What if the Boy Scouts didn't go coed?

[Rick_in_CA]

So it wasn't a gender issue that put the BSA in a spiral downward.  It was National's rejection of its own successful programming from decades past.

 

Gender is not the cause nor the solution for the BSA's woes.   Sedentary programming, rejection of successful methods from the past, and emphasis on sideline stuff like STEM and soccer are the heart of it.

While BSA policies do have an impact on numbers, I believe the biggest factors driving the decline in BSA membership over the decades are all external too the BSA. In other words, it didn't matter what the BSA did, the numbers would still be lower than they were in the 70s. All the BSA could have done was slow the decline.

 

Some of the external issues causing the decline:

 

People have less leisure time. From working more hours (the average full time worker in the US now works a 47 hour week), to more demands from the family (driving the kids everywhere, coordinating two full time work schedules, etc), there is less time to spend on things like scouting. Statistics show that while the average amount of vacation days earned by full time workers has not gone down, the average number of vacation days actually used by full time workers has.

 

Life is more competitive. In our society, there is a perception that we are all competing for a slice of an ever shrinking pie. As a result, the perceived stakes are higher now. College is more important than ever before, but it is also more expensive. This generation of parents are the first where the assumption that their kids will automatically have it better than them no longer holds (that is what polls show is the perception, and there is some data backing them up). Participation in activities like science clubs, robot leagues and other extracurricular activities are no longer driven by just interest, but they are now also perceived to be important resume builders (which means less time for "less prestigious" activities). All this means most children's activities get put through the "how will this look on a collage or job application" filter (hence the BSA's emphasis on selling Eagle).

 

Our society is much more fearful. The fact that we even have the term "free range parenting" to describe what most of us would call "normal parenting" is a reflection of this. Many parents today are often looking for guarantees of perfect safety for their kids, in a world that they perceive to be full of threats. Strangers are looked on with suspicion, letting a kid walk down the street alone generates calls to the police, etc. So we have background checks, fingerprinting, YPT rules, tour plans, and general paranoia, all of which create additional burdens on those that wish to participate (even if some of these rules are good ones, it's still hoops that volunteers need to jump through, and some of these hoops cost money). Plus, many traditional scouting skills and activities are now perceived as "dangerous" or "risky" (knives, fire, guns, camping, being in the woods, mowing the lawn, using a little red wagon, etc.), which reduces the appeal (for parents at least). We complain about kids sitting home playing video games, but for many parents that is just where they want them - inside and safe.

 

Very few families can afford to have a stay at home parent today. When I was a child, I had a stay at home mom, as did most of my friends. Families today still need to go grocery shopping, do laundry, buy shoes and school supplies, cook dinner, etc. The stay at home parent accomplish many of these tasks during normal working hours (often while also looking after the kids) leaving the evenings and weekends as free time. Now these tasks have to be done outside of the normal work day, which reduces the free time available for other activities. This is a factor that I think a lot of people overlook.

 

I'm sure people can articulate other reasons as well. All of the above have contributed too the decline of scouting (and many other activities), and none are within the control of the BSA. Yes a better BSA would be a more successful one, but the decline in numbers from the 70s peak was inevitable, no matter what the BSA did.

[David CO]

We have no secret meetings or closed activities.  Nothing is hidden.  Scout meetings and leader meetings are both open to the parents.

 

If we had no female scout leaders, we would still have mothers sitting in the back observing the meetings.  I have no doubt of that.

 

In a boy lead unit, there is very little difference between an observer and a leader.  The boys are the doers.  All the rest of us are just observers.

[desertrat77]

@@Rick_in_CA, thank you for those thoughtful insights.  True, I was focused on the factors internal to the BSA in the '70s.   The world started changing quite a bit during that era.   Both for good and ill.   I think it's a shame that the BSA felt the need to change so drastically during that time frame, primarily by discarding their traditional programming.   They essentially decided to retire their best selling product line.

[vumbi]

Change has occurred throughout society and throughout history. Why would anyone think BSA should be immune to this? 'Life as we know it' has changed so many times it is almost impossible to enumerate those changes (think of all the develoipments in just communications or medicine). Couple those things with a 100+ year-old organization and what do reasonable people expect to happen?

[desertrat77]

Change has occurred throughout society and throughout history. Why would anyone think BSA should be immune to this? 'Life as we know it' has changed so many times it is almost impossible to enumerate those changes (think of all the develoipments in just communications or medicine). Couple those things with a 100+ year-old organization and what do reasonable people expect to happen?

I concur, change is going to happen whether we want it to or not.   However, it is always mystifying when an organization decides to scrap a product or service that is popular and transcends fads, flights of fancy, etc.

 

Such was the BSA in '72.  The traditional program with an emphasis on the outdoors was not broken.   However, it wasn't adjusted or changed a bit to update it to match the times.  Instead, National threw out the baby, bath water, and tub.  

 

I liken it to a car company.   If a particular make/model is selling well, slight design changes are made year to year.  But stop making it and selling it when it is still wildly popular?   And then offer a hunk of junk no one wants?   That's what National did in '72.

[vumbi]

yeah, that makes sense. I was a boy scout before that time and then didn't get back in as a leader until much later.

[F-P]

It boils down to finding men that want to be leaders in scouts.  I don't see many female coaches for the baseball, football, soccer and lacrosse teams in my town.  One guy I know who coaches year round flat out told me that scouts was too much work, and he volunteers for everything.  The main problem I see with this would be finding even more leaders to help out.

[Sentinel947]

It boils down to finding men that want to be leaders in scouts.  I don't see many female coaches for the baseball, football, soccer and lacrosse teams in my town.  One guy I know who coaches year round flat out told me that scouts was too much work, and he volunteers for everything.  The main problem I see with this would be finding even more leaders to help out.

He coaches year round, for teams that practice 5-6 hours a week, plus games, plus out of state tournaments, and Scouting is too much work? I'd say he's simply not interested. 

 

Desertrat: I was not alive in 72, but I think the BSA saw declining membership and freaked out, not understanding the demographic shift behind declining membership. 

[F-P]

I didn't say it was a good excuse! I think his take on it was that you have to plan the meetings, learn the stuff your doing, etc. Coaching he already knows - although he's not the most organized guy I know. Coaching is fun and scouts is work. They don't do scouts anymore. Chose to focus on sports and 4h instead, so I agree with your comment about not being interested, but I think there is something to the idea that the admin side of scouting is a ton of work. As a coach, you dont have to recruit, sign up the kids, get medical forms or arrange for an activity. Its all done for you.

[desertrat77]

Desertrat: I was not alive in 72, but I think the BSA saw declining membership and freaked out, not understanding the demographic shift behind declining membership. 

Sentinel, that may be part of it.   I was a cub in '72, crossed over in '74.   

 

Looking back, I think it was an early attempt at political correctness, before there was such a phrase.   I think the BSA and other similar organizations were being bashed by groups of people who had rejected faith, conventionality, uniforms, patriotism, etc.  Standard '60s stuff.  National tried to making scouting hip, urban, ecology minded, etc.   Okay, sure, fine.  So I wore the red beret.   But when they gutted the traditional aspects and the camping emphasis, wow, that was a real punch in the gut for many.   I think there was an anti-outdoor element in the BSA management previously, and the ISP was their opportunity to change things to their point of view.

 

The handbook was toned down, camping MB was not required for Eagle, etc.   Believe it or not, many people were very upset by the change of the Eagle rank patch.   It went from something that resembles the current patch to the "chicken in the frying pan" and no wording.   Scouts with military connections overseas arranged to have bootleg copies of the old style Eagle patch made.

[Stosh]

I concur, change is going to happen whether we want it to or not.   However, it is always mystifying when an organization decides to scrap a product or service that is popular and transcends fads, flights of fancy, etc.

 

Such was the BSA in '72.  The traditional program with an emphasis on the outdoors was not broken.   However, it wasn't adjusted or changed a bit to update it to match the times.  Instead, National threw out the baby, bath water, and tub.  

 

I liken it to a car company.   If a particular make/model is selling well, slight design changes are made year to year.  But stop making it and selling it when it is still wildly popular?   And then offer a hunk of junk no one wants?   That's what National did in '72.

 

Saturn car company come to mind?

[desertrat77]

Saturn car company come to mind?

Now that you mention it, yes.

[fred johnson]

I don't see that coed has nearly as much to do with survival of the BSA as adventure, fun, and the outdoors do. I'm excited about starting a venturing crew not because it has girls in it, but because it will get back to what scouting is all about; outdoor adventure and service. No Eagle. No kids that have to be there. No resume stuffing. No pushy parents. No merit badge schools at summer camp. No kids that are waiting around hoping for Eagle to drop in their lap.

 

On the other hand, if you do a good job then you'll know it, your friends will tell you that, and that's all you need. You'll stick around because of having fun in the outdoors and you'll gain real experience at giving service and leadership.

 

The greed behind getting Eagle is diluting the program with people that are more interested in getting a patch than learning anything. A few kids and a lot of parents have twisted the program into something that has little to do with outdoor adventure and service. If the boy scout side can remove that problem then the program would be a lot stronger in the long run. It would sell itself.

 

It would also start by cutting membership in half and that will never fly.

 

If a unit wants to have all male leaders, it can.  It can be done now but it's an anachronistic idea, out of place in today's society.  Heck, if you did it in business or government, you would be sued and fired at the same time.  It's just not what society values today.  

 

I think MattR had nailed several items.  Essentially, BSA's advancement program does twist the program.  Pushy parents, yes.  Greedy advancement, yes.  Heck, I've seen far more bad and lame merit badge experiences than good experiences and way too few great experiences.  I really wish being a merit badge counselor was a commitment to provide an inspiring experience.  

 

Perhaps, the best way to improve the scout ranks is to just simplify and focus on the basics.  Ranks are way too legalistic right now.  Way too many detailed putzy requirements.  Change the focus to be outdoors, activities and service oriented.  For Eagle scout, we only require effectively 20 nights in a tent, essentially the same as the camping merit badge.  

 

When my first son finished scouts, he had 250+ overnights.  20 with Cub Scouts.  Probably another 100+ as camp staff.  Over 150 with the boy scout troop.  Of those 150, some were cabin camping, but at least 120 were tents.  

 

So, why not say a star scout requires 25 nights camping.  Life requires 50.  Eagle requires 75.  An active troop should have 30 overnights a year.  One weekend a month.  Seven at a long-term camp.  Some higher challenging events too.  So getting 75 overnights is just not that hard.  Plus, it gets troops back focusing on what counts: getting out and doing things. 

Edited September 10, 2015 by fred johnson

[qwazse]

@@fred johnson, I like the concept, but am generally averse to bean-counting. Most boys love to go camping ... They don't love having to log every night they went. In fact, have you kept a diary of your last 70 nights outdoors?

 

I'd rather make sure our direct contact leaders knew how each counselor operated ... one way to do that is to allow them to earn MBs. The BSA has zero quality control of its MB program. The GTA after-the-fact policies catch a fraction of the slip-shod MBCs. If one or two caring adults in each district were earning MBs, that would help quality control.

 

Limiting advancement to age 18 impedes rational development of the program in so many ways.

 

Limiting it to males only is unlikely to improve it.

[walk in the woods]

Sentinel, that may be part of it.   I was a cub in '72, crossed over in '74.   

 

Looking back, I think it was an early attempt at political correctness, before there was such a phrase.   I think the BSA and other similar organizations were being bashed by groups of people who had rejected faith, conventionality, uniforms, patriotism, etc.  Standard '60s stuff.  National tried to making scouting hip, urban, ecology minded, etc.   Okay, sure, fine.  So I wore the red beret.   But when they gutted the traditional aspects and the camping emphasis, wow, that was a real punch in the gut for many.   I think there was an anti-outdoor element in the BSA management previously, and the ISP was their opportunity to change things to their point of view.

 

The handbook was toned down, camping MB was not required for Eagle, etc.   Believe it or not, many people were very upset by the change of the Eagle rank patch.   It went from something that resembles the current patch to the "chicken in the frying pan" and no wording.   Scouts with military connections overseas arranged to have bootleg copies of the old style Eagle patch made.

Also removed the word Boy from the cover of the handbook and the uniform.