sherminator505

It is not unreasonable at all. They should be teaching them to the younger Scouts.

On a tangent - why would the BSA lower the entry age for Venturing if it was concerned about retaining boys in its core program?

I don't understand the redundancy either. We have the knot! BTW - welcome to the campfire!(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

SR540Beaver- I'm not sure that there is as bold a line between Boy Scouting and Venturing as you suggest. For example, male Venturers are allowed to continue working on Boy Scout advancement until age 18. Den chiefs are Boy Scouts who work with Cubs. Both of these are "bleed-overs" that have existed between different Scouting programs for decades. Also, the Order of the Arrow is known as Scouting's National Honor Society, not the "Honor Society of the Boy Scouts." If the latter were the case, then following that line of logic would lead naturally to the preclusion of nominating any District-, Council-, Regional-, or National-level Scouter or professional Scouter to the Order who is not currently registered with a Scout troop. This would be particularly true with regard to professional Scouters as their role as employees of Scouting would require them to provide assistance and support to the Order with or without nomination, thus making their nomination to the Order superfluous. Finally, the exclusion of Venturing youth from the Order on the basis that Venturing is a separate program runs counter to the concept that Scouting is a continuum extending from Tiger Cubs at the basic end, to Venturing at the advanced end, in that Venturing youth members are somehow ineligible for membership in the Order because they had the misfortune of entering Scouting at a more advanced level.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

"No." Why not?(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

I should point out that this allowance would also cover male Venturers who were not Boy Scouts.

A question occured to me - why don't we have a route for Venturing youth to become Brothers in OA. Yes, they can get in through the regular Boy Scout channels, but female Venturers are completely excluded by this. I have an idea to solve this dilemma. Have the Order of the Arrow open to Venturers who have earned the Gold Award and satisfy the camping requirement. I am curious to get the thoughts of the group on this one...

Tease!

Volunteers or not, I wonder if it speaks well for any organization to have too large a disconnect between the executive leadership and the workers, whether perceived or actual. Now I am not expecting that somehow some sort of democracy will spring up or that there will be some sort of volunteer uprising. Not only is that a completely unrealistic expectation, but I doubt the results would be good for the organization. What I would like to see some awareness on National's part that the directives and policies that they issue have to be implemented by volunteers in the field. I would like to see that the implementations are tracked and monitored, and that the results are being evaluated to determine effectiveness. And I would like to see some defined mechanism where changes and improvements can be submitted for study by volunteers who are in the best position to see opportunities for improvement. These things would demonstrate that the organization's decision-making processes are based on real-world data.

In matters of long-range planning and strategy, I don't expect a lot. But where gathering feedback on such areas as work-area-level conditions and organizational climate are concerned, a substantial number of companies use surveys, evaluation tools and the like to obtain this information in order to make improvements in these areas. The Baldrige Quality Awards Program, for example, recognizes companies that have implemented programs like this to improve their overall operations. By contrast, the BSA makes no effort that I am aware of to obtain this data. In fact, their website doesn't even have a readily accessible "Contact Us" page. The fact that we are volunteers is a non-issue in this regard, as we are the work-area-level operators that are responsible for implementing the program.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

"It would be cheaper and a lot less risky to first identify and fix the internal problems." What do you see as the internal problems? My list would be as follows: 1) Establish better communication between the lower levels of Scouting (where most of us are) and National. This needs to be two-way communication. The attitude that our input is neither required nor desired needs to change! Pronto! 2) Re-establish a training regime that better supports our programs. Leadership theory is fine and good, but we could do a much better job delivering more needed and useful information to the volunteer leaders. They tend to stick around more when we do that. 3) Spend less time selling the brand and more time selling the program.

"Isn't it ironic that an organization who universally agrees there's a membership decline problem, work so hard defending their right to keep people from joining?" This is what I like to refer to as "taking your eye off the ball." Mind you, I don't think this is the main reason for the decline. It is a minor symptom of a much more serious problem: too many of the decision-makers in Scouting today have forgotten about the task at hand and concentrate on making Scouting more "modern," changing uniforms, and concentrating way too much time and energy on things like this! It seems that points of emphasis like this to which they desperately cling take energy and resources away from the primary objective, namely building boys up into productive citizens.

I think that much of the membership decline has to do with the attempts to "modernize" Scouting and forgetting about the task at hand. Also, we should recognize that Scout-age boys are receiving the message that being a "joiner" isn't cool. So maybe we should re-establish our focus on traditional Scouting and get a better program going that kids will come to, not just to "join."

OK. I'll concede that unit leaders have considerable latitude in including traditional Scouting in their programs. I just wish that trainers had the same kind of latitude, given the BSA's emphasis on holding strictly to the syllabus.

Some example oof the "modernizations" that have bother me include the "revamping" of Scouting that occured in 1972 that was only partially addressed in 1989 (they really needed to do more than get rid of skill awards IMHO), the disappearance of merit badges such as Bugling and Signaling, the movement of Wood Badge away from outdoor training for leaders, etc. My main point is that we have, to a significant extent, forgotten the point of this exercise we call Scouting. It is reflected in our program and in our training, and I believe we don't stress that point nearly enough in either.

I am sometimes troubled by the efforts I see to "modernize" Scouting, to make it more "relevant." I believe this has cost us a signific percentage of our membership over the past 40 years. I think this speaks to the program we are charged with delivering. Scouting promises "the great outdoors" and "pitting man against nature." We should be teaching these boys that they can get along without all of the "creature comforts" of home. We should be teaching them that it is possible to start a fire with two sticks and a boot lace or with the right kind of rock and the side of a pocketknife. We should be teaching these boys that they can go out and, with a little effort, be comfortable in the deep outdoors for a significant amount of time. WHY should we be teaching our Scouts these things? We should do it to build their SELF-RELIANCE. So that they can be productive, independent adults. So that they can navigate through tough patches in life with dignity and bearing. So that they can TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES. BP created Scouting as a means to effect these ends. "Relevance" wasn't a part of the discussion. The skills that Scouting taught to the English "city boys" of the early 1900's weren't "relevant" to their daily experience either. THAT WAS THE POINT! That's probably why Scouting is rebounding in the UK. Because they didn't forget that. OK. There's my rant. What do y'all think?

Do not sew on the shoulder loops. I've actually seen that happen, and it's just wrong.

It sounds like the pocket is the problem here. Who is responsible for the quality control on these shirts? @ UCEagle72 - Has the UP recruited you yet?

Oh, no!

"Yeah BSA communication from the top down is poor. And in this day and age there is really no excuse. If the supply division can do it, so can Irving. Or maybe it is they don't want to????????????" Of course not! This is why the "innovation engine" is not open to volunteer submissions, and it is why it is very difficult to contact anyone from National on most topics. It is because our input is neither required nor desired. As for communication from the top down I can only guess that the information is provided on a "slightly later than you actually need to know" basis. Perhaps I sound a bit jaded and cynical on the topic, but it is with good reason.

I was my own assistant - til we fixed it in the recharter packet.

I thought Trainer's EDGE replaced TDC. Perhaps its implementation isn't as widespread as National would like. How come?

Yes. Very small vases.

Yeah, there was a time when a swastika was a good thing, before some yahoo with a funky moustache came along and messed everything up.