Beavah

Yah, in 30+ years I've lost track of da number of "changes to be more relevant/exciting/etc." GSUSA has made to its program. Seems like they rewrite the thing from scratch every 5-7 years. I don't know as that has caused their decline, so much as hastened it. In each case they've confused or lost some of their core constituency without gainin' anybody. That's the risk of such things, eh?

Along the lines of this post and the one on authority let me ask you for your opinion. I'm newly associated with a troop which has been continually chartered for 95 years. They have some traditions which go back quite a way. One of the things they do is have all the boys above First Class wear the green Venturing shirt. They have found over the years that this aids in retention of older boys. My question is do you think this is one of the "authority" issues which the local unit/CO have the "authority" to decide? I can just see the rampagin' horde of uniform police that'll respond to this one . Seems like I better start a new thread just to give 'em room. Let me give you several answers. Pragmatic Sure, they have the ability to decide it (they have done it, after all). The BSA corporation has no particular interest in, and no resources devoted to, making units comply with the Insignia Guide. In fact, the BSA is no doubt makin' more money on uniforms and memberships and goodwill than it would if they got in the way, eh? Corporate Example Plenty of councils effectively do this for summer camps, eh? Make all staff wear the green shirts. They may or may not really register a separate Crew for that, but even if they did that's a no-cost internal administrative game. Vision/Mission It's good use of the uniform method (kids respect da uniform, it means something, they wear it). It's decent use of advancement (provides an additional incentive to advance). Most importantly, it seems to have a shot at helpin' keep kids in the program. Yah, dat's what we want, eh? Philosophy For some COs/units/individuals, absolute obedience to the printed text is an important component of character. Those units would not want to make this adaptation. For da rest who feel that "the uniform was made for scouts, not scouts for da uniform", this would be a perfectly consistent example to their boys of how individuals show character. So it just depends, eh? So yah, as a UC, I wouldn't be bothered by this as you describe it. If I remembered, I'd try to wear green when I went to visit, since I made 1st Class, eh? But if they asked, I'd tell 'em it wasn't "by the book" and would offer some reasons why that might be the case for them to consider. Beyond that, yah, it's theirs to decide. And I don't think other BSA volunteers from outside that unit should stick their nose in when da BSA corporation themselves don't care to get involved. Nuthin' like self-appointed garden gnomes tryin' to enforce someone else's guidelines on someone else's youth program (and then claimin' to be Courteous ).(This message has been edited by Beavah)

I think the more accurate business model is the franchise. You don't by a MacDonalds or a Burger King... Yah, franchises are interestin' business models. Da burger franchise doesn't map well onto the BSA, though, in a legal or practical way. Biggest thing is that kids aren't burgers; youth programs are much more tailored. There aren't many youth program franchises to point to... maybe Heritage Academy schools. Franchises don't seem to be too successful in youth programmin'. Here's where I think the differences are between McDonalds-type franchises and the BSA business model. 1a) Both the CO's and the BSA are not-for-profit. So there isn't the same "common interest" in making money. The common interest is much more subtle, and much weaker. This leads to... 1b) The CO's have their own youth and character-building program and agenda, of which a scouting program is typically only a "part" according to the charter. This is very different from the "agenda is to make money" of a Burger Palace, eh? Mormons, Baptists, VFW posts, private schools, PTO's, neighborhood associations, etc. are goin' to be a bit different in how they view "character", and how a unit fits into their other youth programs. Dat's not just a "meet the local building code" like a McDonalds, it's "adapt to fit the individual mission and quirks of the owner". The BSA in its charter and documents agrees, and both allows and encourages such adaptation. 2) McDonalds Corporation invests a substantial amount of money and personnel resources in franchisee compliance. They send inspectors to franchises on a regular basis. They perform audits of franchisee books. They do independent customer satisfaction polling. In short, they have a supervision and enforcement operation. Aside from a cursory review for the Eagle Scout award, the BSA does nothing of the sort. Its business model commits not a single paid staff person or dollar to such an effort. The BSA doesn't see that as part of its business. 3) The franchisees of McDonalds do not have any vote, let alone a controlling vote, in the policy of the central corporation. BSA chartered organizations & councils do. 4) McDonalds requires franchisees to purchase most supplies and materials from the corporation. That, too, is partly an investment in compliance. The BSA does not. Nobody is required to buy a Handbook, or a uniform, or a BSA-brand backpack. Units are free to use a different Outdoors Handbook, subscribe to Outside Magazine instead of Boys Life, are free to make up awards of their own, routinely use their own (Class B, Varsity, Venturing) uniform for most things, etc. 5) In all normal measures, units/CO's are independent of the BSA. That's the legal structure (units are legally an activity of the CO, not the BSA; the CO, not the BSA, incurrs liability). That's the financial structure (unit/CO sets dues, sets fees, determines budget, sets financial controls, is responsible for financial reporting, etc.). That's the personnel structure (unit/CO "hires" and "fires" all staff, sets internal policy for volunteers, establishes training rules, determines compensation/reimbursement/ etc.). 6) Scouting youth programs are staffed by volunteers, and the "buy in" in terms of time and money is low. Burger Joints are paid jobs, and the "buy in" for a franchise is very expensive. The commitment on the part of the scout unit is much less than the burger franchisee. So there's very little ability or interest in the BSA operatin' like McDonalds Corp. in terms of what it demands of its members. Low commitment makes it easy for a CO or disgruntled volunteers to show the BSA the door. 7) The business is just different. People want a standard, reliable, burger. Parents and kids want programs that recognize their child's unique qualities, and build relationships and growth opportunities around those. For burgers, we want standard. For children, we want custom. So while it's not awful, the Burger Franchise analogy is really fairly inaccurate in a number of important ways, especially when we talk about "authority" or business model. BSA as professional association or community association might be closest; materials supplier and contractor isn't bad. I think you're right on with the McDonalds vs. Chili's analogy. Any CO/unit that chooses to charter with da BSA is lookin' for that kind of program and support services. They're all goin' to be recognizeable as "Scouting" because the Authority - the unit/CO - wants that sort of program. Yah, sure, they're goin' to "tweak" and adapt it a bit to make it work a bit better for their kids and goals, but they still want that sort of program. If they didn't, they'd be contracting with someone else for a different program. So it's the CO's choice/interest, not the BSA's "policy", that makes a unit "Scouting."

Does he also wear unauthorized knots too? ooohh No! Clap the man in irons! Have him shot at dawn! I at one point in my scoutin' career was authorized to wear blue,red,green,grey, and gold tabs. Never thought about doin' em all at once. Heck, maybe it would have gotten me to start a Team just so I could add orange Could even become a Broadway play: "Beavah and the Technicolor Dream Loops" I think the dual-registered youth should wear one red and one green loop, with da unit of primary registration on the left shoulder closest to the heart. Although wearin' red loops on da green shirt to show you're dual registered in a troop sure does look good for the Christmas Season. Maybe it should be authorized only for December Yah, generally people should stick with the guidebook, eh? But kids'll be kids, and all of us like to throw a small bit of individuality into our uniform. It's like spice. A little creativity, flexibility, and friendly tolerance adds flavor. Too much is bad taste.

the BOR is simply supposed to check that they've been done--not make the boy do them again No, and yes. Yah, a BOR should not retest all the requirements, make the boy cook a meal, etc. But a BOR is also supposed to make sure that the requirements have been done and learned, to an appropriate standard. A boy gets an award "not for what he has done, but for what he is able to do." And of course, a Board should do all the other things Hunt suggests, in terms of lookin' at the program as a whole and the boy's experience in it. What's important is that the BOR remain a service to the program and the boy, not an anal gatekeeping function. What SueM describes is a service - to give her feedback, and to set a standard that is clear to the boys so that she can be the coach, not the "heavy." That can be a great way to operate, if everyone's workin' together.

As I read his post Eamonn was referring to COs and units who have tweaked National policy to the extent that they are usurping Nationals authority to set policy. We must remember that even our charter documents, which are really just an outsourcin' agreement, state that the program will be run [first] by the policies of the Chartering Organization, and [second] by the policies of the BSA (of which there are preciously few). And in the BSA structure, the CO's are the majority voting members who are supposed to set BSA policy (though the corporation in some ways has "tweaked" things in bad ways to limit that voice). On a practical level, the BSA's only interest is not hurtin' their outsourcing business by some public act of embarrassment, eh? So yah, if you admit girls, they might stop sellin' to you in order to maintain their brand identity. But then, none of their materials are designed for girls, so why would a CO that wants to run a girls program use 'em in the first place? But if yeh do a lousy job teachin' a Merit Badge or skip requirements for 1st class yeh think are dumb, if your SM is a jerk, if you live in da north and choose to drive to outings at night in the winter in violation of G2SS, if your CO pays all da fees for your kids and ignores "a scout pays his own way", if the CO holds a fundraiser for its youth programs without filin' a money-earning permit and on and on... then there's really nuthin' the BSA does or can do. They have no staffing, skill, money, or other resources invested in runnin' youth programming or the oversight of youth programming. And their business model requires maintainin' good relationships with even their cranky customers, eh? If we're honest with ourselves, we recognize that even when they're providin' youth program on a contract basis (i.e. summer camp), a heck of a lot of times they don't police themselves with regard to MB quality/requirements, quality of service, G2SS details and all dat. In general, though, different CO's are goin' to offer youth programs that look pretty similar, eh? Same as most high school biology classrooms workin' out of the same materials are going to look pretty similar, even though nobody (outside of Texas ) is goin' to be doing all the chapters in order and on the same day. So BSA brand Scouting is naturally goin' to stay pretty consistent and recognizable. If a CO really needs to heavily "tweak" the materials, then the materials are of less value to them, and they start shoppin' around for other contractors (or opt to do their own thing). So all practical and almost all institutional/legal authority for the youth program we call "BSA Scouting" rests with da Units/CO's. As it should, yah? They are the ones with the skills, who are committin' the resources. Only thing weird is there are some "true believers" out there who ascribe more infallibility to Irving than Catholics ascribe to the pope.

Yah. Just can't figure these folks out, eh? Protestin' a cub scout's funeral, when the position of the BSA vis a vis their agenda is pretty agreeable. But then they also picket a lot of Catholics. Now I get it, though! They're upset just because the boy was in New Hampshire! Of course! Harassing a grieving family of your friends makes so much more sense than picketing at the home of the Episcopal Bishop you don't like. God be with the cubs family and friends in their sorrow.

Yah, I'm with CNY. Most troops I know would accept these boys with only a moment's thought, just to make sure it was right for the boys, maturity-wise. The only reason to wait would be if they have same-grade friends they want to stay with, and earn AoL with. I'd let that be the boys and their parents' choice.

Yah, good thoughts, LongHaul. Let me throw a log on da fire in my den here and see if I can figure out what I meant . I'm mostly a practical sort of guy. We're all tryin' to provide service to kids, so it's worth talkin' about who is really capable of doin' what. Reality is that all scoutin' is provided on the backs of, and out of the pockets of, volunteers. After that, it's provided out of the support created by networks of families loosely affiliated with a CO. So the program the kids experience, the service they are provided, is under the authority of those volunteers/networks/COs. Outside of ScoutReach, almost all the money & time that makes scoutin' work is located here. Da folks who are doin' the work are the authority, no matter what anyone else says. And they should be the authority, as a matter of simple justice and common sense practicality. Now,da average Tom, Dicks, and Harrys have no time or inclination or ability to generate program materials, and they can't be experts on everything. A lotta things you get from other Toms, Dicks, and Harrys, for sure. Especially in these days of internets makin' Roundtables a lot bigger, eh? But even after that, some things are worth outsourcing. Contracting out for. In PowderHorn, crew advisors learn all about contracting out for high adventure trips. In traditional Boy Scoutin', the BSA is a preferred contractor. They provide program materials, and uniform parts, and contract summer camps, and some insurance cost poolin' that may help smaller COs. And occasional consulting services, maybe. But they really have no money or time or skill invested in actually runnin' youth program directly, and really have no money or time or skill invested in managing/supervisin' youth program. In short, the real common sense, practical business model of da BSA is that of an outside contractor hired by COs/Volunteers to provide some support services. In addition, there's a community of mutual volunteer support called "Scouting" where volunteers share information, ideas, resources & training. Neither has any resources invested in bein' "authority," which is good because they also lack the necessary skill. So the "IT" in my case is the provision of services to the youth. And the "authority" for that is in the unit/CO, and (hopefully), the PLC. Exactly where it should be, eh?

Removing a boy leader really points to the failure of the SM to accomplish his task. Yah, sure, I agree with that, too, eh? Sometimes, though, the task is too much. SM's can't gain much traction vs. parents or school or whatnot (girlfriend?). And lots of SM's are strugglin' with a bunch of issues at once, eh? Sometimes a good man or woman recognizes a failure in one area, and then moves on so as to help the boys/troop/program in other areas. That's somethin' to support, nine times outa ten.

My ideal course probably would be about two years long, one weekend a month, with at least one long encampment every summer. Yah, I'm right there with John and Gonzo. Da BSA has a great instructional program, one of the best. Learnin' with adults works the same as learnin' with kids. Just takes longer. I've seen way too many adult scout leaders out in semi-remote areas who lacked the necessary internalized skill. We're up here in da north, eh? Winter is cold. If yer goin' to be responsible for young beginners, your own skills have to be as solid as my lake is in January. Not just book knowledge learned in a classroom one weekend - real, live, experience and judgment. My experience is da same as eagle-pete's. Almost all of da good scout leaders with real outdoor skills came to the program with them - from the military, from huntin' and fishin' themselves, or from bein' a scout themselves. A few of the very best came from outdoor education programs like NOLS or OB, that combined outdoor skills with experience teachin' beginners. IOLS and Old WB get a relatively inexperienced parent enough to survive an ordinary weekend themselves. Maybe. Barely. For someone who came with skills, Old WB helped a bit in brushin' em up and gettin' them to think about the special issues for kids & teachin'. Maybe. Nuthin' more.

Yah, SueM. Please don't forget that those people on the BOR are your friends, adult colleagues, and supporters. And, also, in some ways, your boss. Mostly, they should inform the way you operate. Vice versa should happen only with great gentillity A SM conference should occur anytime you or the boy wants one. There's no reason a SM conference has to have anything to do with rank advancement. Most Star and Life scouts should have a few SM conferences while in their rank. That havin' been said, there's a very strong nation-wide "unwritten norm" that the SM conference used for rank advancement happens just prior to a BOR, after all da other requirements for a rank are done. I'd guess more than 95 troops out of 100 operate that way (in fact, I've never seen one that didn't). Just like the SM's signature on the Eagle Application prior to an EBOR, the SM's signature on the conference line is usually considered a statement that the SM is tellin' the board that all the requirements have been completed to the SM's satisfaction. One of the biggest things usin' the SM conference this way does is that a SM can help a boy "practice" for the BOR as part of the conference. That really helps da quiet/shy/nervous lads, eh? And it helps the SM see weaknesses that might be shored up a bit before sendin' a boy to a BOR. In other words, its the SM's chance to help guarantee the boy a successful BOR. Back in the 17th century when I was SM, I always took a deferred BOR personally. More my failure than the kid's, eh? I can honestly say that each and every time that happened I learned somethin' about our program and became a better SM, and the program was stronger as a result. Helped the kids be serious and work hard, too. Your job is to take the lemons given by some good scoutin' friends, and help da boys make a lemonade factory. I'd use that with the boy, too. It's a powerful lesson to see a strong adult SM say "hey, I/we can do better. I'm grateful for the feedback." A much more powerful lesson given that the kid norm is to gripe and find fault.

How do your troops make sure that the kids are engaged and accepted in the Troop? My son isn't the only kids that this happens to... There are other kids that are on the fringe of the troop, if you will. What about the kid that no one wants to tent with? The kid that others ignore? What do you do with kids that aren't included by the others? Yah, hard question, eh? In reality, I don't think there's any way to "make sure" a given kid engages/is accepted. Too much depends on issues of "fit" that aren't controllable. Some kids respond well to loose, informal troops. Some yearn for high structure. Some love to compete. Some hate competition. All the assorted alphabet soup programs come down to some very simple things, though. To engage and be accepted, a boy has to be encouraged to try, and has to experience success. Early and often. Dat's why FCFY - to try to create more successes early on. Kinda lame, institutional way to do that, but dat's all top-down can get you. Real success here is bottom-up. Most scouters try to get 1st year boys to summer camp, largely because it provides a lot of small opportunities for encouragement and small successes. One boy is a good tree-climber; one is a good swimmer. Another gets an archery bullseye, another knows funny songs for da campfire. Camp creates lots of chances for success in front of peers, and a lot of doin' things together. Dat's what makes friends and engagement. Very active troops accomplish the same thing, eh? The more active the program, the more opportunities for success. Similarly, the more active the boy, the more the boy tries, the more possibilities for success and (peer) recognition. Same with sports, eh? Da more times at bat, the greater the chance for the one hit that makes all the strikeouts go away. In my experience, Lisa'bob is right; the best bet are havin' great scouters workin' with the kids, eh? Ones that try to find each boy's interest/strength, and help him to find success. And then trumpet it - talk it up in front of the other boys. "Yah, dat was so cool when Luke immitated my silly Minnesota accent at da campfire last night, eh?" And if an older boy actually calls a young boy "cool." Wooh. Dat's solid gold, eh? As a den leader, first, recognize your limitations. There's not that much you can do. Don't grade your success or failure as a den leader on this. After that, I'd suggest: 1) Lots of different activities, done as impromptu teams. Rotate 'em up to avoid cliques. Give each boy in your den a chance to shine, and build confidence. 2) Lots of outdoors, with unsupervised/independent/adult-free time. That's where the action is in Boy Scoutin'. If your boys come with some confidence & good habits, that'll go a long way to generatin' early successes. 3) Help each boy find a good fit in a troop. I wouldn't get hung up on structural stuff - FCFY or not, NSP or not, etc. The structure doesn't matter that much, as long as the adults and youth are comfortable with the structure and use it well. Are the boys welcomed and included/valued, or baby-sat? Are the first activities for visitin' webelos or new scouts ones where the young guys can have fun and succeed on their own terms? Does a boy "make a connection" with an adult or older boy in the troop (i.e. he goes home feelin' the older boy is a friend, and he wants to be like him?)

But if it does, then the SM should guide the SPL into understanding that the there are choices here and that there is nobility in choosing to step back because you find you arent ready for the responsibility. Yah, I agree with Calico and Eagledad, eh? In a strong troop with good Adult Relationships and a lot of positive unit culture, removin' an SPL shouldn't be necessary. And if for some obscure reason it is necessary, it should be done by the kids in almost all cases. But not all troops are strong, eh? Not all programs are ready to weather a poor SPL storm without floodin' becoming serious, and losin' a fair number of younger lads in the chaos. Not every SM has the ability to "reach" every boy who ends up in da SPL seat, and not every group of young boys makes the best choices when votin'. One troop in our district last year lost its entire crop of 1st year boys, because there were so many cancelations/schedule changes/poor events due to the foibles of the senior youth leaders. So I think a good SM has to use wit and wisdom in playin' the hand s/he is dealt. And the rest of us as parents and district helpers should support the poor guy or gal in the trenches. So I'm glad to see your committee supportin' your SM, and I'd encourage you to do the same.

In the other thread on questioning authority, Eamonn writes: In some units the program has been tweaked to such an extent that the authority has shifted from the BSA to the unit. Yah, I certainly hope so. We must remember that's the way the BSA works. The BSA is limited by its Congressional Charter and bylaws to collaborating with community agencies - to assist them and serve them as they run a part of their youth outreach. The authority should always reside with the unit/CO. Both the authority to run their youth program, and da voting authority to control the BSA. Anything else ain't scouting, leastways not the BSA brand, eh? If yeh want a central authority, you need to start your own scout association. What gets really bad is when a council or district tries to "tweak" da BSA program and start to order the units and volunteers about. We've all met those gnomes, eh? The ones that try to make EBOR's their personal fiefdom, the ones that make it all about the council, or who try to lord it over others by quotin' some obscure guideline, or who view themselves as such an authority that they can ignore the vote of their annual meetin'. The ones who forget that the district, the council, and da BSA exist not as Authority, but exist only to be of Service. Only to be of Service.

One of the reasons given as why our council is in the financial dilemma it is was due to the amount of units that did not participate in Popcorn or FOS. Yah, right. It's always the kids' fault, eh? The only reason why any council is in a financial dilemma is that the adults runnin' the council have not been livin' within their means in terms of personnel costs.

Sorry Beavah, those are the numbers...for right or wrong. Yah, it's a sniff test, eh? To stay mentally awake, a good scout always keeps a bit of skepticism about numbers he gets from any "authoritative" source. Mistakes get made even by archivists. And as we've learned from Enron and Worldcom and Atlanta Council and Greater Alabama Council and Crater Lake Council, some folks just cheat. As Oak Tree points out, da claim your numbers make is that from the founding of the BSA 'til 1981, the BSA averaged three times as many members in any given year as it has now. From the BSA web site, we find out that from the founding until sometime after 1935 (the first 25 years), the membership in troops was lower than it is at present (1935 was when BSA total membership hit 1M, but that included the new cub program). So when we take those years out, the remaining years from 1936 to 1981 the BSA had to sign up on average 890,000 boys per year. In other words, we had to be admitting each year a number of scouts pretty close to our entire current membership. Naturally, in the years close to 1935 and 1981 the number would have to be much smaller to avoid a discontinuity, so that means there really should be about a 20 year stretch where we were admitting over 1.5M boys to troops per year - about 5 times the current figure. Given that the total BSA membership during the "heydays" of the 60's didn't get above 2 times the current total membership, this seems very unlikely. I can't figure where the error is without knowin' the data collection method, eh? Mebbe your archive figures used sales of the Scout Handbook rather than registrations durin' the early years. Mebbe an archivist confused total membership with troop membership for some period. And maybe I'm all wet, and the big membership spike in the 50s and 60s really was enough to get to those numbers. But on the surface, there's a reason for skepticism, eh? They don't pass a "ballpark audit." Yah, as to cow pies, well, I'm with Oak Tree. When we take an Oath and promise to be Trustworthy, it means not misrepresentin' our figures. Even with your numbers, the Eagle % doesn't match the BSA's published figure, and the current % is well up into the teens or higher. As we see here, doin' so does disservice to a lot of good volunteers who care. So an honorable man blows da whistle, and calls a spade a spade. Or a cow pie a cow pie. When you've got friends walkin' through a field, best to tell 'em where not to step, eh?(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Maybe if you would spend more time working within your unit we would have less scouts just give up because scouts it is boring, uncool or just decide that being an Eagle scout has lost its luster, like a scout that posts here. Yah, I dunno, eh? Most scouts would find it kinda fun to catch a bunch of adults in a math error. And most scouts would be turned off by adults who "dissed" their colleagues in a personal way, eh? Points 5&6, mate. Points 5&6.

The numbers went down a lot as you go farther back. In 1981, the 1,000,000th Eagle was given and the cumulative membership was 46,107,939. That makes the percentage 2.17%. Yah, sure, Miki. That may be true. It's certainly the case that more boys percentage-wise are earnin' Eagle than ever before. But FScouter set the criterion eh? He says "Take any 100 boys that join a troop. By the time they quit or age out, 5 will have earned the Eagle rank." That's a current number, eh? Of the boys who join a troop right now, how many will earn Eagle? Based on your numbers, between 1981 and 2004 there were 4.9M unique Boy Scouts/Venturers, and 600K new Eagles. So for that 23 year period, the Eagle percentage was 12%. Higher if you take the girls out of Venturing/Exploring. Since the percent of Eagles as a function of total membership rose during that period, it's perfectly reasonable to guess that the current figure is above 15%. Even so, your early figures don't pass the "sniff test" at first blush. They would make the from-inception Eagle percentage more than five times lower than the current figure. That would mean in the early years the Eagle rate would have been somethin' like 15 to 20 times lower than it is now. We're talkin' fractions of a percent for several decades. I'd be inclined to check da source of the numbers, eh? But if they're accurate, then usin' the low percentage to imply how hard it is to earn Eagle now is da mother of all cow pie salesmanship. (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Unless you can point to a reliable source, any opinion of how 5% is calculated is only an opinion. How meaningful or meaningless personal opinions may be is left to the judgment of the reader. Personally, I pay more mind to what BSA says that to personal opinions posted on the internet. Yah, well, some of us rely on "reliable sources", and the rest try to stay mentally awake, eh? The BSA says in their annual report for 2005 that there were 943,426 Boy Scouts registered as of December 31, and 49,895 Eagle scout awards earned. Divide and get 5.3%. In 2004 the figures were 988,995 and 50,377 respectively. Divide and get 5.1%. Repeat for prior years, and get around 5%, shrinking slightly as you head back in time. So the 5% figure sure seems to look like da number you get from these official BSA figures, eh? In fact, the numbers have been identical every time I've seen da BSA report them. Now, throw in an interestin' mathematical fact. It is not possible to get the same 5% number for the real percentage of boys who joined who eventually earn eagle, unless the average (mean) tenure of a boy scout in the program is one year. In other words, in an average year, 950,000 boys would have to JOIN Boy Scouting, and 950,000 would have to quit. We would need to be replacin' our entire membership every year if both the BSA annual report and the "5% of boys who join earn eagle" statements were true. Not possible, eh? In fact, since da BSA counts any registration less than a year as a full year for this year-end count, the mean tenure must be greater than a year. Take an average of integers from 1 to 7 and you'll never end up with 1 as the answer. So unless we lose our entire membership every year - every single boy in boy scouts quits - the "5% of the boys who join earn Eagle" figure must be wrong, usin' da BSA's own annual report figures. By the time yeh take out number paddin', the real Eagle percentage is almost certainly above 20% of the boys who join. Yah, but let's not allow the evidence get in the way of what we want to believe, eh? Algebra must just be the personal opinion of one of those durn internet liberals from blue states like Minnesota

Yah, not one but two travellin' sports teams? If that's where his (and your) heart is, that's plenty, eh? Almost too much. Round here, one travel sport is a year-round commitment that pretty much aces out scoutin' and a lot of other activities. Kids need down time, too. When they don't have enough of it, they do exactly what your son did - they create it by withdrawing from something. Like you observed, a boy has to be present and participatin' to make friends and get good at stuff, to feel part of the "team." That's one of the things the travel leagues have on us, eh? They insist that kids are present, and they make sure the parents are committed to gettin' their kid to practice by chargin' big bucks. My best advice for your second son is to ease off on the sports push. And then, since your kids seem to like high levels of commitment in activities, find a troop that's very active and demands a high level of commitment. Dat's how boys make friends and "build identity", eh? By doin' things together.

Take any 100 boys that join a troop. By the time they quit or age out, 5 will have earned the Eagle rank. Its really very simple. Yah, sorry FScouter. Like many things that are simple, this is simply wrong. The 5% number does not mean what you think it means, or what your quote says it means. 5% is da number of Eagle Scouts awards earned this year divided by the total membership of Boy Scouting this year - eligible for eagle, not eligible for eagle, or already eagle workin' on a third palm. It's a totally meaningless number. If yeh take 300K boys that join a troop each year, and divide that into the 50K Eagles or so each year, you get 17%, not 5%. That's what the real figure is, somewhere up around 15 - 20% or so. So of 100 boys who join, 17 will have earned Eagle by the time they quit or age out. I bet that's what most of us see in our troops and districts if we actually bother to look. I know that matches our district. I bet it's more like 25-30% in active troops, actually.

Yah, the current BSA published Eagle percentage is a bit over 5%. It's computed just the way epalmer suggests - take the total number of Eagles in a year and divide by the total number of registered Boy Scouts. As such, it's totally a bogus number when it's used to show that the Eagle award is "rare" or "hard to earn." It glitters like moonbeams on cow pies. What most of us mean by "Percent that earn Eagle Scout" is "What percent of the boys who join Boy Scouting eventually earn Eagle Scout?" As Oak Tree reminds us repeatedly, that number is much higher than 5%. I expect it's at least 15% and probably a fair bit above that. My own guess is in the 20+% range. Why are they different? Well, if a troop gets 10 new boys a year (at age 11) and never loses anyone until they age out, then they'll have 70 boys in the troop. If every boy makes Eagle, then 10 boys on average every year will make Eagle. By the BSA's figures, that's 10 boys out of 70 registered, or 14%. Still sounds like Eagle is pretty hard to get, eh? Of course, in reality 100% of the boys who join Boy Scouting would be earning Eagle. Ten enter each year, and ten Eagle each year. Not hard to get at all. Yeh can't take one year's Eagle awards and divide it by all seven years' membership figures. If you do, yeh get nuthin' but mush. Anybody who quotes that silly 2% or 5% figure to show how hard Eagle is to get should be beaten about the head and shoulders with a slide rule.

Yah, that's a new one, eh? No taxation without representation. If da execs want to put a substantial per-youth or per-family fee on scoutin', then they durn well better give the families a real say in how the money is spent. None of this Chicago council nonsense. None of this "we don't do service, we only do program growth" balderdash. Might be a good thing. Make it a real charge, and then make those paid responsible for providin' real service. Fire anybody not part of direct service to kids. My guess is that Fair Share will never be implemented because most of us will expect it to come with Fair Oversight and Real Accountability.

Yah, go with the kid's desires and intent, eh? It's his award. He clearly wants it somewhere meaningful for him, surrounded by his scouting peers and colleagues - not an indoor, party-tent, central-heated circus. If yeh want a family event, host an indoor reception after the ECoH. That'll be nice and warm for grandma, the cake won't get soggy, and you can make it special for the family. (This message has been edited by Beavah)