Boys and Girls (Co-Ed) Cub and Boy Scouts Are Coming

[Eagledad]

I'm in awe of the dialogue jousting lately in these discussion. A few posters are using cleaver twist of words, facts, and history to imply they have an upper hand with the other (opposing) poster. I admit I'm perplexed why these posters ignore the many many years of scouting experiences of the older scouters on the forum. No respect at all. 

 

Reminds me of an article explaining why some people are more hostile with politics. One "opinion" is many of these people identify personally with specific political party beliefs instead of viewing politics on the whole as an impersonal process for defining government. They feel any kind agreeing trend against their belief is a "personal" slap against them, which justifies actions necessary to gain a personal upper-hand.

 

I kind of see it here; some twisting of words to slant the dialogue so as to imply a superiority of the discussion. The technique is risky because it only works if the other posters don't have much knowledge of the discussion or decline to go on the defensive. OK, we all do that from time to time, but the intent of these posts lately appears to be more about gaining a victory rather than passing along ideas or thoughts to brother/sister scouters. I personally find it strange and juvenile. 

 

Is this our future?

 

Barry

[pchadbo]

Iwas reading this thread agian after some time away, and some rumination.  A thought struck me:the mood for Cubs to be coed seems to be lukewarm-ish, the Boy Scout program is where a lot of the hang ups come. so, Make Cubs coed, drop the age limit for Veturers to match Boy Scouts, and give boys the choice of Boy Scouts or Venturing, and Girls go to Venturing, add rank to Venturing to parallel Scouts. . .then we can Have Eagles and Venturing Hawks (or whatever you name the award)

[NJCubScouter]

Iwas reading this thread agian after some time away, and some rumination.  A thought struck me:the mood for Cubs to be coed seems to be lukewarm-ish, the Boy Scout program is where a lot of the hang ups come. so, Make Cubs coed, drop the age limit for Veturers to match Boy Scouts, and give boys the choice of Boy Scouts or Venturing, and Girls go to Venturing, add rank to Venturing to parallel Scouts. . .then we can Have Eagles and Venturing Hawks (or whatever you name the award)

 

I'm open to the idea of a parallel program to the Boy Scouts that is coed, but I don't think Venturing is that program.  There is value to having a program for older youth.  So you would have Boy Scouts (boys only, 10+ through 17)), "Coed Scouts" (obviously with a different name, same age range as Boy Scouts), and Venturing (coed, 14 through 20... I know it is 13 now, I would move it back.)  I would open up Eagle to both boys and girls, regardless of whether they are in Boy Scouts or "Coed Scouts", or in Venturing if they follow the same rules that apply now:  You earn up to First Class in Boy Scouts or "Coed Scouts" and can then do the rest of the ranks in Venturing.

 

How's that for a compromise?  The only problem is, it will never happen.

[desertrat77]

The BSA's relevance fades the further it moves away from the outdoors.

[qwazse]

I'm open to the idea of a parallel program to the Boy Scouts that is coed, but I don't think Venturing is that program.  There is value to having a program for older youth.  So you would have Boy Scouts (boys only, 10+ through 17)), "Coed Scouts" (obviously with a different name, same age range as Boy Scouts), and Venturing (coed, 14 through 20... I know it is 13 now, I would move it back.)  I would open up Eagle to both boys and girls, regardless of whether they are in Boy Scouts or "Coed Scouts", or in Venturing if they follow the same rules that apply now:  You earn up to First Class in Boy Scouts or "Coed Scouts" and can then do the rest of the ranks in Venturing.

 

How's that for a compromise?  The only problem is, it will never happen.

In a multitude of scouters, there is chaos.

I've heard venturering commissioners suggest Boy-Scouts (and possible a co-ed version of the same) be age 10.5-13, and Venturing be 14-20. If you've only seen troops where older boys don't invest much time in younger boys, I guess that makes sense. But, in spite of potential grumblings, most of our older scouts interact with the younger ones. So, as far as I'm concerned that's a non-starter.

 

On the ground, there is a lot of enthusiasm for the status-quo. Plenty of disdain for innovators (and I've seen some of that directed toward venturers), so I'm not expecting change anytime soon.

[EmberMike]

I think in 20 years you will see BSA at the 1 million mark if they go coed. Why? The tradition of the program is a single sex outdoor program. You will lose the traditionalists and the progressives -- mostly Millennials - won't ever replace them.

 

 

At current rates of membership loss there won't be a BSA in 20 years. So I guess the co-ed approach might be the proverbial "hit it with a hammer" solution. Technically, logically, mathematically, going co-ed might not make sense. But when you're backed up against a wall and nothing else seems to work, just hitting it with a hammer as a last-ditch effort makes sense. If membership continues to decline at a rate that effectively puts the BSA out of business in a couple of decades, there's no reason anymore not to try that hammer. 

 

The only thing that will prevent the BSA from eventually going co-ed is if National figures out a way to fix the declining membership problem some other way. I think it's just a matter of how long they hold out on trying other things. They probably have a number in mind that, once membership drops below that number, the co-ed hammer comes out. 

[Col. Flagg]

At current rates of membership loss there won't be a BSA in 20 years. So I guess the co-ed approach might be the proverbial "hit it with a hammer" solution. Technically, logically, mathematically, going co-ed might not make sense. But when you're backed up against a wall and nothing else seems to work, just hitting it with a hammer as a last-ditch effort makes sense. If membership continues to decline at a rate that effectively puts the BSA out of business in a couple of decades, there's no reason anymore not to try that hammer. 

 

The only thing that will prevent the BSA from eventually going co-ed is if National figures out a way to fix the declining membership problem some other way. I think it's just a matter of how long they hold out on trying other things. They probably have a number in mind that, once membership drops below that number, the co-ed hammer comes out. 

 

You're right. 20 years would be a 3% loss rate. 10 years would be a 6% loss rate.

 

BSA has already alienated their core base. And they will never be satisfied with stopping the decline, they will want to increase membership. BSA equates the two together. They think increasing membership is the way to stop the decline, yet nothing they've done has been successful. Frankly, I don't see them doing either (stopping decline or increasing).

[Eagledad]

As has been said before, history does not favor a more inclusive policy to increase membership.

 

I know it appears a contradiction, but moving the Tigers (and Lions) out of the Cub program would be a step in the right direction.

 

Barry

[NJCubScouter]

In a multitude of scouters, there is chaos.

I've heard venturering commissioners suggest Boy-Scouts (and possible a co-ed version of the same) be age 10.5-13, and Venturing be 14-20. If you've only seen troops where older boys don't invest much time in younger boys, I guess that makes sense. But, in spite of potential grumblings, most of our older scouts interact with the younger ones. So, as far as I'm concerned that's a non-starter.

 

Just so it's clear, that is not what I was suggesting and I don't support that.  I think the age range of Boy Scouts should stay where it is.  In our troop, most of the older Scouts have been pretty good about working with the younger Scouts. Most, not all, but I think that's about the best you can expect.

Edited March 9, 2017 by NJCubScouter

[qwazse]

Just so it's clear, that is not what I was suggesting and I don't support that.  I think the age range of Boy Scouts should stay where it is.

Understood.

 

My point is, I have heard volunteers at area and regional levels putting forth ideas, and they are all over the map. Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of scouts and volunteers like the way things are.

 

Even the expansion of Eagle to other BSA organizations who happen to hike and camp and sometimes use the patrol method gets no traction.

 

Heck, it's a small miracle that the image of an Eagle was kept on Venturing's Summit award. http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2014/05/23/leave-your-feedback-on-these-venturing-award-prototypes/ Some of the links to proposals https://www.sageventure.com/venturing/VenturingAwardsDesigns.htmlhave expired, but this is as close as we've come to crowd-sourced development. Some folks, at the time - myself included, felt inclined to respect venturer's desire to be distinct. Others wanted more continuity. But, at least we felt that our views were respected. My crew? Having no interest in bling, they felt it all was a tremendous waste of time.

 

I suspect our best program revisions will come about when every active member has a secure line to an otherwise open discussion and is incentivized to up- or down- vote proposals in a way that we'd know how many parents vs. scouters vs. scouts, etc ... favor one thing or the other.

 

That's a long way off.

[MattR]

As long as we're making proposals...

 

Let's not have a top down, troop method decision. How about let councils that feel strongly about something make a proposal, get approval, and try things out for 10 years to see what happens. Do you want to simplify merit badges and reduce class time? Great, make a proposal, figure out a way to gauge the results, and report back in a few years. Do you want coed? Fine, let us know how it works. Do you want to ditch FCFY? Increase service hours? Reduce or change the Eagle required MBs? Revamp adult training? Add a theology MB? Require that a scout take his patrol on a campout, without adults, as a First Class requirement? Do you want to reduce cub scouts to 4 years?

 

Let's see what works where. It's about the scouts but we also have to trust the adults. I would be all for letting anyone here that has a passion for scouting be able to try something out.

 

Who knows. Maybe we'll find out that coed works fine in some places and is just a huge waste in others, or that an all girls troop is the way to go (and the GSUSA is forced to fix their program )

[NJCubScouter]

As long as we're making proposals...

 

Let's not have a top down, troop method decision. How about let councils that feel strongly about something make a proposal, get approval, and try things out for 10 years to see what happens. Do you want to simplify merit badges and reduce class time? Great, make a proposal, figure out a way to gauge the results, and report back in a few years. Do you want coed? Fine, let us know how it works. Do you want to ditch FCFY? Increase service hours? Reduce or change the Eagle required MBs? Revamp adult training? Add a theology MB? Require that a scout take his patrol on a campout, without adults, as a First Class requirement? Do you want to reduce cub scouts to 4 years?

 

Let's see what works where. It's about the scouts but we also have to trust the adults. I would be all for letting anyone here that has a passion for scouting be able to try something out.

 

Who knows. Maybe we'll find out that coed works fine in some places and is just a huge waste in others, or that an all girls troop is the way to go (and the GSUSA is forced to fix their program )

 

Is this satirical, or do you really think each council should be able to change the advancement requirements?  And add merit badges?

 

And while we're adding merit badges, apropos of the other thread, maybe some council would like to add the Bartending Merit Badge.  

[Pale Horse]

 

And while we're adding merit badges, apropos of the other thread, maybe some council would like to add the Bartending Merit Badge.  

 

Finally! An area that I am qualified to be a Merit Badge Counselor in.

[MattR]

Is this satirical, or do you really think each council should be able to change the advancement requirements?  And add merit badges?

 

And while we're adding merit badges, apropos of the other thread, maybe some council would like to add the Bartending Merit Badge.  

What I said was let councils experiment and find out what really works. I did not say any council can make up any rules they want. If you think you have a good reason for bartending MB then make a proposal to national. Let me know how it turns out.

 

Or, everyone can keep arguing. That certainly changes a lot of people's minds, at least on this forum.

 

I'll leave it up to you to decide what is and is not sarcasm.

[Stosh]

Gee, if they ever get a Wine Making MB, I'm all set.  I have all the equipment and my wife just received a book in the mail today that is titled: "101 Recipes for making Wild Wines At Home" by John Peragine.  Of course Rubarb Wine, Brussle Sprouts/Raisin Wine, Carrot Wine, Corn Wine, Cuccumber Wine are in there, but so is Chili Wine (my daughter makes a great chili jam, too!)  For the older boys there's the herb wines, but for High Adventure there's Clover and Dandelion Wines, Honeysuckle, Nettle Wines, and Cat Tail Wine.  They go well with the Plantain, Dandelion Greens, Wild Onion, Purslaine and other Forage Salads.