DuctTape

While I would not say SM is correct in his decision as I defer to the youth leadership to make the decisions, I would also not say the SM fears are unfounded either. In my experience, and likely the SM, there are many cases where the OA is a popularity contest and the arrowmen do not live up to nor fulfill the purpose of the OA. This is not the SM, nor the boys fault as it is the fault of the individual odge who does not do a good job of promoting and ensuring the purpose of the OA is being met. The same is true at the troop level if a troop is not fulfilling the mission of the BSA. Many discussions on here already about Eagle mills and non-camping troops already. if it happens at the troop level, of course it happens at other levels. Thus the SM fears are not unfounded. They may be inaccurate for a specific lodge, but they do have a foundation in reality. I would invite the SM to visit with boys from the lodge and learn how they are fulfilling the mission of the OA in their own respective troops. Perhaps these boys would be willing to present to and help your troop with their own elections to ensure it isn't a popularity content and also so that the candidate understands the honor and the expectations of the order.

My dad lives in Germany. The german system is entirely different in its structure. Students are tracked into different programs from about the 5th grade. IIRC, about 25% of German students go to the university prep school (was that the Arbiter exam?) Another 25% go to the realschule (did I spell it right?) In the US the schools are intermingled. Except for private prep schools, there isn't a tracking system in which students may never switch. The Gymnasium, Realschule, and the vocational are integrated into one system which students are not identified, and tracked into a predetermined outcome. Thus the 12 grade HS diploma earned by each student is very different depending on the classes they took. The observation that a german 10th grade diploma is equivalent to the the US 12th grade diploma is accurate only because the US doesn't grant the diplomas early (except in rare situations) and students continue to take classes for college credit in their 11th and 12th grade years. They graduate after 12 years, but the official course of study is based upon 10th grade level. For example, in my HS 40% of the students are taking college level classes (and receiving college credit if they pass the exam) in their 11th grade year and beyond. Since the US design has all the students in the same school it is difficult to compare. Which design is better is a matter of discussion.

One problem with the NAEP scores article you posted and the 40% proficient... There are four levels of which the bottom level is the only one considered "failing" as it is below the basic competency. The proficient is the name of the second highest level. Reporting that 40 % of the students achieved a proficient level or higher is akin to saying 40% of the students received B's or higher. The system isn't perfect, and there are certainly specific areas which need some help. However the current meme that the system is fundamentally flawed is false. It is much better than the perceived perfect system of generations ago when we supposedly ruled the world. There are pockets of areas in the US which are struggling academically because of other variables and they aren't the curriculum, schools or teachers.

The article began with a statement of "fact" regarding US students. My initial post was in response to that opening line.

The CC and the other "reforms" are attempt to fix something which isn't broken. It isn't the educational system which is broken...

The unfortunate part of the article is its initial premise. The "it's long been known...", is the narrative many would like us all to believe. Fortunately that narrative is extremely misleading. More info: http://www.epi.org/blog/international-tests-achievement-gaps-gains-american-students/ What is most unfortunate are the education policy decisions being foisted upon us by non-educators who believe the narrative promoted by those who have profit motives.

I still disagree with your contention that "Ideals trump skills". Even the quote doesn't make that claim. They go hand in hand. The ideal to observe the law and do a good turn require the boy to have the skills necessary. To be prepared to do ones duty is to have the skills for "any old thing". One cannot fulfill the ideals without the skills. Neither ideals nor skills trump the other.

Have heard that one before. Still funny though.

Been in a hammock almost exclusively for quite a few years now. Cold is an issue just as it is in a tent, but is easily overcome with some skill. I hammock in subzero F all the time. Lowest was in the negative twenties F. I use ccf pads in these extreme temps. Inflatable pads are not the best to use. While hennesy hammocks have a big marketing presence, there are many other options available. One last comment about protection from bears; a thin layer of nylon provides no additional protection from such an animal. I have had bears sniff around my tent in the past and also sniff around me in my hammock.The idea the tent will somehow protect someone from a bear is laughable IMO.

I hope I didn't come across as providing accolades in an attempt to make someone feel better. My point was more about the many who never fulfilled the requirements but were just signed off . It isn't the scouts fault, it is the adults who subtracted from the requirements.

I think I see where our disagreement lies. It appears you are operating under the premise that the goal of scouting is to develop character. I don't disagree with it as a goal, I do not think it is the only goal, nor even the primary one. Scout virtues as defined by the Oath and Law provide direction but do not supplant the goals of Scouting. I take my direction from the "Aim of Scouting" penned by John L. Alexander, "The aim of the Boy Scouts is to supplement the various existing educational agencies, and to promote the ability in boys to do things for themselves and others. ...The method is summed up in the term Scoutcraft, and is a combination of observation, deduction, and handiness, or the ability to do things."

I would say high character and low competence is far from equally successful as high in both. Secondly, just because a few professionals choose a different knot for their specific need, doesnt mean the original bsa knot is never used by anyone else for a different specific need. I agree with you that the figure 8 on a bight is NOT easier to untie than a bowline especially after a significant load was applied.

Agree - its a step in the right direction, and i appreciate your input on an important topic affecting personal growth, adult association, advancement, and character development. I also recognize that this type of discussion is part of T-2-1 requirements and is typically handled as the last step of advancement, and done during the start of the scoutmaster conference. (i.e. Tenderfoot #11 -- Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath (Promise) and Scout Law in your everyday life. Discuss four specific examples of how you have lived the points of the Scout Law in your daily life.) When do we (older scouts, adults, handbook, etc.) present the scout with the information needed to process, understand and master a requirement like Tenderfoot #11? I suspect that some troops could easily fall into a trap of simply expecting them to figure it out for themselves. The trap is that we wouldn't expect them to figure out plant identification on their own, or how to dress a wound on their own. Further, there's more about those topics in the current handbook than on the oath and law. Hmmm. I've seen this happen early in my 'adult" participation in the program -- while serving on a BOR, a boy is asked about meaning of oath and law, shrugs his shoulders and stares at his shoes, mutters, 'ummm, I guess the oath is something we say to remember to be good scouts" and gets a hearty congratulation from the BOR leader. I attempt to ask a follow up questions, and get shut down by the BOR organizer. The boy was passed and I had a long discussion afterwards with the BOR team. Eventually, we got better, but they were afraid to send boys back from a BOR over "idealist" issues when they were progressing in knots and fires. I ended up having to take these concerns to the direct contact leaders as a concerned father. It can be an uphill battle when it ought to be seamlessly included in the presentation of the program. That's why I'm searching for ideas on how to better incorporate character development. The reason for no discussion is to allow for the story to sit in the mind of the scout and allow them to reflect upon it internally. A discussion at this point would take away from that. There is a time and place for discussion and when someone isn't being scoutlike, that would be an appropriate time. Discussion of the yarn will happen organically, it does not need to be forced. The SM minute is not a school lesson to be dissected, discussed and evaluated; it is a parable for the individuals to reflect upon internally. If the goal is ensure they are "getting it", observe their actions. If they are acting scoutlike, they are getting it.

Agree - its a step in the right direction, and i appreciate your input on an important topic affecting personal growth, adult association, advancement, and character development. I also recognize that this type of discussion is part of T-2-1 requirements and is typically handled as the last step of advancement, and done during the start of the scoutmaster conference. (i.e. Tenderfoot #11 -- Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath (Promise) and Scout Law in your everyday life. Discuss four specific examples of how you have lived the points of the Scout Law in your daily life.) When do we (older scouts, adults, handbook, etc.) present the scout with the information needed to process, understand and master a requirement like Tenderfoot #11? I suspect that some troops could easily fall into a trap of simply expecting them to figure it out for themselves. The trap is that we wouldn't expect them to figure out plant identification on their own, or how to dress a wound on their own. Further, there's more about those topics in the current handbook than on the oath and law. Hmmm. I've seen this happen early in my 'adult" participation in the program -- while serving on a BOR, a boy is asked about meaning of oath and law, shrugs his shoulders and stares at his shoes, mutters, 'ummm, I guess the oath is something we say to remember to be good scouts" and gets a hearty congratulation from the BOR leader. I attempt to ask a follow up questions, and get shut down by the BOR organizer. The boy was passed and I had a long discussion afterwards with the BOR team. Eventually, we got better, but they were afraid to send boys back from a BOR over "idealist" issues when they were progressing in knots and fires. I ended up having to take these concerns to the direct contact leaders as a concerned father. It can be an uphill battle when it ought to be seamlessly included in the presentation of the program. That's why I'm searching for ideas on how to better incorporate character development. I think you touched on the solution earlier. The SM minute and the boys leading by example. Both are a result of the SM. First the SM minute should be a yarn about how a boy demonstrated a scout's character. No discussion, just a story with an ending like "A Scout is Trustworthy". Kind of like Aesop's fables. The boy led example is also a result of SM actions through PL training. The SM trains the PL's by leading by example. The PLC meetings/outings should model how the PL can make more explicit the living the scout oath and law. An easy way is to expect a reflection minute at the end of every meeting/outing for the PL to explicitly acknowledge a time when one of his members acted scoutlike. Ex: Tommy demonstrated Cheerful when he was on KP duty and he not only did the job but did so without complaining and with a smile on his face. He could also encourage the other patrol members to acknowledge their peers at this time. When patrols report at flag, they could also include one "living the scout oath" acknowledgement.

Outings are not exclusively camping. If possible I would like to see meetings be held out of doors too. Here in NY, the climate isn't really conducive for it. I don't think a patrol that likes to camp should necessarily exclude those who do not. If the boys like to hang with others who don't camp when at meetings, that is fine. The patrol is doing scouting things together, just not ALL things. I am assuming they are doing scouting things at the meetings. Perhaps the non-campers will eventually want to attend a campout if there buds are going. This increases in likelihood as the patrols do other outings together besides just camping.

Used a timber hitch last year, interestingly for its designed purpose. We needed to move some logs for a lean-to we were fixing and the timber hitch was the perfect choice to tie on to the human mule powered line. I have never used the sheepshank. Even its designed purpose is "dumb" IMO.

I hate the workbook. I hate the standardization. Too many professional BS'ers attempting to improve something which needed no improvement. No coaches should be needed to hold the scouts hand. There should be no hoops to jump through, no standard forms to fill out for the project. The only form that should exist is one filled out and signed by the SM when the Scout has completed all requirements and needs his Eagle BOR. /rant

I would have no problem giving my email address out to anyone. I already get spam but my hotmail filter gets rid of most of it before I even see it. Also, email addresses listed on a Scout website could easily be disguised to avoid spammers as in bobwhite at yahoo dot com. Also, I am aware that there is not a requirement for boys to be able to recite verbatim his merit badge material a year or anytime after receiving the merit badge. I only mentioned it because I believe that many boys cannot tell much of anything about what they quickly crammed into their brain just a few weeks or months later after his merit badge class. I think it is up to the boy and his parents to make sure he LEARNS the material and does not temporarily memorize it. I guess I am suggesting that boys self police themselves on this. The last thing you want is a surgeon operating on your brain who temporarily memorized his med school curriculum, amen? You want him to know it well enough to teach it. Many merit badges worn by these boys are worthless to the boy. When an Eagle Scout cannot even tell my son how to tie a rope around a tripod group of sticks for the simple camp gadget, something is really wrong. Or the knots/lashings can be part of the program the older scouts deliver to the younger scouts on a regular basis. Or each scout could have a scout staff as a hiking stick and the patrol would have quite a few when at camp. Or the patrols could start to venture away from the picnic area campgrounds and explore other areas to camp like in the woods where plenty of sticks can be found. There are many ways to allow for the practice and they involve the scouts doing scouting things and not checking off boxes.

A patrol is a gang of boys who do scouting things together. Too often we focus on numbers or ages instead of who the boys want to be with and what they want to do. If a troop has many instances of little participation, perhaps it is the activities being planned that is the problem? I have no problem with a patrol in which 2 boys show up for the campout. However, I would start with encouraging the patrols to plan activities, camping trips etc... that they want to do instead of what the adults have planned as a troop. I am not suggesting that ones troop isn't boy led, but it may not be patrol based if all the activities are done at the troop level.

I just received a survey for the BSA regarding district/council and their responsiveness, leadership, etc... in providing the scouting experience. I commented the focus on raising money (at National, council and district levels) instead of focusing on the scouting program was a big problem.

As a scouter who spends about 20% of the year camping in the back woods, tying knots is a skill which I use almost as much as fire-building. A scout who cannot tie a small variety of knots isn't spending much time in the woods being a scout. I have seen a lot of troops who never leave the park-n-tent campsites and the scouts never get to fully appreciate the wild. They don't "scout" the unknown woods and explore using all the skills they have "learned". When the requirements are just a list, and ranks are a completion of lists they cease to be descriptors of competence. A true first class scout should be able to lead his patrol into the woods navigating by map and compass, selecting a proper site, setting up camp and cooking meals planned and prepared. These are the skills supposedly demonstrated on the way to First Class. One of the best lines I have ever read in the BSA Handbook for Boys (1911 edition) regarding the aim of scouting, penned by John Alexander: "All that is needed is the out-of-doors, a group of boys, and a competent leader." That leader is not us, it is a First Class Scout.

I still haven't figured out how 15 year olds can BE merit badge counselors at camp. Is there some small print codicil which permits other scouts to be merit badge counselors at summer camps?

I have a copy of the 1911 Handbook (an original, not a reprint). Pg 10 lists the twelve points as an "abbreviated form of the Scout Law". It is this form to which the scouts "are to commit to memory". Pg 15 Provides the laws "which relate to the BSA, are the latest and most up to date". 11. A scout is clean. He keeps clean in body and thought, stands for clean speech, clean sport, clean habits, and travels with a clean crowd.

There is a difference between being an Eagle Scout and wearing a patch. There are Eagle Scouts who never got the patch, and patch wearers who aren't Eagle Scouts.

No direction will yield chaos. Instead, provide direction but no organization or meddling. Get them started on something, but don't interfere unless it is matter of safety. Example, bring the cubs to a creek show them how to look for crayfish and let them have fun. A campout isn't a time to "do requirements". Instead, do fun stuff and later, (car ride home) or next den meeting when discussing the fun bring up the fact requirements were met and have the cubs look at other badges and think of fun things they can do which will meet those requirements for the next campout. Scouting should be fun, and requirements are met by having fun. Once we sit them down and have them open a book, they aren't scouting, they are in school again.