DuctTape

I agree with what many above have said. My opinion is this is a general symptom of allowing (pushing) scouts younger and younger. The joining requirements should go back to the previous, and discourage "crossing over" in the spring. Complete the 5th grade first, imo.

I happened to pick up a Scouting for Girls, 1920 edition. As I flipped through it, I thought of this thread and noticed how similar it was the first edition scouting for boys. The outdoor program was heavily emphasized in the GSA, at least early on. Even rank requirements were eerily similar to that of the BSA. Thus, the only argument I see that has any merit in maintaining the staus quo (not that I necessarily agree with it), is simply to keep the genders apart so that boys can be with boys.

I rarely see scouts like the adult designed camporee beyond the first time.

I recently finished up with a boy working on his hiking MB. At the end of the process as I was signing his blue card I asked him if there were any changes to the requirements he would recommend to HQ. He said it should be required that the counselor actually go hiking with the scout as the real test and possibly "fake" some scenarios for the boy to respond to in real time. Personally I loathe the workbooks and worksheets and even the explain. Too much like school. As to the the camping 50 nights. I think that was the requirement in the original Camping MB along with 2 maybe 3 other requirements.

Welcome to our campfire. Grab a cuppa.

Taw, I agree which is why I said it is not necessarily their fault. I have witnessed enough poor instruction to know there is a wee bit of fault, but only in delivery and implementation. Regardless, even an instructor with imprccable skills in pedagogy will do little to overcome deficits in curriculum as written.

I have seen many eagle projects which did not create, but instead rehabilitated, or maintained. The most recent which comes to mind was the restoration of a dilapitated pioneer cemetery.

Killing an ineffective course without replacement is the wrong decision IMO. An ineffective course is a result of curriculum design and/or implementation. Simply choosing to not do it anymore ignores the problem and send the message that the knowledge and understanding that should have been transmitted in the course are not necessary. Based on the description given it is easy to see (as a professional educator) why it failed. perhaps the BSA needs to spend more on developing effective educational tools for scouters and less resources on other things. I have noticed over the years the tools provided and being used are poorly designed and/or implemented as a whole. This is not necessarily the fault of the volunteer training instructors. Few if any have a real background in education (except as a student) so it is understandable they will not be experts in curriculum, lesson design or instruction.

As someone who knows nothing of this group, if all that has been presented is true including the responses by those who are part of the group, as an outside observer this group serves no legitimate purpose for scouting and is detrimental to the movement as a whole. Either due to the lack of benefit of the group to scouting by design, or implementation and more importantly by the actions and attitudes displayed by the group's members. For those with influence, I would highly suggest BSA take a good hard look at this group and seriously consider some type of intervention. It does not appear to be a positive for scouts in any way shape or form.

IMO, if WB is an intro program (all are invited/recruited) then it fails to be an upper echelon program. One cannot have a 101 class also be a Masters level at the same time. If the goal is now to have it be an all-comers training, ie Scouting 101, then what is the advanced program now? To use scouting terms, WB is now a tenderfoot (maybe 1st class at best) training regimen. What is the Eagle level? I understand the rationale for recruiting and training more scouters, but I do not think WB is the proper place. Other trainings, especially the Patrol Method (which doesn't exist as a BSA program, iirc) are more appropriate for entry level training. BSA should focus more on providing the real basics for scouters and not pretend that WB is the pinnacle of training when it isn't (anymore). Especially when the basics are sorely lacking. I suppose this isn't a surprise as it mirrors the boys advancement push by hq, no real basic expectations (ie one and done).

I visited the location of my eagle project 20 years after its completion. At the time, it was a relatively unknown trail. The work we did used only wood from the area, there were no signs or plaques erected. In the subsequent 20 years, others had continued taking care of the trail by mimicking our work. It was then I realized my project was not a task to be completed, but the spark of an attitude which manifested into action by others. I am glad my "project" continues, now over 30 years later. Still without a sign or plaque to memorialize it. Instead, the memorial is in the hearts and minds of those who continue it without recognition.

I get what Stosh is saying. It isnt the boy who is infectious, it is the attitude and behavior. This does not necessarily mean a negative. A positive fun loving attitude can be infectious to the entire patrol. This is a good thing. An attitude of complacency and minimalism can also be infectious; not a good thing. It is not wrong, nor unscoutlike to express the fact that boys' attitudes and behaviors do impact those around them. In fact this is exactly why adult association is part of scouting, so our example may infect the scouts as well.

I am late to this party, my thoughts have been stated. The Oath and Law are sufficient. I only commented to give Props to MattR for the Alice's Restaurant reference.

Q, None of the instances you described either added or subtracted to requirements for advancement. Another thing to consider is how any of this is discussed with the boys. These processes and procedures, I mean. It appears many of these policies, and expectations are adult decisions. I wonder how the boys feel, and whether they were wven consulted, let alone make the decisions.

I am not makin an issue about it for any of my boys or parents. I am only saying here that in general it is not demonstrating Trustworthiness. There is a large gap between advocating and encouraging its use and waggin fingers at others. I am not in support of either. As a Scouter I am supposed to exhibit traits as an example, to me this means not poopooing lying, or even advocating for it on a public forum as it being ok. I will remain courteous and not say anything to any particular scout or parent. I will also exhibit trustworthiness by answering any question about young scouts using fB as I do not support it and why.

There are other social media outlets which handle it quite well. Some of which are actually linked to parents Fb accounts. It can be done, and is done. Regardless, condoning lying is not what I would do. We can agree to disagree that dishonesty ik ok in this instance. Little johnny can be in contact with grammy and aunt Bea without resorting to Fb.

Beavah, The law isnt the problem. If Fb wanted to, the TOS could allow younger than 13 y/o users. They don't. In fact the TOS explicitly states that no one under 13 can use Fb let alone sign up. It requires one to enter false personal information for an under 13 y/o, also a TOS violation. There are others who are prohibited from having accounts, and using Fb too. So this isn't an issue with the law, kids and parents ARE being dishonest. I do agree that calling them out on it personally is not productive. That is not what we are doing here. If a parent reads this and is offended by realizing their dishonesty, that is their issue, not mine.

I would agree with Beavah if the terms of use explicitly stated under age kids with parental consent, which I understand would be allowed under the law (poorly written or not). Fb is mandated to follow the law, but still may have additional restrictions. There are plenty of online forums and such designed for kids which allow for young kids to sign up with parental consent. Fb is not one of those. Thus, the scout is being dishonest by entering a false DOB and clicking they agree with the TOS.

Stosh, we are on the same page. What you call concerned budge is what I call encourage.

Hedge, I apologize. I thought I was being clear my response was specific to just one comment earlier. As to your specific issue, the PLs or TGs need only encourage, but not babysit. Advancement is the individual scout's responsibility, not the PL, TG, nor mommy. These others should encourage, and help provide the opportunities, but getting a book signed, or setting up a sm conference or bor is the scout's own responsibility. Definitely not an adults job. Do not do for rhe scout, what they can do for themselves. Some may not care about getting things signed off.

Q, I don't disagree. Scouting done well, with participation fullfilling most requirements will happen. Either TG, nor PL are responsible for others advancement any more than encouragement and help. Patrols can have on their meeting agenda a question about what fellows need to do what, and plan adventures which include those items. Of course if a scout does other things instead, he will miss out on both adventure and advancement. That is his choice.

I wanted to weigh in on the comment about advancement and requirements not meshing with the patrol adventures. Most t-fc requirements can be part of the regular adventures, and in many cases necessary to complete the adventure. Done "right", the requirements are met just by participating in scouting adventures, unless the troop/patrol uses pre-purchased doodads, drive-up only, etc... "camping", and not real adventures. Sure there are a few which require an additional focus, but if all boys need them, then an instructor can help, in a mixed level patrol those who already know can help. Scouting adventures and most of the advancement requirements go hand in hand, they are not mutually ezclusive (or shouldnt be).

I agree. I was only pointing out that there is no prohibition regarding ages of scouts as tent mates.

Iirc, there is no prohibition on scout more than 2 years apart sharing tents. I think it says "assigning... should be avoided". If scouts choose to share a tent, that isnt being assigned, nor is it absolutely prohibited anyway.

I missed the question was about the camp cooking, not the trail cooking. My apologies.