Hawkwin

As it pertains to crossover ceremonies, I found this (starting on page 81): https://www.scouting.org/filestore/membership/pdf/Webelos_to_Scout.pdf Seems like it would be more meaningful and impactful than the Native American skit that is now used.

It isn't about offending members, it is about potentially offending members of the community you are trying to honor. And, having adult involvement in that aspect (establishing proper direction, coaching and training) is a completely appropriate role for an adult in a boy-lead program. https://www.scouting.org/Home/BoyScouts/TheBuildingBlocksofScouting/leadership.aspx

Why? They can crossover too. If they completed AOL, then they can crossover at 10. If they just joined in the fall, then I would assume the Pack will make helping them get AOL a priority so that they could crossover with their Den.

Many of our Packs crossover in the fall prior to the Troop recharter. Works out well for both the Pack and the Troop.

As it pertains to fake news, pro vs con is irrelevant. "Eyeballs" is all that matters and so far, it has succeeded in that goal. I don't know if it is fake or not but it is loaded with enough drama that regardless of your opinion of the changes, it is likely to be clicked on and read.

Our OA did that a year or two ago for a Camporee. I would also add, Jedi or Minecraft anything.

We've used the ceremony multiple times locally and I've not noticed anything that would be obviously offensive (granted, I am not a Native America so my awareness would not be as high). That being stated, what is the origin of the ceremony? What is the relevance to crossover? It always struck me as something rather arbitrary as it pertains to Cub Scouts, scouting, and the Crossover. Never bothered by it, but it seemed to not fit the event.

Just spit-balling here but is it possible to simply prohibit non-registered and non-trained parents from attending events? Perhaps they need to learn about the process from a more official capacity and if they are unwilling to meet the troop requirements for attending campouts, then they will either quit attending or quit all together. I personally think if I saw a parent take over washing dishes from a scout, I would be compelled to pull that parent aside and correct their behavior right there on the spot. The conversation would be private but the action would be public such that everyone, both scouts and other parents, would get the point of what I was doing. Some parents are no more mature than their scouts and unfortunately must be treated the same way at times. Tough love em. If they refuse, I guess they can be invited to find another Troop.

Perhaps this is where I am not following. For the vast majority of scout families (my assumption), the parents are not actively involved in following all the higher level national drama. My guess is that the vast majority have no awareness of "family camping" or how the term has been injected into scouting. If not for this forum (and I visit scoutingmagazine.org, my local council website, scouting.org, read both magazines, and am on a few email lists), I would have no awareness of any assumption of changes based on the term. My hypothesis is that the vast majority of scouting parents, either new or existing, also have no awareness of "family camping" or how the term may be misapplied resulting in a corruption of BSA and the Patrol Method. For Troops that already have a helicopter parent problem, that problem very likely predates the use of "family camping." In other words, those Troops have a problem with that program that doesn't having anything to do with this relatively brand new term that has yet to really have any implementation. For Troops that don't have a problem with helicopter parents, I see no reason why this rather ambiguous term should result in the destruction of the core fundamentals of how the programs works.

Yes, as my anecdotal experience is just as relevant as your anecdotal experience. The only thing either of us can do is speak from experience and as I specifically stated, "I must be missing something.." as I don't share the same experience.

I must be missing something major then as I don't feel, as a parent, that I somehow have more skin in the game than I did a year ago. If anything, I feel as though I have less as I have better learned about the Patrol method and how Troops are different than Packs. I learned this because the leaders did a good job of training us parents as to how Boy Scouts are different than Cub Scouts - and for some of us (myself included), we were told more than once. None of that has relation to the use of the term "family scouting." I've not heard the term used locally at all and absent this board, would not even have a heightened awareness of how the term may be misinterpreted. My experience, and what I can speak anecdotally about our Troop is more like what Col Flagg stated, drop them off on a Friday and pick them up on a Sunday without any more parent involvement (unless you are a required driver) than that.

Perhaps it isn't changing into such. Perhaps some Troops are just have a problem with parents and setting boundaries? I've been on a single overnight campout with my son since joining Boy Scouts. From what I know of other campouts, it is very rare for a non-volunteer, non-registered parent to attend a campout for any reason. I know of a few occasions where there have been tag-alongs but those were only kids of registered leaders where both parents are leaders (and the scout still pitched his own tent with a tent-mate). The rest of the family pitched their tent away from the troop.

Please do. I am still waiting on word from our local district on what they will be doing.

Really? He said,. "“It is outrageous and embarrassing ..." I've read much worse things said about Nationals on this message board - some from people in this thread.

I can only speak anecdotally based on what my daughter has stated. Boy Scout is just a name. It isn't really a gender or gender specific - any more than playing with dolls or Hot Wheels is gender specific. If you don't feel shame (or perhaps if you simply feel no difference at all), then being in "Boy" Scouts doesn't feel demeaning if you are a girl. Perhaps youth today don't hold as tight to gender terminology as we did. Also, perhaps gender dynamics and division really doesn't manifest until puberty or later. My daughter wasn't bothered at all by the idea of her being one of only two girls on the all-boys wrestling team at 9. I would bet that if she were to approach that decision brand new at age 14, she might view it differently. Let's keep in mind that girls have been in Boy Scouts of America for decades via Venturing and Explorers so perhaps removing that bit if qualification (Venturer with BSA and now just BSA), doesn't feel that significant to them. Also, male-centric terminology remains even in organizations that are fully coed. I've stated on this site before that while I was in college, I was in a coed business fraternity that was 70% female yet our approved terminology for each other was "brother [last name]." We had no problem recruiting women to join our Fraternity (also a male term) and being called a "brother" also wasn't enough to turn them away. Hawkwin Who married his "brother"

I'm not your parent or a mod so you don't have to do anything on my account - but that being stated, if you want a more effective conversation, then mixing topics (even those tangentially related) is a sure way to hinder such. Agreed. This is why I also stated that it was bad in practice. The same can be stated for the Trail to 1st Class.

??? What rule change are you eluding to? The OP doesn't (and NJCubScouter doesn't, and I don't) refer to changing any rules in the "race to be Eagle." Perhaps you are conflating two different topics? This is simply about whether or not, as NJ stated, the race is good, bad, both or neither.

On that point, it is very likely good (even great?!?) PR even if it is not necessarily good in practice. That being stated and due to how the those BOR for Eagle are scheduled though, my guess is that there will be quite a few that make Eagle on the same day throughout the country. We averaged 150 Eagles a day in 2016 (55,000 for the year) so it stands to reason that we might see dozens if not hundreds of girls all obtain Eagle on the same day - so in that respect, there will very unlikely be a true first.

My son just recently passed his BOR for Second Class. His grades have also dropped a bit (though still As and Bs) but I would not chalk up his drop in grades to his participation in scouts. My son's problem is more everything not-scout related, like tablets, tv, PS4, etc. You could also toss in soccer practice and games and music practice (what little there is of that). Are you sure what little time your son spends on scout-related activities each month is the real issue? Absent one weekend a month camping, my son spends no more than two to three hours a week on scouts.

OK, now you have to share. I Googled that phase with no luck. What's in it?!?

OK, I didn't strikeout my own post and there are no edit marks on my post, what is going on here? Edit: And apparently I can't copy and paste and remove the strikeout. Oh well.

I don't understand the confusion. Here is the full text: https://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf What about the above would suggest that we would never accept work from a member of Scouts Canada? If they "temporarily reside in the United States, or moved here," seems quite clear to me. What am I missing? The wording doesn't preclude anything. It simply doesn't address this situation at all. To "preclude," is to prevent. The wording doesn't prohibit or prevent what she is trying to do - that section just states what is allowed. For example, an American scout that earned Tenderfoot, moving with their parents to Canada and earning their 1st Class equivalent, and then moving back to the US could have that "work" recognized as 1st Class in BSA. If that section precluded what she was trying to do, it would specifically state such. A Canadian citizen and Scout Canada member that "temporarily reside in the United States" could join BSA as high as a Life Scout, earn Eagle, and then go back to Canada. The only question is whether or not BSA will prohibit a US citizen and Scouts Canada member the same privilege. I think you quoted the wrong section: Again, the only question is whether or not we will allow the same privilege for US citizens that permanently reside here as we do for Canadian citizens that don't.

No, I'd just rank it 2nd best (since TESB) after this one. I blame ROTJ (and Ewoks) for the creation of Jar Jar and now Porgs. Worst decision of ROTJ was to change from Wookies to Ewoks. At least in this movie, Porgs were "better" because they had no real speaking roles and were in no way part of the storyline - just fluff. TESB, ANH, TLJ, ROTJ, and all the rest equally bad, including The Force Awakens (as if blowing up an even bigger "death star" wasn't overdone enough).

I've learned long ago that people with bias will always interpret things through their own lens.

Ya, that was pretty terrible but two points: 1. I did say it was the best SINCE TESB. 2. There is not a lot of strong competition for the best since TESB (low bar).