DuctTape

This underscores the younger generations' point that us older adults really do not understand digital communication and are scared of it. Imagine this scenario, on a campout a group of boys are in their tent having a conversation. BSA HQ changes guidelines to require that an adult stand outside the tent to monitor their conversation. What do you think? The word "ridicululous" comes to mind. In the current teen generation, a group chat on their phone is no different. Monitoring kids conversations whether in person or digitally is ridiculous. The mere fact the rules require the "public" (even with the most gracious interpretation of the word) demonstrates this generation is correct about the digital divide. Heck, the digital chat (even private) is better since a digital record exists. The rule is stupid. And I am being gracious here.

The term Family Scouting was an extremely poor choice by BSA if it truly means what they stated; a one stop shop for families. Obviously family's and scouters are implementing it as "the entire family is together". That is disappointing. BSA has really lost its edge on how to market effectively. Strange how so many come from the business world and are terrible at marketing. Or maybe these ceos and business execs don't really understand the product. It wouldn't be the first time, as it happens in business world a heckuva lot. Yet "we" think we need to pay them 300x + the average employee wage.

The BSA mission is to prepare them to make ethical choices over their lifetime by instilling the values of the oath and law. This does not mean they will always make the best choices while a scout, or even after. But have they learned from poor choices and their consequences, and have they accepted the values in the oath and law as guiding principles to prepare them to make better choices in the future. They will still falter, as humans will do. The question is whether a poor choice is an anomaly or part of a pattern. As far as the boy in the OPs question, the question has been answered by the SM signing off on show scout spirit.

Another option is to use the Lone Scout protocols until a troop is formed.

The answer is neither correct, nor incorrect. It describes the decision. In bold you state it is the "belief" these decisions are best... Those who disagree are pointing out why they disagree with the decision. As someone in leadership of many organizations I can say with certainty it is very common for initial decisions for new ideas to eventually be changed. The question is whether leadership listens to the concerns regarding the initial decision and makes appropriate adjustments, or whether they double-down and insist they are correct. I can say with certainty that the latter does not bode well for the decision makers. I advise the powers that be look into the concerns, and develop an appropriate response which is not telling the stakeholders they are wrong.

The use of "fake" knives or props is a great way to introduce the skill and proper handling. But it is just the first step and should never replace the outcome. When they have demonstrated their understanding of the safe handling protocols, etc... with the prop, then move to the real thing. The real knife/ax/saw is when they practice and get tested.

For those interested in reading about the formation of ethics from an atheists viewpoint; ie not relying on religious or other teachings. Here is a link to an essay on the American Atheists website. While many may disagree with his viewpoint, it is a good read to understand where an atheist is coming from. https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/ethics-without-gods/

You reminded me of my eagle project from almost 40 years ago. The unmarked path in the park which I organized its rehab and constructed erosion controls is now a marked trail with a name. It now is also literally on the maps. Thanks for conjuring up an old memory.

I can see mb classes as cheating if the boys do not complete the requirements. This happens a lot and most of the time at council or district events and camps. A boy just sitting through a presentation does not "do", "explain", "identify", "discuss", etc... as the requirement states. There just usually isn't enough time for the mb counselor to test each individual scout. For rank advancement reqs, I encourage the boys to use activities like museum visits as a means to gain information and knowledge and then seek out an older scout to "test" them. Or have testing phase built in to the timeline of the weekend by the PL. My point is the testing phase is different from the learning phase.

yes. Education and training are the solution; not prohibition.

speaking of food and gross stuff. What was the most gross food conconction you have seen boys put together... and actually liked it? I witnessed a boy make a salami&cheese sandwich with peanut butter. He exclaimed how good it was, so the rest of his patrol decided to try it. Apparently it was good.

Yeah. Too bad. Sadly bsa has moved towards prohibition instead of learning. But at least the scouts can still make and use the "little dandy" wood stove. Which IMO is even better for scouts as they really learn how to get a fire going with them.

I used to use an alcohol stove. Got really into it for a while. Have all kinds of designs, the speed and fuel usage are usually typically competing variables. I have always used home-made. In general I don't use them anymore as I opt for a fire. But to your question, I used to use 1/2 oz fuel per 2 cup boil on my best stove. The worst was 2oz per 2 cup boil. So to figure out your 5 day usage, we need to know how much water you plan on using.

Personally I would delete most of it as either redundant or dumb.

I think this is where advancement as a method is perfect. Advancement is the scout's, having activities and adventures to allow one the opportunity to fulfill requirements means the scouts need to take responsibilty to ensure it happens, and of course the higher ranks require a position of responsibility in addition. Advancement becomes a motivator to take the lead in planning, organizing, and executing. So what does this look like in practice? At the most basic level it could be this scenario... Johnny comes to you and says I want to get signed off on requirement x. You ask, do you know how to do x? Johnny says no, can you show me? "Of course. I will come to your next patrol meeting and show everyone. Can you set that up?" So here we have Johnny taking the small steps of leadership by scheduling with his patrol someone to do a demonstration of a skill because he was motivated by advancement.

I am with qwazse on this. The POR are not all necessary. Of there are only 11 scouts, there is at most two patrols. There is no need for an SPL and/or ASPL to help them plan and coordinate. Assuming 2 patrols, the PLC is the 2 PLs and their APLs; 4 scouts. No need to add another person to oversee these 4. If they are young, perhaps a more senior scout can help mentor the PLs to engage with each other to develop the program. Is there a PL training process embedded within the structure? Who trains them?

I am sure they would say they do, but there are many obvious places where they do not. Case in point: summer camp merit badges staffed by kids and the adult mB counselor simply signs the cards without any interaction with the scouts. This contradicts the adult association method.

Efficiency is not simply cheap and/or fast. It is also focused on the true goal and mitigates that which veers away from said goal. We have our aims and mission to be implemented via the methods. We need National/Council/District to support the methods to achieve the aims. Thus: Proportional resources dedicated to all the methods of scouting. The books , training (youth and adult), policy and decision making. Presently advancement appears to be the purpose and not just one of the methods as the the other methods are not just downplayed, but completely contradicted for the sake of advancement. All staff should filter all decisions through the methods so as to not make a decision which pits one method against another. This does not mean all methods are employed at every event/activity/decision, but that the best implementation at any juncture will not contradict one of the methods for the sake of "efficiency" but will find a way to incorporate it into the structure.

when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. the problem is too many businesspeople trying to run non-businesses like a business.

and it's never "a scout's own" if it is required, planned, organized, and/or executed by an adult.

I agree in principle. The how and when though is not obvious to many. First if the PL is struggling with "setting up a tarp", I immediately wonder what the older boys who know how are doing at that moment. If it were at a troop meeting, the PLC decided on that activity, did they have an instructor ? if no older boy was available, then they could have planned to have an ASM demo. If it were on a campout, then I wonder why the PLC didnt plan to instruct this at the prior troop meeting, or again where are the older boys. If none are available, then I might ask to see the PL, and away from his patrol teach him how to do it. Then he could go back to his patrol and teach them. I am sure this is what you were getting at, but the nuance on the how to do it without "impinging on their leadership" is not obvious to many adults. As you pointed out, they interpreted their role as "hands-off", which tells me they had difficulty seeing the nuances. Props to you for showing them how to move towards "hands-off" as a goal but not the means.

I agree that is what those courses are for. But, the curriculum at IOLS and SM specific (i haven't done wb) do not even come close to addressing the development of boy-led, patrol method scouting. Before gaps can be filled, the core curriculum needs to have this fundamental concept at its core operation, not just words. For example at IOLS. Instead of the module on woods tools with the participants "acting as a patrol" to learn the totin'chip skills. the module should be 1. what does the boy-led patrol method look like when scouts are learning and using woods tools, 2. what are the roles of the adults. 3. what are the roles of the scouts. 4. how to transition to a more boy-led patrol method structure. These (off the top of my head) should be the curricular goals of the modules using the scouting skills as a medium, not the goals themselves. Currently the curriculum is for participants to learn the (woods tools) skills, not how to foster and grow a boy-led patrol method scouting experience.

I think we are all on the same page here, it is only the inhibiting medium of interweb forums vs sittin around a campfire which allows for a more nuanced discussion.

Four days is plenty to respond with: "Thank you for bringing your concern to our attention. I will put this topic on our agenda as new business for our next committee meeting on (date/time/location). As always parents are welcome and invited to attend our commitee meetings. I hope to see you there."

I read those stages as the individual stages for a scout, not the troop. So I agree with you Barry, that an older troop has the older boys as the main role models etc... But I disagree that those stages are only in new troops. Older boys as the main role models and leaders is consistent with the boys being 3-5 years older and in stage 2 or 3 of their scouting career. The first year scout is focusing (in general) on core basic skills as taught/modeled/etc.. by the older boys and in 3 years that new scout will be the older boy continuing the cycle. Or perhaps I misunderstood the stages.