bein' able to tie the knot, the fear of not knowin' what to do when lost, the livin' with a really awful breakfast because he never learned food plannin'. The award can be earned next week or next month. Dat's not a problem. Really penalizin' a kid is givin' him an award when he hasn't really become knowledgeable and self-confident. Downright cruel, that is. Beavah

:) I really enjoyed LongHaul's rant about definitional agreements. It is true that sometimes I wish da BSA hired a good document continuity editor. Part of the confusion is that some stuff comes out of different offices. Da rest of it is that it comes out of committee, and the folks on the committee are as conflicted as we are here! So perhaps the way to think about it is more like a range. Lots of things go on by way of some form of retesting, especially on the Oath and Law, and on safety stuff (wait 'til they add the new YP requirements to T-2-1). Outdoor skills too, in many units. There's a range of variation dat's acceptable. But yeh can go too far out in either direction... being a 100% Final Exam kinda thing on the one side or bein' so lax that yeh are teachin' bad lessons about character on the other. Beavah

Yah, Herms, welcome home and thank you for your service! I'd think about other fun things like KC says. Patrol competitions? Off-site outdoor meetings? Lots of times yeh can combine instruction in neat ways. Young guys work T-2-1 first aid while old guys do First Aid MB, but yeh do it all together with fake wounds and such. The senior leader has to task out jobs and triage so that the younger guys are doin' things they're capable of while the old guys get to do a cut down to put in a chest tube! One thing I have seen work OK is introduction to a merit badge. Have a counselor come and do a fun intro at the meeting, but then have the boys who are interested pursue it independently. Beavah

Yah, the other issue is that while just about every troop uses the SM conference in the way Eamonn suggests (as a pre-BOR), that's not really what da materials say to do. A SM conference might be the first requirement signed off for a rank, not the last. Or a boy may get a SM conference to discuss his shortcomings in terms of Scout Spirit at some point, eh? So really, da only quality control check is the BOR. Like I say, most troops tweak that and use the SM conference as a functional BOR Part I. I think there's really only a few possible outcomes 1. A scout really did all the requirements to mastery. SM Conference and BOR are great, boy advances. 2. A scout really did most of the requirements to mastery, but may be uncertain on a couple. SM Conference or BOR catch it, and then what happens depends a bit on da unit's philosophy, eh? Most would still advance the boy, but also give feedback to the SM/signoff person so as to improve da program. A few might feel that's cheating the boy of the learning, and ask the boy to brush up and come back the next week or two. 3. A scout really didn't do most/any of the requirements to mastery. SM Conference or BOR recognize this. One or the other sends the boy back so that he actually gets the fun and accomplishment of really learning. Both respond also by improvin' the program in terms of instruction and testing. Most folks would agree on #1 and #3. It's number 2 where sometimes good folks disagree. Was da boy just nervous? Is it OK to forget a couple of things? What if those things are really important for safety? Beavah

Angels dancin' on the head of the Retest Pin again, eh? Perhaps better than splittin' all the hairs we can on the definition of "test", we could instead share all da different ways we've seen a BOR actually be productive and help a kid toward growin' in character. Without comment or judgment. I've seen all kinds of BOR's that were good for kids and good for da unit. Some of 'em asked skill questions, some didn't. Beavah

Yah, skeptic, you've identified one of da oddities in da program. My answer is that there's SO much fun, excitement and personal growth that's possible in a well-run Venturing program that there should be no time nor interest in Boy Scout Advancement. Usually when I see "Advancement" happenin' in a crew, it's because some Boy Scouting volunteers transferred over to the crew and can't let Boy Scouting go. Just da way when Cub Scouters transfer over to a troop they tend to create Webelos III because they can't let Cub Scouting go. So my preference would be that Venturing units just do Venturing. Get away from da middle school Boy Scouting program and be a high school group for real. Don't accept Boy Scouting volunteers until they've had time to be "deprogrammed." They need to learn and buy into da fact that Advancement is not a method in Venturing. So IMO a crew should not be spendin' any time on Boy Scout Advancement, particularly when half its members can't participate. Allowin' a lad to finish Eagle in a crew is just that... an allowance, and a fairly rare occurrence. It should be somethin' tolerated "on the side." He should be doin' MB's on his own, not on crew time. And if a crew awards Eagle it should not be a big fuss. Kinda like if a troop awarded a Boy Scout his Arrow of Light because he didn't finish in the pack. Save da Big Fuss for Ranger or Silver, or just da post-high-adventure-trip party with no awards at all other than what da youth want to give each other! Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Actually, that goes well with your ideas in general because you think that written rules only mean what you want them to mean. Yah, which brings us back around to: Childish Belief in literal, simplistic rules from mom & dad (or other Human Authority who "knows better"). Adolescent/Teenage Recognition that the simplistic rules are sometimes stupid, and that mom, dad, & human authority are fallible. Rebellion against all rules/external authority, aka moral relativism. Choose your own human rule based on what makes you feel good. Adult Understandin' that there are underlyin' rules/principles, but they're not simplistic (mom and dad really weren't that stupid!) It's just that da underlyin' rules/principles are challenging and subtle and not easily written down. Understandin' 'em in hard cases, like self defense or war is... hard. But while finding truth is hard, it is possible to identify error. Human texts and rules, while flawed, are still valuable as a good startin' point. But they're not the end point. Childish understanding: Never stand in a canoe. It's a rule. Teenage understanding: I've stood in a canoe before and was fine. Horseplay standing up in a canoe in rapids because it's fun. Adult understanding: Mostly, one shouldn't stand in a canoe. However, when approachin' a rapid it can be helpful when boat-scoutin' the rapid. Sometimes it's useful in flat water when talkin' to a group so that everyone can see/hear you, or to make a good cast . Beavah

BSA says "insurance may be invalid if.. . .I know, Ask the Beaver, he knows everything." Yah, thanks to SWS for lookin' up that bit and providin' GW with a direct publication quote indicating that blue cards are optional. I take the change of topic to be his form of apologizin' . GW, since yeh bring up insurance, when last we left this topic I had sent you to go have your COR set up a meeting with your council Scout Executive, so you could tell him that you were tellin' scouters and charter partners that BSA insurance wouldn't cover 'em and would leave them 'high and dry' whenever they screwed up by not followin' a G2SS provision like drivin' at night. Have you made that appointment yet? No need to trust da Comical Beavah, after all. Set it up. Make sure he gets the regional office on conference call, just to double-check. We're all interested to hear your SE's reaction. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)