Eagle94-A1

My understanding was that the NSP concept was based upon research that showed Scouts who earned First Class in a year stay with the program. My argument against this was this: what does the data show about how active the troop is? I asked it in 1989 and continue to ask it, but get no response. However the more I read and hear about the LDS program and their 11 Year Old Boy Scout program, and how it is identical to the NSP concept, It is a logical assumption that LDS Scouts influenced the data back in the 1980s and National used their model for the NSP concept. The issue therefore with the data supporting First Class First Year and the NSP concept is flawed. One reason it's flawed is that LDS requires their youth to be Scouts. Another reason for the flaw is that LDS units have set plan that they repeat over and over with an adult in charge. Essentially Webelos 3 IMHO. As to the concept of the venture crew, now called venture patrol, the problem of how to keep older Scouts involved has been around since at least 1929 when Scouting Magazine published an article on this topic. And it's probably earlier. BSA over the years have tried a variety of things to keep them involved; Sea Scouts, Explorers, Air Explorers, Leadership Corps, Venture Crew/Patrol, and Venturing. My troop growing up used the Leadership Corps and operated the venture crew in the same matter. It was only 1999 when the confusion between Venture Crew/patrol and Venturing was explained to the troop ( this was after several of the guys attempted to receive their Bronze Awards) that the venture patrol turned into a Venturing crew. Sorry for the rant on NSPs, but they are a pet peeve of mine. I am assuming my troop was one of the "pilot troops" that experimented with the NSP concept in a traditional, boy-led troop back in 1986. It didn't work then, and has not worked in every troop that I've been in that tried it. Unless the patrol turned into Webelos 3. My current troop was initially a NSP since it was restarted. Unfortunately the SM and ASM at the time did a lot more for them that they should have IMHO. They are not use to being responsible and taking charge. And now we have new Scouters in the troop that are placing adult expectation on Boy Scouts who have just gotten rid of the yoke of adult control. And I am constantly arguing for the continuation of the current, mixed aged patrols. We have one Scouter, yes Gunship for those in the know, who is constantly telling the adults in the troop that we are doing it wrong since the book says we need to have 3 types of patrols. I keep reminding him that A) that concept has only been around since 1989 B) It has not worked in any troop that I've been in including ours C) In order for NSPs to work, we need to treat them like Cub Scouts still, which hurts them in the long run, and D) issues we have had when we did the 3 different types of patrols are no longer happening and adults are not getting involved, except the helicopter parents we are trying to break in.

1) As I stated, the caps are for emphasis, not shouting. I guess I could Bold or underline or even italicize for emphasis, but I admit I'm lazy and caps works easiest. 2) You may studies are all over the place, and yes they are. But look at the methodologies used. Some of the research uses methods that leave out factors. Heck even some of the pro single gender ones have questionable methodologies. But if you look at the studies for single gender as a whole, there are fewer problems with them overall than with coed studies. 3) If you want, I'll not only pull up my research from back in the day, but see what current studies show. 4) Considering both Surbaugh and the GSUSA both state that single gender environments are better, I would tend to believe them. Too bad Surbaugh is trying to do away with it. 5) Someone mentioned female SMs. I 'd say it goes back to Exploring going coed in the 1970s. At the meeting I was at on this topic, most of the ones there were Venturing folks, and were pro coed. Heck some of them even acknowledges that a partnership or parallel program would not work. 6) Those Same Venturers also admitted that while girls were in the minority, they were the majority in leadership.

GOODS NEW: Son is suppose to be contacting his SM to finish the last 2 MBs needed and his SM conference for Life. BOR is scheduled for the 28th. BAD NEWS: Why do I feel old ? (sorry couldn't resist)

We've have similar issues with my troop. At first it was not a problem. Now it is because it seems as if everyone is bringing their kids. At least when my youngest went camping in June, he was a Webelos. If it wasn't't for that fact, he would not have went. The parents I mentioned earlier brought their Tiger with them and let him lose. Yes he was all over, thankfully not in a canoe. Sad thing is that these parents are volunteers, and do not see what the problem is or how they are hurting their sons.

I am against allowing girls in Boy Scout troops for a variety of reasons, but in a nutshell BOYS LEARN BETTER IN AN ALL MALE ENVIRONMENT JUST AS GIRLS LEARN BETTER IN AN ALL GIRL ENVIRONMENT! (caps for emphasis). Heck Surbaugh evens mentions that in the jambo video thatis online. If it hurts the boys I'm against it. I am also againt partnering with or creating a parallel program because PEOPLE WILL IGNORE THE SEGREGATION AND GO COED ANYWAY. ( emphasis again) IF IT HURTS THE BOYS, I AM AGAINST IT! ( This time I'm shouting, mostly at the national folks who are shoving this down our throats.) I wish the GSUSA wold listen to their Total Available Youth and create a program that appeals to them.

BRAVO ZULU!

I've previously stated how one volunteer will create a "paper girls unit" and fully integrate the girls into the Boy Scout troop, irregardless of what national wants.

With all due respect @@RichardB, We all know that if a "Parallel Program" comes about, we will have "paper girl units" and they will be integrated with the boys. Heck I already have one parent waiting for the announcement so his daughter can join. From a discussion :Financially it's two expensive to have two sets of camping equipment and having two sets of summer camp and weekend camp outs. Plus add the time committement for the Scouters, i.e. having two sets of weekely meetings, camp outs, and summer camps. Full blown coed is the only way. YES FAMILY SCOUTING DOES IMPLY CUB SCOUT CAMPING AT THE BOY SCOUT LEVEL!!!!!!! My troop is currently dealing with former Cub parents and them treating their Boy Scouts like Cubs. Heck one mom was ticked off at me and left with her son when I told her that if her son didn't pitch his own tent and sleep in it, it would not count as a camp out for him. And we had some parents let their boys sneak into their tents TWICE now, and we told both the Scouts and parents they can not do that anymore. If BSA really means family camping instead of coed Scouting with the terms "making Scouting accessible to families," I will stay as long as my boys are willing to stay. But with all the interference these new parents caused this weekend, Oldest is ticked off and would probably leave or join the one troop in the district that has already stated they will NOT allow females to camp at all as it is against their CO's beliefs. Heck EVEN IF THEY DO NOT ALLOW ME TO SERVE AS A VOLUNTEER DUE TO MY FAITH, I WOULD LET MY BOYS JOIN THAT TROOP IF BOY SCOUTS BECOMES "FAMILY SCOUTS." (caps for emphasis.)

I've seen "Family Scouting" four times now. As a youth, my troop did a family trip. Originally not a family trip, the scouts planned for a year what they were going to do. At the last minute it became a family tip. THE MOMS SCREWED UP THE TRIP FOR US. That troop did not do another family camp out until everyone by myself and one ASM had left. It was OK, but it was not a true Scout trip. Last year my current troop did a trip that had one family show up. very skeptical, but it worked out OK. Problem was this: it opened the doors to families coming on trips. June's camp out had issues with the Scouts doing what they were suppose to do. One of the problems was the older Scouts not teaching the younger scouts how to set up tents properly. Nor did the new scouts read the instructions on set up. Guess what, two new scouts went to sleep with their moms and dads when it was raining and they started getting wet. fast forward to this weekend. I must not have gotten the memo that this was going to be a family camp out because we had family members showing up left and right. SPL and ASMs walked around to make sure tents were set up properly. New parents were complaining about the kids taking so long, missing supplies etc, Ironic thing was this same parent did not know how to set up their own tent, and required three Scouters to help her out! That night it started to rain, and with the first few drops hitting the tent, son rushes to their mom's tent. Then that mom, and husband when he got there, hovered around their kid the entire weekend. One ASM had a meeting with all the parents about the hovering and tenting issues. OK we understand the Scout with DOCUMENTED medical issues needing to sleep with dad ( and yes we realize that this Scout appears 100% normal and no one would supsect if known too.) but the parents need to STAY WAY. I talked to the Scouts about the same thing, and reminded them about camping in a tent you pitched needs to be done for advancement (that seems to the #1 thing the new Scouts, and their parents are interested in). later that day, one mom and her son show up. A few hours later she approaches me in a huff about is it true that they need to set up their own tent in order for the camp out to count, when I said "Yes, that's in the requirements" she has a fit and says " then what's the purpose of event coming out her?" I told her to work on skills and have fun. After an hour of complaining to another new parent, she and her son leave. Yes, I am not looking forward to "Family Scouts."

I do not know if the individual had his membership revoked or not, but I had to report a youth staffer who propositioned another youth staffer. Long story short, once it was reported, the camp director removed the individual from camp.

That's because it's a job for them and not a movement.

They are also limiting discussion. there is a very set Discussion guide that the folks need need to read verbatim and follow. Trying to go off topic and address real issues I and others see at my town hall was non fully possible. I do not know if some of those concerns were written in the notes the SE wrote, but the ones I was able to get out were not discussed or talked about. In defense of the Scout Executives, or at least mine, he was ticked off at how national is doing this. He stated he received the instructions for this the day before he left for jamboree. He did not appreciate that. He also stated that National wanted the council key 3 to do the presentation as well as reading the scripts verbatim. Regarding breaking points. I know mine is coming. I am having a hard enough time trying to keep the district afloat because we essentially do not have a committee. I been in communications with other Scouters, and even spent 30+ minutes at work on a call with one leader who is adamant that there will be no girls in his troop because of how his church has set up the program as an outreach ministry to get at risk youth off the streets.

Gee, I don't know. It did get Bill Hillcourt out of retirement to write the handbook I grew up with. Seriously, I think the decision to go coed is the worse one to date. But I am also a realist. If we are forced to go coed, and we are, then we need to do it correctly, otherwise the "sexist" and "bigoted" perception will continue to exist, and numerous packs and troops will ignore national and fully integrate, having a paper unit for the girls.

Maybe I am naive, but I would not lump the DEs into the same category as the CSE and SEs. They are sometimes in the dark like the rest of us. Heck I was the one that told the DE about the transgender membership change. But some of them too see this happening though. Mine told me how when he went to TX, the word "boy" was not used to describe membership, "families" was used in its place.

Agree with retiring Eagle if we go coed, but suggest Turkey instead of Phoenix. Maybe a Blue Jay since they are nest robbers.

I said it once, I'll say it again, the model being proposed, specifically Coed Cubs, Single Gender Scout, Coed Venturing WILL NOT WORK IN THE USA. (caps for emphasis not shouting.) Partnering with an organization will not work because existing ones do not want to work with us. Plus one of them, GSUSA, has a program that royally sucks from the amount of complaints I hear and read about. As for starting our own program, BSA did just that in 1910 with Campfire Girls. It went its own way then. But in today's PC world, you know that BSA creating a girl-only program would only raise the howls of 'Sexists" and the will reignite the raging membership wildfire that is not only distracting and hurting our Scouts, and but also waste valuable time and resources that could be used for other more important things.

I see it happening, and see it happening fast. We already have 3 girls chomping at the bit. And a 4th would have done it if she would not age out before it occurs. And I see the local Frontier Girls folding and merging. And I see it happening with every unit in my district save 2: the LDS troop, and the baptist Church which uses Scouting for their 'At-risk Youth" Ministry. They only want Boys b/c they are the ones they are trying to keep out of trouble.

His thoughts are the following and I'm paraphrasing. It makes no sense to have 2 Scout aged groups meeting on separate nights and doing separate activities, especially when you are trying to promote accomodating families.If you have 2 separate groups, that means leaders will have two separate nights for meetings, and two different weekends for activities. The leaders will burn out faster, and we are already having a hard time getting new leaders. I admit I personally am against going coed. I know boys do better in a single gender environment. IO also know that it seems as if there is a war on boys and they cannot do anything on their own, but there are no questions about girls only programs. But I am also a realist. I know Separate but Equal will not work. GSUSA already works and it is a joke from all the complaints I'm hearing and the push to make BSA coed. I also know that the BSA creating a program just for girls will not work either. BSA did just that with Campfire Girls. They eventually went their own way and have nothing to do with us. Plus they went coed. Are they still around?

Some will say that it is not the program they signed up for. And they would be correct. Some will say that it now a program detrimental to boys. And they are correct. even the CSE states that research shows boys do better in a single gender environment. Some will say that they do not want to be involved with units that are "pushing the envelope." I admit I am uncomfortable with one Scouter willing to ignore a "separate but equal" program and push to fully integrate. Some will say they are concerned with Youth Protection issues. I know I am. Again I had one parent already talking about how to get around not having a female Scouter present by calling it a 'family camp out" and with just the dad present. PLUS I have seen first hand what just the accusation of some impropriety can do to someone. Some will say they do not want to deal with having to keep an eye on the Scouts 24/7. Some will say they are tired of the controversy and see this policy as continuing the controversy, and taking time and resources away from taking care of our boys, as well as girls. Some will say they are tired of being lied to by national, and do not want to be involed with an organization that cannot keep their own values.

Agree with Flagg and Gwaihir above. I'll add though that I will be following the lead of my sons. Oldest is not looking forward to it, and I don't know what he will do. Middle son says it's a bad idea, but again do not know what he will do. I do know of one troop that will stay all male, and they may want to join them. Heck the more I see of that troop, I wish I would have taken oldest to see them as they are a true, Scout-led, active troop. I am going to throw in a conversation I had with a parent on this topic. 1) If BSA creates a "separate but equal" program, he will do everything in his power to make the troop coed. There may be 2 units on paper, but in reality it will be one. Also, and I really want to hear from our Venturing leaders about this one, parent stated that if they cannot find a female Scouter to camp so that the girls can camp as Scouts, turn the camp out into a "family camp out" so the girls can camp as "family members" and stay with their dad, or with their friends, and get around having a female Scouter.

I was one of those Scouts who initially could not afford a full uniform. There were green trousers and shorts nearly identical to the BSA pants and shorts. In fact, the shorts had the 6" rule, you had to be 6 inches away and looking at the snaps to tell the difference. I wore those for a few years. Over time, I was able to obtain official pants and shorts from a thrift store. In fact, I went into "business" going to the thrift store near my high school, buying uniform items, and reselling them to Scouts in the troop. I got the patches, they got the uniform items. WIN-WIN And I agree with The Latin Scout, money that could be used for more important items is being wasted on the campaign covers. I also agree with Stosh, the knock off hats are more expensive than the shirts. Both of my campaign hats that were issued by my council growing up were knock offs. OK USGI surplus. When I added the hatband and shin strap, you cannot tell they are knock offs.

Not membership, but other areas: EAGLE PALMS. In 2014 a survey was conducted about changing requirements for Eagle Palms. 94% surveyed thought that the 3 months tenure was either Important (19%) or Very Important (74%). 85% did not want to include time as a Life Scout towards Eagle Palms. 94% is near unanimous and 85% is a supermajority. Yet BSA came out with Instapalms.

The challenge is that not every council is informing folks about their meetings. My council put a fast blurb on one district's facebook page. It's not on the district calendar, no emails were sent out. Just a fast blurb on one district's facebook page. And then is was posted in the middle of a punch of other posts. Further they selected a night and location that will make it difficult for many folks to show up. My council selected a Thursday night, a night in the middle of the week for this meeting. And they gave us 7 days notice for the meeting. Also I will be driving 3 hours round trip to attend a 1 hour long meeting. And my district is relatively close. There are some districts that will have another hour plus drive one way. So I am glad that folks are posting the video online. I am glad that folks are posting the intro and discussion questions online. A lot of people are concerned. Alot of people are interested in this. And my council at least is not doing a very good job communicating or showing that they are truly interested in our opinion.

I know in 2013, jambo participant and staff went off site to do service work. Part of it was to give back to the community. Part of it was to find things to do for Scouts and Venturers since they had more people than events. I also remember reading complaints about making folks do service work at jambo.