Survey on girls just received

[cyclops]

Funny. Because this survey I took is different than the one one that came with a video from the CA-based councils. In fact there was no video linked or mentioned. Also the questions were VERY different and quite specific, offering more options. I have seen so far four different surveys all with different questions and very differently worded. So why would BSA do that? The one reason that sticks out is to engineer an answer they want.

 

Same experience here.

[Stosh]

I really hope for the survival of whatever program emerges, the vote is overwhelming.  If the vote is close, losing half the trained leadership all at once could be a real problem.  

[Eagle94-A1]

Anyone have any data on past survey outcomes that contradicted the eventual path the BSA took on membership policy issues? I keep reading about this "ignore what the majority wants" idea but I've personally not seen the data to support this. Just wondering if the data is out there to view somewhere. 

 

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.

[Col. Flagg]

I really hope for the survival of whatever program emerges, the vote is overwhelming.  If the vote is close, losing half the trained leadership all at once could be a real problem.  

 

I'm not holding my breath @@Stosh. My district split several years ago. Great district. Lots of volunteers but still went often with many open positions. Someone came up with the idea to split the district. There was a survey and 90% of folks were against it because if we can't fully staff one large district, how can we staff two smaller districts? They split anyway...and have spent the last five years reeling from the impact and continue to struggle wildly in staffing both districts.

 

Go figure.

[Stosh]

I thought the Palms issue was well done.  I only heard about it here on the forum a week before it was implemented.  I guess I missed the memo about the survey.....  and the video..... and the training session.... and the discussion..... 

 

Well, it was kinda the same for the homosexual youth......

 

And the homosexual adult leadership.....

 

Come to think of it, they've been riding this slippery slope of non-information for a long time now..... or didn't you get the memo on that?

[EmberMike]

The results published by national prior to the 2013 and 2015 policy changes are two sources. Should be able to find them using google. They've been posted in this forum in the recent past.

 

Thanks, I did eventually find them. Took some creative googling, but once I found the full title of the survey I was able to pull it up. 

 

It does indeed indicate that BSA ignores survey responses from existing members when making policy changes. It seems they followed the survey advice from the combined group of members and non-members in how the policy change turned out. 

 

I don't get why they do this then. What's the point? Is it just to create the illusion of having a voice in the organization? Clearly they're going to make decisions based on how they perceive it to affect future membership. They did exactly that in the previous policy changes, going along with the non-member viewpoint, presumably to cater to non-member families and give them incentive to join. 

 

Ultimately I'm happy with how these changes turned out. I supported these changes. But the way the BSA handles these surveys is disturbing. The Eagle Palms one, there wouldn't even be any outside perspective to weigh in on that, and no membership incentive to capitalize on. So how could they go against the survey respondents on that one? 

 

The gay membership survey was at least close. And it did indicate a shift towards a more progressive viewpoint on the issue. So I can kind of see how National would go rogue and do something with a more long-term goal in mind. But then I ask myself again, what's the point of surveys then if they're still going to make these decisions internally?  Just do it then, don't even bother with the surveys. Tell us they're making decisions that they feel are in the best interest of the organization, and we can either take it or leave it. Don't treat us like fools and pretend that our opinions really matter at all. 

[walk in the woods]

I attended my council's meeting this weekend and am supposed to get the survey as a result of my attendance but haven't seen it yet.  One gentleman, during the Q&A asked about timing.  The Pro in the room said all the presentations were supposed to be done by next week, survey results tabulated and delivered to the National Board.  He wasn't sure if they'd get the results for their October or February meetings.  

[JasonG172]

For anyone taking the survey without having watched the video AND participated in a council-level discussion, please keep in mind that you are missing a LOT of the context.

Correct, we are having a Council Level discussion this week regarding the matter.

[Stosh]

The video, discussion and survey were not provided in our council, so I'll keep it in mind that when it comes to this topic I'm missing a lot more than just a lot of the content.  If ignorance is bliss, then National must think I'm ecstatic about this whole thing. 

[Scourge]

It's really about time.  It's not as if this potential change will be the ruin of BSA.  There is no changing Girl Scouts, all it ever will be is gluing popsicle sticks and cookie selling.  I find it odd that only the United States and Iran can't handle co-ed scouting programs.  I don't see how this shift can kill the BSA, yes things would be different but in a good way.  The majority of Boy Scouts now have no motivation to lead or go on high adventures.  The boys that do go to Venturing.  Boy Scouts also have no idea how to act around girls.  This would be an opportunity for them to finally learn that it isn't that hard. 

[Gwaihir]

It's really about time.  It's not as if this potential change will be the ruin of BSA.  There is no changing Girl Scouts, all it ever will be is gluing popsicle sticks and cookie selling.  I find it odd that only the United States and Iran can't handle co-ed scouting programs.  I don't see how this shift can kill the BSA, yes things would be different but in a good way.  The majority of Boy Scouts now have no motivation to lead or go on high adventures.  The boys that do go to Venturing.  Boy Scouts also have no idea how to act around girls.  This would be an opportunity for them to finally learn that it isn't that hard. 

 

Iran can't "handle" co-ed scouting because they have systems in place specifically designed around the concept of an inferior sex.  In the US, Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts being single gendered plays towards being dedicated to the development of boys, which studies show, both genders learn, grow and develop better in same-sex environments.  Please stop with straw men.  They burn fast and you end up leaving a trace... 

 

As far as "Boy Scouts also have no idea how to act around girls"... kind, courteous, cheerful... these seem like pretty good guidelines.  They also have plenty of interaction with the opposite sex in their daily walks of life.  This is again, a straw man.  I was a Cub and Boy Scout, earned AOL and Eagle Scout... I've had several relationships before finding the one, got married to her, and have several children... kind, courteous and cheerful worked well for me. 

Edited August 7, 2017 by Gwaihir

[Col. Flagg]

It's really about time.  It's not as if this potential change will be the ruin of BSA.  There is no changing Girl Scouts, all it ever will be is gluing popsicle sticks and cookie selling.  I find it odd that only the United States and Iran can't handle co-ed scouting programs.  I don't see how this shift can kill the BSA, yes things would be different but in a good way.  The majority of Boy Scouts now have no motivation to lead or go on high adventures.  The boys that do go to Venturing.  Boy Scouts also have no idea how to act around girls.  This would be an opportunity for them to finally learn that it isn't that hard. 

 

It is not just about coed Scouting. That's a straw man. For people opposed to what BSA is doing, the real issue is about allowing BSA to maintain Boy Scouts as a single sex program instead of dismantling the program on the alter of social justice. It's not about guys not wanting to integrate with girls, it's about having a place where guys can elect to be part of a single-sex program. Girls already have the choice, they can join GSUSA or Venturing. Guys won't have that choice if BSA opens Boy Scouts to girls.

 

Many people who are opposed to girls in Boy Scouting *do* support girls in Scouting, just not in Boy Scouts. Open Venturing to 11-21 year olds, fine. Boy Scouts is a VERY different program from Venturing. Give the boys the choice if they want Venturing or Boy Scouting. 

 

Why should girls get an option but boys don't?

[Fehler]

Isn't Trail Life a choice?  The BSA is far from the only single-sex scouting program.

[Col. Flagg]

Isn't Trail Life a choice?  The BSA is far from the only single-sex scouting program.

 

Why should we always ask our CURRENT members to turn the other cheek and look elsewhere for something that they are ALREADY involved in?

 

Why can't the non-members who already have options use those options available to them?

 

To paraphrase Captain Picard, "I will not sacrifice Boy Scouting. We've made too many compromises already, too many retreats. They invade our space, and we fall back. They assimilate entire genders, and we fall back. Not again! The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!"

[Eagledad]

It's really about time.  It's not as if this potential change will be the ruin of BSA.  There is no changing Girl Scouts, all it ever will be is gluing popsicle sticks and cookie selling.  I find it odd that only the United States and Iran can't handle co-ed scouting programs.  I don't see how this shift can kill the BSA, yes things would be different but in a good way.  The majority of Boy Scouts now have no motivation to lead or go on high adventures.  The boys that do go to Venturing.  Boy Scouts also have no idea how to act around girls.  This would be an opportunity for them to finally learn that it isn't that hard. 

The whole post feels of emotional ramblings, but since Scourge implies boys without girls in the scouting program don't know how to act around girls, what about the boys who aren't in scouting? And, if boys don't know how to act without girls in the scouting program, what about the girls in the girls scouts? 

 

Seems we have solved most of the worlds problems simply by the BSA taking the girls from the GUSA.

 

Will these same people hound the GUSA with the same reasoning?

 

Barry