InquisitiveScouter

@MattR, thanks...sorry, but I do not know how to do that. I just copy the URL and when I paste it in the post, the whole video pops in there... Tips or instructions??

Hey, I know some Troops like that around here! xp Sad, and thanks for giving us that picture of how badly things can be run...

To reach 50% female, I believe they will have to significantly alter the program, or create a different program for females. There are physical and psychological differences between the genders. Adequate research exists to substantiate this. Males and females are built, plumbed, and wired differently. They have different affinities. The more egalitarian a society becomes, the more pronounced these differences become. Awesome debate with Steven Pinker and Elizabeth Spelke @ Harvard University... A good mind chew... [the youtube video can be found at www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Hb3oe7-PJ8]

Alrighty, Scouters... Here's what your Scouts are learning in NYLT, and what your military officers learn as well... Aspirations are your "Vision" of who you want to be...the destination. Goals (steps you will take to reach your vision... the path you will take to your vision) must be SMART. Specific - you have to understand what the goal is, and why it is important. Measurable - you have to know when you have reached it Attainable - something you can actually reach (here is where the 50% females mark fails) Relevant - they must pertain to your mission / purpose Timely (or time-definable) - you need a deadline @ParkMan has a good start Just need a bit of the why there...what is the purpose of the goal, so to speak? "In order to reach gender diversity" (this is a poor purpose, imho, but it is BSA's purpose in setting this goal...see the Churchill stuff), we will achieve 30% female youth membership by 2030. What they have written...50% parity met and maintained, is probably unattainable. Sounds good, until you look at those with experience like UK. So, what happens if you don't meet the goal? or the "year over year improvement"???

But, to be honest, I don't think mine finished until I was 35 My wife agrees.

And what is the prefrontal cortex for, insofar as we know? Focusing one’s attention Predicting the consequences of one’s actions; anticipating events in the environment Impulse control; managing emotional reactions Planning for the future Coordinating and adjusting complex behaviors (“I can’t do A until B happens”) https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/prefrontal-cortex "Experience plays a role in the development of the prefrontal cortex. Teens exposed to a variety of stimuli and challenges may “mature” more quickly. However, most neurologists agree that the prefrontal cortex is not fully developed until around the age of 25." This is what Scouts need mentoring and experience with, and why Scouts from a good program fare better than their peers in adulthood. https://jech.bmj.com/content/71/3/275.full "Conclusions Participation in Guides or Scouts was associated with better mental health and narrower mental health inequalities, at age 50. This suggests that youth programmes that support resilience and social mobility through developing the potential for continued progressive self-education, ‘soft’ non-cognitive skills, self-reliance, collaboration and activities in natural environments may be protective of mental health in adulthood.

@CynicalScouter, to be clear, my comment before about risk and ORM, relating to adults and anxiety were my keying in on something you may not have meant overtly... Constant supervision... I contend that Scouts do not, and should not be constantly supervised. The camp I referred to earlier had stated that Scouts should never be out of sight of adults. This was what our PLC took issue with (and I agree.) This is what I meant about risk assessment and youth anxiety. They need to be allowed to be out of sight, with some freedom and a little risk, or else they will not grow. I do not adhere to constant supervision. Adults set up camp away from Scouts. We make sure the Scouts know where we are, and that they have an expected program and agenda to accomplish, and we leave them alone. As Scoutmaster, usually the only youth I try to interact with is the SPL. Assistant Scoutmasters mentor Patrol Leaders. When young Scouts wander into the adult camp (yes, it happens), and they ask a question, 99% of the time, our response is "Did you ask your Patrol Leader?" If it's the PL, we ask "Did you ask your SPL?" Even if it is a minor injury (burns, cuts, scrapes, splinters, etc.), I task Scouts to handle it, and report back, thru the SPL. Then, I look in on the wounded later to make sure it was handled appropriately. "Train 'em. Trust 'em. LET THEM LEAD!"

I miss the days when we could send out patrols on their own.

"Not sure how you are able to get around that."? Ummm...never said we did...and we don't. If a campground requires more, we comply, or find a place that doesn't require it, at the level we are comfortable with. Again, you use the word "resentment." I have no resentment for those CO's or units that want to self-impose additional restrictions. As I said before...fill your boots It is common sense to me to evaluate the risks and take precautions where necessary. If I think 2 adults can handle the task, then that is what we go with.

@walk in the woods, Awesome reference, thanks... Overall about one third females... You'd think BSA might use that as a more "realistic" goal.

@TAHAWK, Sorry, don't know how to drag your comments over to here... I do like the metrics they have, but I agree that JTE should be modified, and think that it is a bit off the mark... Never said there wasn't room for improvement And, there is some Patrol measurement there... Maybe focus on that one...how would you improve it? I'd remove that last part about Youth Training and make that a separate section all together.

Nope...didn't imply any of that...maybe I'm not understanding you... You said your CO requires additional adults. Fine. Our CO does not. BSA does not. I am comfortable with 30 Scouts and 2 adults in some situations. I think the max I have ever had with one other adult is about forty. That included Scouts of all age ranges. The older Scouts provided the leadership and program. We were there for health and safety. I have no resentment toward additional adults or "adequate adult supervision". Please don't ascribe sentiments to me that I did not state. I have never excluded additional adults on trips. They are always welcome. "I can recall many conflicts and sometimes it was blatant parental interference and sometimes it was leadership negligence rightfully being called out -- like setting up camp under deadfall in a windstorm. " I don't see your point with this... You seem to be stating a belief that 2 adults for 30 Scouts is never "adequate." If so, I respectfully disagree. It depends on the outing and the Scouts attending.

Systemic racism holds that our societal and governmental structures are all synergistically designed to be racist. (But you will find other varying definitions, which is why putting this term in a merit badge is bad news right now. ) It is still a "neologism." Here's an opinion piece (some of which I disagree with, btw) from USA Today recently https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/09/23/systemic-racism-how-really-define-column/5845788002/ For example, saying that our all our schools, language, justice system, etc. is racist...combined in toto. That is, our whole societal and cultural structure is designed to target purple people for persecution. I find no proof of this. When I say pervasive racism, I mean that widespread individuals, people from different cultural backgrounds, use their power or influence to deny opportunities to people who are not like them. I do not deny that this exists. The resume study you cite is evidence of this. But it is a cultural issue, not a systemic or institutional one. Institutional racism should be charged to a specific institution, like the school system only, or to a corporation. For example, say the corporate board at XYZ, Inc, and the senior executive leadership created a climate of racism and instructed their hiring department to "be more careful when selecting ethnic sounding names for interviews", I would call that institutional racism. Again, definitions vary widely. In this piece, written last Feb, the author equates the two. https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-systemic-racism-and-institutional-racism-131152 If society on the whole is confused about these terms, how can we clarify them for Scouts?? People in the sphere of public and corporate organizations who engage in racist practices should have consequences for their behavior. If it can be proven, consequences do already exist in our laws. If you are a private racist, then fear, sarcasm, ridicule, and ostracism are our collective tools to address and correct their behavior.

Yes, I saw that study...and the results were horrible. But that is not systemic racism. It does show pervasive racism, which I would agree exists. But you have to identify those companies, call them out, fire the interview screeners who did it. Sue them for violating your civil (human) rights for triple the damages...hit em where it hurts. Also, you might want to clarify...this study identified several different types of ethnic sounding names that generated fewer call backs. It was not just about African Americans.

I do like most of the JTE metrics...whoever designed those put some thought into it... Wait...hold that thought...I'd better go review the new JTE stuff to re-confirm

Concur. That is why BSA doesn't do it. They give you the minimums. We use BSA directives to establish the minimums, and then rely on judgment, experience, activity or subject matter expert advice, committee advice, and the input from other leaders on the trip. It's a pretty good recipe for success.

That is the secret sauce, my friend. We have a program wherein a Scout may earn First Class in one year. But, you would have to participate in every activity, and take responsibility for your own advancement. (Like seeking out older Scouts to show your skills to and get them signed off.) The vast majority do not. And, IMHO, they are better Scouts for it. Bingo.

Equality of outcomes versus equality of opportunity?

Agreed, that increasing the number is an achievable goal. But to target it at 50% may not be. Basically, the question is...why 50%??

There is a potential huge error in that Churchill plan goal of "try to achieve 50% of your membership male and female" It assumes that females want the BSA program in the same numbers that males do. Or, another way to put it...it assumes that, of all the youth out there who want to do this Scouting program, that half of them are female. If empirical market research does not back that up, it is a doomed proposal. Do you think they did that market analysis? Here's some reasonably good stuff... https://rmsresults.com/2013/05/15/market-research-case-study-girl-scouts-needs-assessment/ Read the 12 themes...sound familiar?

Reminds us of A Modest Proposal

Lol, last question was "any other suggestions for improvement" I said something like, "Yes, don't send out a survey with a due date in the past, especially in light of the PR mess you are trying to deal with. That lack of diligence sends a bad message."

@RememberSchiff Well, in this case, past performance is probably a guarantee of future results. But one can always hope, right?

Here's a good one in the survey: ----------------------------------------- 9. Which of the following best describes you? Asian or Pacific Islander Black or African American Hispanic or Latino Native American or Alaskan Native White or Caucasian Multiracial or Biracial A race/ethnicity not listed here ---------------------------------------- I chose the last one....identifying people like this is part of the problem. Until we stop the underlying divisions, you will always perpetuate the underlying divisions. "Human" isn't one of the categories...

Ha...just got this email this morning from council Dear Scout Leader, If you have not already done so, please take a moment today to complete this brief survey about your experiences with diversity and inclusion in the local Scouting program. Please take 10-15 minutes to complete this survey between now and December 31. Your responses will help us identify areas for improvement over the coming years. Thank you for all you do for young people in our community! Yes, this morning (31 Dec deadline??)...I'm going to do the survey now...