Beavah

I think da core principle is that we want boys, and therefore leaders, to have a primary duty / obligation / inspiration to something 1) other than themselves. 2) and bigger than their family / tribe. 3) and bigger than their nation. 4) and, yah, bigger than their religion. We want them to acknowledge that serving yourself, or serving only the family (Hatfields & McCoys) / tribe (see current Middle East) / nation (see 20th century facism) / religion (pick your favorite pogrom) can be corrupt and even wicked. We want boys and their leaders to serve "God" as in "Ideals which Trump all human self-interest." Dat's what B-P meant, usin' the language of his culture and his time. That's what the DRP means, or should mean. Nothin' more or less. Let the individuals and CO's decide on their own language and spin as long as they honor the intent. I'd rather have an atheist leader willing to give up all his vacation time just for love of seein' kids grow than a religious scouter lookin' to advance the cause of his particular political persuasion. But I also object to da atheist pushin' scouting membership in order to advance his particular political persuasion.

what they are doing is to plant the seeds and hoping that the program will sell itself and prospers. Yah, right. Someone thinks that's a professional business model, eh? Find me a business that makes a capital investment (in personnel time, real costs, and goodwill) in starting a new operation without first looking at whether the necessary resources are available and whether the market is there. A good organization invests in manageable growth when there is capacity and market, not before, and certainly not "hoping it will sell itself" and magically find resources. In this case, we hurt children because we promise them the magic of Scouting in these new, underexperienced, underequipped units and then we fail to deliver. Every good corporation in a service industry measures effectiveness by customer satisfaction (quality of service) and lack of customer turnover (aka repeat business). These are uniquely, oddly, absurdly absent in the BSA performance criteria. Imagine what we would be like if professional salaries and promotions were based on boys' and parents perceptions of program quality, unit leaders' and COR's perceptions of quality of service, and customer loyalty/retention of active youth and adults. That would almost make da BSA a worthy real profession. If someone added components based on youth outcomes, we might actually be a NFP service organization. Now those are changes that'd do more good than anything as trivial as updatin' da uniform or a few badges.

I hear ya, SR540, and I agree to a point. But I don't buy the "mass produced" bit when we're talkin' about human resources and not manufacturing. My company can buy a second, identical milling machine. My troop can't buy a second, identical SM. Your unit has some very special adult resources, but the personal and organizational talents of your SM or CC are not easily cloned. Your unit apparently has some good fiscal resources as well. You're in an area of da country that's doin' OK economically, and that may be more culturally supportive of Scoutin', where others may not have that. Your unit has a many-year history, but a new or restarted unit won't. That y'all can pick up the BSA program and make it work successfully in your area is a tribute to you, but not necessarily to the program. It is only a "proof of concept" in terms of the program. Like a Stamp Collecting Club, it can be successful given the right market and the right people. But that doesn't mean that if yeh try to set up the same kind of Stamp Collecting Club somewhere else, or even try to start a second one in the same town, that it won't fall flat on its face for lack of (market) interest. Da concern is that our real market is shrinkin', eh? And that's a legitimate, and quite probably accurate, concern.

Stale jerky. After takin' Brian to task for making hyperbolic claims, a bunch of others make hyperbolic claims. Brian, just so you know, there has been a major decline in subscriptions over the last few years for ALL magazines, from Time and Newsweek on down. It is a concern for the whole industry, and certainly is not unique to Boys' Life. So odds are the BL subscription decline has little to do with the BSA program and more to do with changing societal trends in terms of media. SR540 and others, just because one troop or one council in one part of da country is doing well, doesn't mean that there aren't growing weaknesses in the program on average. There will always be outliers. There will always be the one inner city school that is doing uniquely well, even if the majority are failing. Pointing to the one that is workin' and claiming that everything is therefore OK isn't good form either. And we all learn more by listenin' and questionin' than shoutin'.

Our system of government limits the ability of the majority to have things the way it prefers. While the majority may support interruptions, they still can't be interruptions that violate the rights of the minority, which I think mandatory recruiting sessions by a group with a religious membership requirement would be. But neither the Oregon nor da U.S. Supreme Courts agrees with what you think, eh? The problem is that the majority is paying for things. When you close the school doors on them, you don't pass the next millage. You cut teachers, your schools fall into disrepair. Livin' in a democracy and accepting a public benefit like education or a government job means that the education or the jobs available are going to reflect the mores of the (majority) public. If that's not for you, then there is private education and private jobs. And yah, sure, we have some (sensible) protections for the Catholic kid livin' in a Protestant community, or the atheist kid livin' in the Islamic suburb. The schools don't teach religion, or prosyletize. But that doesn't mean if yeh live in the Islamic suburb that you get to tell the entire community it can't announce community events, recruit for youth groups, or express itself in the schools it built and runs.

All the hyperbole is givin' me whiplash, eh? Nobody suggested abandoning values or goin' with the latest fad. Get a grip on your toasters, people! All I've heard suggested tweaking the trappings so that they're more interesting to boys or at least not an obstacle to boys at first impression. Don't any of us ever spruce ourselves up to make a better first impression? Boys Life is in full color, now, after all. If the boys believe in the organization, are having fun, getting outdoors, being challenged, then they will happily wear the uniform. I had to laugh at this. Have yeh ever talked to boys in the program? They love what they do, they agree that it's cool, they have fun, get outdoors, are challenged. They even buy into da values. I've yet to meet one who doesn't think that the current uniform is an "adult thing" that they just have to put up with (and with a bit of quiet embarrassment when with their non-scoutin' friends). All that havin' been said, brianbuf should be listenin' when folks doubt his guesses as to cause. BB, you might not be aware, but in the last two years a number of BSA councils have been involved in major "numbers fraud" in terms of membership, eh? They've been inflating their roles for better evaluations and to entice more fundraising. Timeless Values at work. As a result, this last year many councils conducted more aggressive "membership audits." Most of us guess that a one- or two-year big drop is the result of correctin' abuses and sloppiness, not a real change in the number of active units or kids. What is still real is a slow, steady shrinkage in our % of youth served outside "special interest" populations like LDS, and our relative inability to penetrate into minority populations. That kind of slow, steady decline is not the direct result of either uniformin' or our holdin' traditional values through court challenges, though both of those may be symptoms.

Hi Foxy. What you are experiencing is quite normal. Active parents on a committee are quite naturally interested primarily in their own child's welfare and advancement. They come with their particular perspective. If they are a two-parent, two-income, schedule-their-kid family they may not have any thought for boys who are not from that environment. So they don't see a need to support you; they're gettin what they want, eh? One session of trainin' isn't going to be enough to get people to change their habits and ways. Parents are always goin' to see the program through the eyes of their kid and their own experience. You need to add more people with different perspectives and experience, who bring new things to help your program, and who bring a professional "program first" attitude of support. My advice is you need to add some depth to your committee. Yeh say you have 4 couples as active members. Your parent reps. are covered, then. Now, double your committee's size without addin' a single parent. Ask your DE for the name of a local retired SM who might serve. Get your COR to come. Ask your UC to come to every committee meeting. Bring your SPL and ASPL. Add a local teacher, or the owner of the local outdoor shop. Ask your friend who is a doctor, an attorney, or an accountant to serve for two years. Find a local 20-something Eagle Scout and ask him to be on the committee. As your troop grows, ask a parent of an aged-out Eagle to serve as an "alumni parent." If you do this right, your parent committee members will be introduced to "the bigger picture" at every committee meeting by people from that bigger picture. That's how yeh do real training, eh? Not by going to a 3-hour course; on-the-ground, where the action is. Plus, you'll add a lot of expertise that you'll find really helpful to strengthen your troop, and to be there when there's a real issue. Even addin' one or two such people can make a big difference. A couple of da best troops around here have an old-timer "keeper of the flame" on their committees. All they seem to do is pipe up occasionally with some wisdom and perspective to keep the train on track.

Yah, OGE, that's it, eh? If your community reflects the same feelin' that you do, then it'll hire principals and teachers who tend to make decisions in favor of academic time uber alles. If someone else comes and wants to recruit for a college or hockey or the summer band camp, they get told "no" and should honor the general wishes of the community without makin' a stink. If yeh live in my community, then school-community partnerships are common and valued, and as a result principals and teachers are hired who may make decisions to use class time in furtherance of those partnerships. If someone comes and wants to make a stink about class time, they get told "no" and should honor the general wishes of the community without makin' a stink. Simple. Most of the time, havin' individual members of the public tryin' to micromanage teachers and school leaders isn't helpful. Public schools are goin' to reflect the mores of the local public.

Yah, and OGE's quote from the advancement guidelines book only applies to BORs from Tenderfoot through Life. There is no similar language in the ACP&P section on Eagle BOR's. Dealin' with difficult people isn't worth the time, when yeh can just reconvene with different membership on the EBOR, eh?

Congratulations, blazer, on runnin' an exciting program which is attracting boys! Most troops tend to grow to their natural overcapacity. They reach a size where the adults and boys can't provide good service/mentoring anymore, and then they lose boys until they hit their natural "barely sustainable" number. If a DE does a great job steerin' a bunch of extra webelo recruits to the troop with the natural size of 15, in a year they'll be back to 15. I've never been fond of this, because it loses kids to scoutin'. I think it's OK for yeh to tap the brakes. I'd do it just by coolin' your recruiting this year, rather than limiting numbers, but in the end I think it's also OK to limit numbers in some way that's kind, and flexible enough to deal with friends & siblings. Take a couple years to get used to working with a troop of 35-40, and have a sense for how you can do a great job for some boys, rather than a lousy job for many. Da next step up above 50 boys requires you to start to really change how you do things; you have to start addin' more institutional structure - more ASPL's, more ASMs as "middle management" or "program area SM". You as SM won't "know" every kid as well. PLC's and JLT's get big. It gets hard to find places to camp, and hard to do some activities as a whole troop. So before you choose to take that step, slow up and see how it feels at your current size, with just a small amount of creepin' up. But DO be sure to add a critical mass of new boys every year. Your older boys need them, and you'll need them to be old boys down the road. Try to avoid "dry years" even as you avoid monsoons.

Just changing elements you think is outdated/dorky isn't the right approach. I can tell you as a former scout, it was the adventure of scouting that kept me in. Adventure. Yah, that's it! That's our market. So if that's our market, the Oscar uniform has got to go. It doesn't say "adventure". Pulp and Paper MB might have to give way to Ice Climbing or Sea Kayaking MB. Timeless Values should be more like Adventure Teamwork. Besides, who wants a motto with an acronym "TV" when we're talking about active adventure? Weekly meetings should be shot in favor of activities and practices. What's adventurous about a meeting when you could be out mountain bikin' with your friends? The uniform, MB's and TV aren't the cause, they are symptoms. But one way to help us address the cause is by takin' a good look at how we portray ourselves, and treating the symptoms as we work our way back to the cause.

Yah, I think gents with personal agendas are gettin' just a bit silly. I've heard plenty of coaches encourage "all boys" to join the team at initial recruitment sessions. That works until the first round of cuts, eh? Community members are payin' for the heat, light, salaries, books, and walls of the school. They should be allowed to recruit for their extracurricular programs.

- but the whole dynamic of our society has changed. Look at men's fraternal oraganizations, they are not what they used to be either. Do you think it is becasue they have dorky meetings at restaurants or silly names like Elks, Lions and Kiwanis ( what does that word mean?) Yah, exactly. The dynamic of our society has changed. Kids get it, we Elks don't. So we may need to adjust, and even lose our quaint animal names to keep on with our real purpose (I ustah be a Beavah, I'm still an Elk, but I doubt the kids care a bit). Our purpose begins with meetin' kids where they're at. Eagledad's data and thoughts are good, eh? What other changes have we seen in society? Two working parents. Therefore, less time for parent volunteerism, but more cash for "things" and activities. More focused work at younger ages. Desire from kids to work hard and get good at stuff, rather than dabble part-time. Sports, bands with regular practice schedules over "drop in" activities. I recognized Chippewa's quote in many scouts I've seen - "Scouting is enough to be a burden, not enough to be a commitment." Kids love to engage with individual sports and challenges. Whether it's a video game or tryin' to grind a rail, they'll practice on their own 'til they're black and blue and make the next level. American kids don't sing anymore, and animal stories are for kindergarten. Of course, all the deep truths about boys and adult mentoring remain, but our trappings and organization may need to adjust, eh?

What Venividi said. Standardization in education and other human endeavors is a chimera. It uniformly results in lowered expectations and mediocrity.

Yah, there's an old story I remember hearing from a fellow Beavah. During the Exodus, the Israelites are being bitten by snakes, so God tells Moses to make a snake statue, and all who touch it or look at it are cured. Years later, that same snake statue is in Jerusalem, and is being venerated as a sacred tradition. So the prophet Elijah, at God's command, goes and smashes the thing to pieces. Some traditions outlive their purpose, and become counterproductive to the task at hand. Even though people find them moving or meaningful, they no longer serve the purpose for which they were designed, and may even become idols. Our valued tradition is of young men playing, learning, and being guided in the outdoors. Everything else is trappings. Don't throw out things that are currently working for youth; kids need a connection to that past, eh? But don't hold on to things just because once upon a time they were helpful in our youth. Listen to da kids, and never sacrifice a kid to an old fart's Idol, eh?

Changing some names, pictures and pants is not going to make things cool and increase numbers. Giving them a sense of belonging around a high purpose, is what develops the passion and commitment that people are looking for in their lives. A great insight by Semper, followin' on Eagledad's post. But we're still losin' numbers. So maybe our problem is that we've given up our focus on the high purpose, on passion and commitment, and on treatin' them like young adults and peers. Instead, da kids see us spendin' our time on da uniform, or on how to get a badge without addin' to the requirements, or on singin' silly songs. Just look at our forum posts, eh? It may not be a problem with the uniform. The problem may be with what we care about passionately. And it seems that what we really care about passionately is the uniform, and the Gilwell critters, and patches, and advancement bureaucracy. Not on High Purpose. And they're right. That really is pretty dorky when you think about it, eh?

I think that it should be up to da teachers/principals, eh? Yeh enroll your kid in a public school, you're entrustin' them to the care and values of the local public. If yeh don't like the values of your local community, yeh should send your kid to a private school, or school him at home, not try to force your community to school all its kids your way.

Yah, you guys are bein' a bit harsh on da new woodbadger, eh? Why don't we tone down the Fire! ready, aim a bit? I think our new member raises some interestin' points, and I think any organization is dead if it doesn't listen carefully to the first impressions of new people. They have "fresh eyes" and see things the way those of us who have been immersed in scoutin' for 30 years cannot. Fact is, many of our best scouts 'round here are a bit embarrassed to be in scouts. I think more than half of the Eagle BOR's I've sat on, the boy has confessed that at some point durin' his career he hid his scout membership from his peers at school. Hard to grow or maintain membership if our best kids think our reputation and brand identity are too dorky to share with their friends. So look what brianbuf is sayin', and listen before shootin. 1. Sing-alongs and badges are cub scout fare. I confess I'm a singer (yeh should hear me on a good night in a pub), but that's part of my cultural fare. The kids put up with me on campouts if my songs are roudy enough, eh? But yeh don't see many middle school kids doin' singsongs in their regular life. Too "little kid" for 'em, eh? So we may all stir our hearts singin' Gilwell, but to the boys it may look like we're a bunch of 3rd grade teachers bein' dorky. 2. Da uniform is embarrassin'. It's hard to recruit if one of your major methods and public symbols is somethin' that your members wouldn't be seen dead with in public. Yah, yah, all us veterans have attachments to military-style dress uniforms, but not da kids, eh? Their uniforms are action-oriented - BDU's, sports uniforms, that kind of thing. It's just a symbol of association; kids wear those all the time. Find 'em something they're proud to wear, even if it doesn't look like the mini-marines. Yah, da program does not need to change. There will always be some kids who want to be like dad or whatever. Historical re-enactors are fun people, eh? But they make up a very small percentage of the populace. And traditional BSA scouting might become just as small if we don't listen to new, fresh voices before we shoot 'em.

Oldsm's method is the one in common use in our council. If a council does unit-level EBOR's, then the EBOR chair is typically a unit committee member, with a visitin' district or council representative on the board. So the council's procedure is to supply Life Scouts with reference letter requests to give to those who are listed as references, which are mailed (or these days, emailed) to the troop EBOR chair. I've never figured' on why so many folks online get their rabbits in a briar patch over havin' an Eagle candidate ask references for letters. Seems like a pretty trivial show of responsibility on the part of the candidate, and in exchange he gets a higher-quality BOR than if a council secretary made cursory phonecalls. Gettin' back to Sir Scoutalot's bit, I found da new version of the reference I was talkin' about: "If a boy says he is a member of a religious body, the standards by which he should be evaluated are those of that group. This is why the application for the Eagle Scout Award requests a reference from his religious leader to indicate whether he has lived up to their expectations." (ACP&P #33088D, p. 45)

Yah, I agree with Kudu, eh? If yeh want your patrols to act like patrols, then you need your gear and camping setup not to get in the way. The troops that have effective patrols have separate patrol cook and camping gear for each patrol which is "theirs." It isn't shared. They're responsible for it, clean, dirty, whatever. When they camp, they take their tents, their dining fly, and their cookgear to their campsite. They pack it in cars (or the trailer); they unpack it. If they forget something, they forget it. Troop QM comes in only for occasional inspections or to replace/refurbish gear. Don't expect kids to work in patrols if all their resources are organized as a troop. That would be dumb, eh? Makin' a transition from troop cookin' to patrol cookin' can be tough. Who wants to do work when the adults used to do it all? And don't underestimate the amount of time you'll need to spend teachin' more boys to cook and clean. But as Lisa'bob suggests, they'll get more practice (in smaller doses) cooking for patrols, so they learn faster. In smaller patrol cooking, you need to make things pretty simple and efficient for kids. Don't get into the big industrial kitchen whole-troop model. Think small-family style, eh? Cook and a helper do the cookin' and initial wash-up, everyone cleans their own plate and pitches in on a quick cleanup. Don't make it a chore, just an activity. Your kids will eventually appreciate that it's faster, so they can get to fun stuff, and they'll learn a lot about workin' together. Few things as good as patrol cookin' for teachin' Scout Spirit.

I see a lot of band kids in troops and crews. They're good kids. I think what Eamonn is sayin, though, is that band programs, like kids sports, get a bit out of hand. Schedules seem to come out fairly late around here, and so "step on" other activities planned well in advance. Band is often taken as a "class" for a grade, but unlike all other classes it has all kinds of "required" events outside of school/class time. Often the "required" time is on the order of an hour or two, but it can cost a youth a whole long weekend. A kid can choose to quit football mid-season, or make choices about missing practice (one commitment) to serve as SPL (another commitment) without riskin' his GPA. But not so for many band programs. All this (late scheduling, school grade, "required" out-of-school events at odd times) makes band programs the most inconsiderate and intrusive of school activities. Great kids, great activity, but it is possible to "hate" band programs if yer tryin' to provide kids other cool learnin' opportunities.

Yer right in general, packsaddle, but yeh might not be right in specific. Each council is allowed to determine how to handle the references. Many councils choose to request letters rather than do phonecalls or other follow-up. Most of da councils who use letters ask the boys to request the letters, rather than mailing them from council. Good practice and learning opportunity for the boys, who will need to request reference letters and list references many times in their future "real" life. I've generally found letters from references to be a lot of fun, and good fodder for an EBOR. They provide a lot more insight into how the boy's scoutin' has influenced his life, and lots of "starting points" for conversation.

Yah, Owl... I think yeh have to think about this the way FScouter suggests, eh? Because UC's are supposted to be mentors, mediators, and resources to the unit leaders and committee, it doesn't make sense if they are the leaders that they are supposed to be mentoring or mediatin'. The definition of "unit leader" that I'm aware of comes from the Advancement policies and from the other membership registration R&R documents (so it's scattered about in the more obscure internal books). A unit leader is a Cubmaster, Scoutmaster, Crew/Post Advisor, or Skipper. An assistant unit leader is an ACM, ASM, AA. These are the people, for example, who are not permitted to be part of a BOR. A UC's registration does not have to be primary at the district/council level. For example, a person can have a primary registration as an MC (committee member) or an SA (ASM) in Troop 12 and also serve the district as a UC for Troop 28 and Pack 16. He/she just should not be a UC for Troop 12. IMHO, though, da system works best if the UC's don't hold other jobs in a "home unit". It gives 'em more time to actually mentor and be in touch with their commissioned units. More importantly, it gets 'em away from da notion that every unit should be run the same way their home unit is, which is often a big problem in new commissioners. It also avoids a Commish tryin' to throw his weight around in his home unit, eh?

There's no BSA rule on sheath knives. Boys should be taught to choose the proper tool for the proper job, and should be trained to use any tool safely. And, yah, in this day and age, we should remind 'em of state and school rules lest they be "zero toleranced." From G2SS: "A sharp pocketknife with a can opener on it is an invaluable backcountry tool. Keep it clean, sharp, and handy. Avoid large sheath knives. They are heavy and awkward to carry, and unnecessary for most camp chores except for cleaning fish. Since its inception, Boy Scouting has relied heavily on an outdoor program to achieve its objectives. This program meets more of the purposes of Scouting than any other single feature. We believe we have a duty to instill in our members, youth and adult, the knowledge of how to use, handle, and store legally owned knives with the highest concern for safety and responsibility." I interpret "avoid large sheath knives" as avoiding the military-style combat knife than many boys get enamored of because of the movies. Not sure what's up in Ozland. Sheath knives are generally safer than the folding-blade pocket knives we see most often in the States. Gotta love safety rules that make things less safe for appearance' sake.

Should be any person who can attest to this boy's spirituality and belief/lived life in service of some goal/purpose/deity other than himself, eh? I dislike seein' parent references for this; there's already a parent ref. Da purpose is to see how the boy has shown Scout Spirit in many different areas of his life, not just with family. I really like seein' a peer reference, or a rep. from an organization for whom the boy has done service work. Another (non-scouting) youth program leader, might be OK, too, or even the Troop Chaplain if it was a "real" position in the unit. For boys who are members of a religious denomination, I'd expect to see a reference from a pastor or other elder/leader/member close to the boy in that denomination. That used to be an official rule, but I haven't seen the reference lately, so I expect it's faded. In a large church, it may not be possible for a pastor/elder to know a particular boy very well.