RickChappell

MNBob, I don't disagree with you one bit. I was there once too. I learned about planning programs because I got tired of the results of not planning. Planning is not an arcane art, it can be taught learned in a relatively short time. For some it may take a few minutes, others may take considerably longer and need to practice, but it's just not that hard. Sure, when you are talking to others, a lot of folks may assume you know more than you do - but if they assumed you knew less, you might be unhappy as well. But that is no different than anything we do. When we start a new job, we have a learning curve, and can feel clueless.

Scoutfish, What I was really asking, is the boy just sitting there in the meetings? Is he not doing the activities that are going on? If so, why is he there. I guess my suggestion is that we don't need to tell the boys what reqs they're working on, just do fun activities. As long as the boy attends and participates, he will advance some. While I know that boys are competitive, advancement is only one of the methods. I know boys who never accomplish much in the way of Scouting advancement, but they love Scouting, and participate in everything that comes up. If advancement is all you have to keep a boy coming, you've already lost him. I don't see the concepts behind Fast Tacks as bad, I think the same concepts are behind every successful Scouting program to some extent. My concern is the rigidity of the program, and the removal of a critical part of Scouting. There are 6 other methods that are used to accomplish the aims of Cub Scouting. We wrap all these things up in a fun game, and the biys will reach the aims. Activities, such as skits, songs, etc are one of the methods - yet they are seemingly maligned in the new materials.

I was looking back over the comments on this thread, and there's a couple of items I don't understand. 1) Where does the assumption that it's either themes or advancement? It's not an either/or situation. The themes provide a context and advancement provides a framework. You do the reqs, but in context with the theme - my req goes along with the theme. 2) On a similar vein, where does it say Boy Scouts shouldn't do MBs? The Program Features are generally based on a MB or group of MBs. You fulfill many of the reqs during meetings and outings. There's always parts the boy has to do on his own - reports, etc. I knew a SM who insisted on finishing MBs in troop meetings, and so had the boys sitting around doing reports. Needless to say, the troop dwindled quickly.

Here's what I'm struggling with on the slacker BIL example. Son doesn't want to work on req's with DL since he'll do them with Dad - what are they doing in the den meetings? With any planning at all, the activities fulfill reqs and everybody is doing them because that's what you are doing. You log the results in books and records, and advancement happens. The DL should be able to see exactly at any moment where every boy is, and can adjust weekly activities based on the den's needs. I don't need a BSA pre-planned program for that. You just ned someone to spend about 15 minutes with you to share how den management needs to work.

It's not just a choice of finding the perfect person or settling for anyone who can't say no. The program is so not difficult. The folks who are challenged are generally those who don't get trained. The "extensive" training is pretty minimal. About 5 hours plus going to Roundtables each month has an amazing impact. Then, of course, there is the commissioner who can provide resources for the brand new leader. It seems to me the changes requiring training to be a leader that are being piloted now will have a stronger impact than this Cub Scouts Lite, I mean Cub Scouts 2010.

The Packs I've been in have always used themes, although not always the ones in the Program Helps or in the order suggested. The point was always "here's some ideas..." They're great for new leaders and units, but after some experience it's easy to develop your own. But the Helps always provided ideas and themes to fill out the year. The best part of the themes in my experience is how it provided a working format for den advancement and some cehesion for a program. The "fun" parts of the meeting were based on the themes - songs, cheers, advancement ceremonies. It provided a structure and some interest. I have to admit, I'm a little trepidatious about using the Core Values as themes. Instead of the RBP concept of wrapping learing in a game, its now more like wrapping learning in learning. Can you really see an 8 year old excited about going to a pack meeting based on perseverance?

I do think it's interesting that in the FAQs for Cub Scouts 2010, they specifically mention the councils involved in the pilot can't show an increase in retention because the pilot sets were too small. What I can't understand is this concept that advancement shouldn't happen in the den. That has never been the Scoutng program. Advancement has always been a mix of den and home work. During the Top Hands video, the speaker comments thatadvancement was left to the parents and the boys glued cotton balls on a plate. If that was the types of programs he was familiar with, then no wonder they lose boys. The Program Helps always have requirement numbers associated with the activities so that leaders could plan advancement. It sounds like a lot of revisionist history to justify the changes. In my 25+ years of being a Scouting leader, I've never seen a Den meeting where there wasn't some advancement. And after serving as a District Training Chair several times, we've always trained leaders to do advancement in the den. It wasn't "Fast Tracks", it was Cub Scouting. They also skirt the issue of flawed methodolgy in their pilot. Having equally trained leaders in the pilot and non-pilot dens would have made more sense. Any trained leader is going to d better than they did before trained. The key changes I see in Cub Scouting 2010 - rather than themes, we use the Program Core Values. I can just imagine an 8 year old's eyes light up with excitement when he hears this month's theme is "Perseverance" or "Cooperation." RBP used to call Scouting "Learning wrapped in a game." Now it sounds like learning wrapped up in learning. The other change is the detailed pre-programmed activity. Looking at the demo Den and Pack Meeting Resource Guide takes away all the planning. We are basically providing all packs with the same annual program plan. It becomes sort of a Cub Scouts Lite - leaders don't think, just do this. You can have flexibility by changing the field trip if your community doesn't have the resources." Training will go online - that is great for busy folks. I have to wonder, though, if we aren't exchanging the quality of training for the convenience? Other Overview points that are disingenous- -Den meetings are more organized with more time for fun - ?? In whose den? This new program doesn't do anything more than what we've always done except predefine it. -Den meetings are more fun and easier to run. - Really? Based on what? -Boys are happier - How? -The pack operates more effectivelyall dens follow the same plan. - Pack effetiveness is dependent on the pack leadership, ot the program -More opportunities for recognition and parental involvement - Again, how? We're not adding additional awards - the handbooks are supposedly going through only minor rewrites, and it really seems like we're looking for less parental involvement I have to admit that I was excited when I initially heard about the changes, but I can't see this as having much real effect. I'd love to be wrong, but it seems to me like it's addressing cosmetic issues.

Gern, I don't take your comments with any malice whatsoever. The challenge is that the segregate implies an action. Your comment "I think segregating your troop by your faith" implies an action that LDS units take. That's the question. I'm suggestion that they don't. As a matter of fact, I may be wrong, but I don't believe a unit can legitimately exclude a boy because his beliefs are different than the CO. I suggested this earlier, and Trevorum made the point as well. They are segregated not due to action, but by circumstances. You won't generally see an LDS unit go out of their way to advertise through programs other than individual boy recruiting. In my district, I wanted to participate in a school night and was met with resentment by local units because they felt I was trying to "steal" their boys. I agree that diversity is important, but there's a lot of ways to fulfill that need. In my mind, District and Council activities are much better suited to meet this need. I found these a great way to introduce my Scouts to other techniques and methods as well as groups. I will agree that many time LDS units don't participate in as many of these as they probably should. As a Stake leader (multiple wards form a stake) I currently serve essentially as a unit commissioner for the 6 wards in my stake (we have leaders involved in the different age groups and each of us work with different groups - I work with Scout Troops, one of my fellows works with Varsity, etc). One of my goals is to encourage all of the units to be more active in these activities. I'm happy to say that at the last camporee, 5 of our 6 units were represented. That's not too bad whether you're LDS or not.

Gern, To address your "million dollar question" post. >Do you think religiously segregated troops are good for scouting? Maybe it's semantics, but I'm not sure that segregation is negative in the sense you're making it. Look back at the desegregation movement. After awhile, the courts abandoned it because it was sending kids way out of their neighborhood do they could attend a school with kids of other color. The real issue was that the poor schools (typically black in this case) weren't as good as the richer schools (typically white in this case), not that the kids need to be mixed just because. The courts finally wised up and realized that segregation that matched the neighborhoods wasn't a bad thing in itself. Scouting is similar. LDS units do not (should not) exclude non-LDS Scouts and Scouters, but they will operate to meet the CO's (LDS Church) needs - which may not be to the liking of some. I have been chastised for offering a prayer at Roundtable where I closed in the name of Jesus Christ. Sorry, but anything else, to me, is not prayer and not doing my duty to God. Likewise, at a recent meeting, someone offered a very generic prayer that I would consider just a nice saying. I would suggest that either is fine, so long as the person is doing their duty to God as they see fit. Our responsibility is to not be so easily offended when someone practices their religion. I know people who would be offended if a prayer was made to Allah. I disagree with that. My understanding of Scouting is that there is room for all that complies with the Oath and Law. >I am of the opinion that religious education and scouting are two separate things. Sure, there is some crossover, but the goals are separate. I send my kids to church to learn about God, I send my son to scouts to learn about scouting. You are perfectly rwelcome to be of that opinion. Some of us feel that we can't compartment our lives that way. As an LDS Scouter, I don't feel that the goals are separate. The LDS Church adopted Scouting as its program precisely because they believed that Scouting's goals and values were the same as ours. Isn't there room in Scouting for both of us?

Gern, I wanted to give you a few more details. You read on the LDS website that the Boy Scouting program and the LDS Priesthood program works together, but that doesn't mean they exclude either non-LDS Scouts or Scouters. They do insist that Scouters meet the same moral/ethical standards that LDS Scouters must meet. For example, a man who is living with someone out of wedlock would probably not be able to serve in a position. The same would apply if he were LDS (please don't spin this off to a discussion of values of marriage - it's an example). Keep in mind, though, that the desire is to have a faithful LDS man serve as Scoutmaster, Coach, Advisor, etc. If you think about this, it should make sense. The desire is for that person to serve as an example of what the young men should strive to be. Likewise, I would expect a Catholic unit to want a strong Catholic to serve as a Scoutmaster, a strong Jewish man for a Jewish troop, etc. It's really no different that any other Scout troop. As fgoodwin mentioned in the pre-spun post, the CO must approve all leader applications to ensure that the individuals meet the organizations standards. Some organizations are going to value different values (sorry for the redundancy) and it should be represented by their choice of leader. Scoutingagain nailed the concept. The point isn't to exclude others, but many times others may not feel as comfortable in a unit where there is a group of boys that have some common things they don't share. For example, as an LDS Scoutmaster and Priesthood advisor, we also had out complementary "Duty to God" religious recognition program. We would program our activities to accomplish both recognitions (like making sure we did the Geneaology merit badge at least every two years). The non-LDS bys in my troop (I had more non-LDS than LDS at that time) didn't mind this, but I could see how it might "rub some people the same way." Likewise, on the original thread, you asked "why they would require/demand/request exclusive use of the camp if the program is the same." It is not that the program is different, but when you have as large a number of units and boys, it provides an avenue to add things like large LDS religious meetings or other activities that are religious-related. My old council, the National Capital Area Council did this at Goshen. They had a Maryland LDS week and a Virginia LDS week. It's not that they don't want anyone else there, but they can have leaders higher up in the Church organization meet with them without having to schedule meetings at 10 weeks of camp.

SR540Beaver, Actually, various religions have special Scouting classes. Philmont hosts numerous workshops and conferences, like "Scouting in the Jewish Community," "United Methodist Scouters' Workshop," "Scouting in the Catholic Church" and a generic "Scouting in the Church's Ministry." National Capital Area COuncil's Jewish Committee on Scouting sponsors their own events (like Merit Badge fairs and Pinewood Derbies). Various Catholic Diocese offer specialized training in implementing Scouting. As a matter of fact, in our area there is a great concern to address the needs of Spanish-speakers. This has generated a need for special classes and Philmont addresses this also in their "Serving Your Booming Hispanic-American/Latino Market ." So, I think the consistent thing to take from this, is that any large organization that sponsors Scouting is going to have concerns and issues that apply to them because of their implementation. This doesn't mean the program is changed for any of their groups. BTW, Philmont even offers a course for the HomeSchooled.

Gern, OK. I can't refute that as I don't have access to the ploicies prior to then. I do know there has been a lot of confusion over the years as to whether a non-LDS Scout can serve as a SPL. Current documentation states that a non-LDS Scout may serve as a SPL. But while we may disagree with that, that is not a program difference. Many troops have different criteria for who can become a SPL. I know troops that don't allow anyone under a Life Scout to be SPL. That would be tough on a new Scout troop, but I understand why they do it. Your example does point out the same type of Jr Leadership as non-LDS Scouts. I don't know of any LDS program modifications as I don't believe there are any. If you want to really know the LDS Church's stance on Scouting, go to the horse's mouth (so to speak). Check www.lds.org, select the Serving in the Church item from the left menu, then the Aaronic Priesthood/Young Men link and then the Scouting link. No secrets anywhere. As to why we're talking about it, that is my question. The thread was started on the question "Why do LDS Scouts get lost/killed more often" which has spawned a whole series of attempts to tie the root cause on our implementation of Scouting. I contend that the premise behind the question is flawed. First, I don't believe LDS Scouts get lost/killed more often. I know there is no research to support such an allegation. BSA doesn't publish that kind of detail if they have it. Why do Mormons need/want their own units? Probably the same reason as anyone else. Scouting is an incredible program to instill character, values, citizenship, etc. They want their own units just like any Catholic, Jewish, or community group, to provide a program of activity for the youth they serve that shares their values. Why does BSA tolerate it? Because that's how the program works. That's the charter system that BSA is founded upon. It is my personal opinion that this is one of the essential items that separates BSA and the Girl Scouts of America. In my GS council, there is no requirement for an organization to sponsor the units. I feel this weakens the program substantially.

Backpacker, I'll agree that lack of adult committment to scouting and the constant turnover of leadership is a problem. But it's not an LDS problem. That same problem exists everywhere in Scouting. As I've posted here before, the difference is that an LDS unit survives through turnover or uncommitted leaders while a non-LDS troop doesn't. That may be good or bad depending upon your point-of-view. Case in point, I live across the street from an elementary school that used to have a pack. I'm not sure who the official CO was, but they were suffering from lack of leadership, turnover and surviving off the efforts of one leader. Eventually that leader left and the unit is no more. Likewise, a coworker went through the same thing in his son's pack. That pack is no longer. Maybe it is more noticable because the LDS units keep operating through those periods. I am not accusing any poster. I would like you to identify those allowance that BSA allows LDS units. You allude to them, can you tell me what they are? Can you also tell me the difference in content and motivation you speak of? Here is our motivation - we would like our sons to be of good character, to be good citizens, and to be mentally and physically fit. What is yours so we can compare? Maybe you should attend one of those separate training classes you mentioned. I teach one at Pow Wow. I would be glad to share the course outline and notes with you. We teach specific implementation issues related to LDS units. Here are the elements I bring up: A primary item is finances. We don't do fundraisng. We try to self-fund our program (an exception being a long-term camp each year). Another item is the selection of leadership and the organization. As I've said before, it is essentially the same as in the BSA publications. Look back at the "Selecting Quality Leaders" and the old Troop Committee BarBeQue videos. Nowhere do they suggest that you solicit volunteers from off the street. Actually that is a dangerous way to get leadership. The BSA method is that the Committee and CO identify qualified adults and ask them to serve. Many of our leaders have dual roles (a scouting position and a Church position), but that is not related to Scouting. We also don't do Tiger Cubs - but they didn't exist until fairly recently, and I don't know of anything that requires it. We have Webelos as a 1 year program. So did BSA for a long time. I had a 1-year Webelo program as a Scout (in a non-LDS unit). Last year while teaching my class at Pow Wow, a District Commissioner (non LDS) asked if he could attend. During the final questions, he made the comment to the class that he couls see almost no difference in the issues we talked about and those of a non-LDS unit. So, again I ask you, what are these allowances and methodology differences?

No, there are no specific LDS requirements for advancement in Scouting. And the issue of blacks holding the priesthood is unrelated. Specifically, priesthood positions and leadership are not related. Scouts who are not members of the LDS Church can participate in LDS units and may hold any of the same leadership positions (during my last stint as a Scoutmaster 2 years ago, we had more non-LDS Scouts than LDS Scouts). As a matter of fact, the priesthood leadership manuals have specifcally provided suggestions to ensure that non-LDS Scouts in leadership positions in the troop are able to participate in planning and leading. If you know of someone doing otherwise, they should probably review the BSA or LDS Church policies. I don't necessarily agree that non-LDS units don't segregate by age. I know of many units that have their patrols grouped by age. It naturally occurs that way. Many units have a Webelos Den cross over and stay as a patrol all the way through their Scouting life. That ends up with the same effect. Yes, LDS units register Scouts, Varsity Crews and Venture Teams, and the boys move through them by age. But that has nothing to do with interaction between the groups. There is no reason for the groups not to work together and provide the type of leadership you mention. You suggest that there is only one way to do Scouting properly. If you review the Commissioner training materials, they mentioning understanding the difference between program variations and seriuos deviations. Should a group starting a new troop from a group of graduated Webelos be prohibited from starting a new troop because there are no older boys? How about an existing troop that hasn't been getting new boys and only has older boys? You suggest that is required of you. In my 20 years I have yet to see a unit forced to alter its program due to the lack of an approved age spread. All of these cases allow leadership to be trained and practiced. There are many flavors of Scouting. I know troops that don't do much hiking, and others that do it all the time. I know units that do a lot of swimming, and some that do a lot of cycling. Venture Crew 122 of the San Francisco Bay area devotes a large chunk of their time providing leadership training (White Stag - check it out, they are a great resource). So, what's the beef really? It's the same program.

Glen, I'll respectfully disagree. As a matter of fact, your comment "The fact that BSA condones the LDS to make changes to the program, sometimes dramatic changes..." is a key point. You have made an allegation that I believe to be false, and you have provided no justification for it. I've been on a council program commitee, spent 10 years as a district trainer, served as a Unit and Assistant District Commissioner several times, as well as a Scoutmaster or Committee Member for 20 years. What program changes are you speaking of? The only change in the program that I'm aware of is the requirement to have 5 boys to register a unit. All other aspects of the program are the same. The same safety requirements apply. The same training requirements apply. The same staffing requirements apply. The same rank requirements apply. The same merit badge requirements apply. They use the same handbooks and manuals. Some items mentioned: Camping on Sunday - I have virtually every publication BSA publishes for public use, and can see that nowhere as a program function. Wearing shorts - Likewise. As a matter of fact, the Woodbadge Course Director Kahuna mentioned was violating BSA policy and was clearly discriminatory. Registration Fees - There is no discussion of who is required to pay registration fees. I know many non-LDS units who provide registration fees through their budgets. Selection of leaders - There has been a lot of discussion on the fact that LDS Scouters are called as opposed to volunteering. BSA's policy is to have the Chartered Organization identify and select their leaders. As a matter of fact, if you'll look at BSA's training materials (particularly the videos), you'll see a situation very similar. Additionally, all of the same challenges apply. Lack of supervision and discipline is across the board. The Youth Protection, Safe Swim, Safety Afloat, Climb On Safely, Trek Safely, Health and Safety training, etc. were published by the BSA for a reason. These are problems across the board. The premise of this thread that it's an LDS problem is founded on a faulty premise. It's a scouting problem. While the safety percentages really aren't that bad (compared to other organizations of this size), even 1 accident is too many.