Just got word....

[Col. Flagg]

When was the last BSA went to these lengths to appear to be gathering information and not act on it?

 

Since 2013 I cannot recall a single issue they've left on the table.

[NJCubScouter]

When was the last BSA went to these lengths to appear to be gathering information and not act on it?

 

Since 2013 I cannot recall a single issue they've left on the table.

 

I'm not saying they won't act on it.  They probably will.  But we really do not know the scope and details of what they may do.  National has floated trial balloons before and the actions taken have not always been what was expected.

 

And my main point was really that nothing has happened yet.

 

As for leaving issues on the table, one could argue that the issue of belief in God has been left on the table.  There was a lot of talk for awhile, but if anything the BSA seems more determined than ever not to change that policy.  And if you had told me 10 years ago that there would be female Cub Scouts and parallel-Boy-Scouts while non-believers were still excluded, I would have said you were crazy.  But here we are.

[Col. Flagg]

I'm not saying they won't act on it.  They probably will.  But we really do not know the scope and details of what they may do.  National has floated trial balloons before and the actions taken have not always been what was expected.

 

And my main point was really that nothing has happened yet.

 

As for leaving issues on the table, one could argue that the issue of belief in God has been left on the table.  There was a lot of talk for awhile, but if anything the BSA seems more determined than ever not to change that policy.  And if you had told me 10 years ago that there would be female Cub Scouts and parallel-Boy-Scouts while non-believers were still excluded, I would have said you were crazy.  But here we are.

Again...when was the last time BSA went on a massive data collection effort and didn't act on something? They never went this deep of religious issues; only on the gay issue...and they went opposite of the majority.

 

If you believe nothing has happened yet, there's a bridge near your I'd like you to buy off me. They have this all planned out. And by that I mean making things coed. I by no means think they have anything well planned. But the powers at BSA have made up their mind already.

[fred johnson]

My sad perspective is this was started a long long time ago.  The precursors of this really happened when women became scoutmasters and Boy Scout camps started to be staffed with a large percent of female staff.  IMHO, this is just the natural continuation of those actions.  

 

Not bad or good.  Just what it is.  

[RememberSchiff]

My sad perspective is this was started a long long time ago.  The precursors of this really happened when women became scoutmasters and Boy Scout camps started to be staffed with a large percent of female staff.  IMHO, this is just the natural continuation of those actions.  

 

Not bad or good.  Just what it is.  

 

BSA history in the last 50 years has many examples of  one exception being made which lead  to more down the road. Sometimes the down the road reasons are fairness, sometimes to increase membership, and sometimes to mitigate legal problems.

[Eagledad]

My sad perspective is this was started a long long time ago.  The precursors of this really happened when women became scoutmasters and Boy Scout camps started to be staffed with a large percent of female staff.  IMHO, this is just the natural continuation of those actions.  

 

Not bad or good.  Just what it is.  

Makes sense. There was also a rumor about 20 years ago that National planned to end the troop program at age 14, thus forcing scouts who wanted to continue scouting into Venturing. Going coed would make that an easier policy change.

 

Barry

[NJCubScouter]

Makes sense. There was also a rumor about 20 years ago that National planned to end the troop program at age 14, thus forcing scouts who wanted to continue scouting into Venturing. Going coed would make that an easier policy change.

 

There was also a rumor about 45 years ago, when I was a Scout, that the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts were merging (there is probably a better way to phrase that) and that is why the uniforms were now being sold with the strip over the pocket that said "Scouts BSA" instead of "Boy Scouts of America."  There are always rumors.

[Eagledad]

There was also a rumor about 45 years ago, when I was a Scout, that the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts were merging (there is probably a better way to phrase that) and that is why the uniforms were now being sold with the strip over the pocket that said "Scouts BSA" instead of "Boy Scouts of America."  There are always rumors.

The rumor was fueled not to long after National implemented the New Scout Patrol and Venture Patrol. The NSP starts troops in the direction of segregated age based patrols on a natural easy path of moving to aged based programs like Venture Patrols or even Venturing Crews. I once ask a professional about the rumor and his response was he had not heard that, but it could easily be one of a flurry of ideas thrown out at National.  If I were to guess why the program hasn't gone that direction (if National were truly thinking of going that path), it would because 2/3 of newly created Venturing crews fail in their first five years. Simple economics. 

 

Barry

[walk in the woods]

I know for a fact this will hit my troop faster. We have two scout mom's with Webelo age girls who would make good scouts, hate GSUSA, and already want to join 'Real Scouts'. 

Sorry, two girls isn't enough to form a separate troop.  You'll have to turn them away.  

[Eagle94-A1]

The rumor was fueled not to long after National implemented the New Scout Patrol and Venture Patrol. The NSP starts troops in the direction of segregated age based patrols on a natural easy path of moving to aged based programs like Venture Patrols or even Venturing Crews. I once ask a professional about the rumor and his response was he had not heard that, but it could easily be one of a flurry of ideas thrown out at National.  If I were to guess why the program hasn't gone that direction (if National were truly thinking of going that path), it would because 2/3 of newly created Venturing crews fail in their first five years. Simple economics. 

 

Barry

 

 

My understanding was that the NSP concept was based upon research that showed Scouts who earned First Class in a year stay with the program. My argument against this was this: what does the data show about how active the troop is? I asked it in 1989 and continue to ask it, but get no response. However the more I read and hear about the LDS program and their 11 Year Old Boy Scout program, and how it is identical to the NSP concept, It is a logical assumption that LDS Scouts influenced the data back in the 1980s and National used their model for the NSP concept.

 

The issue therefore with the data supporting First Class First Year and the NSP concept is flawed. One reason it's flawed is that LDS requires their youth to be Scouts. Another reason for the flaw is that LDS units have set plan that they repeat over and over with an adult in charge. Essentially Webelos 3 IMHO.

 

As to the concept of the venture crew, now called venture patrol, the problem of how to keep older Scouts involved has been around since at least 1929 when Scouting Magazine published an article on this topic. And it's probably earlier. BSA over the years have tried a variety of things to keep them involved; Sea Scouts, Explorers, Air Explorers, Leadership Corps, Venture Crew/Patrol, and Venturing. My troop growing up used the Leadership Corps and operated the venture crew in the same matter. It was  only 1999 when the confusion between Venture Crew/patrol and Venturing was explained to the troop ( this was after several of the guys attempted to receive their Bronze Awards) that the venture patrol turned into a Venturing crew.

 

Sorry for the rant on NSPs, but they are a pet peeve of mine. I am assuming my troop was one of the "pilot troops" that experimented with the NSP concept in a traditional, boy-led troop back in 1986. It didn't work then, and has not worked in every troop that I've been in that tried it. Unless the patrol turned into Webelos 3. My current troop was initially a NSP since it was restarted.  Unfortunately the SM and ASM at the time did a lot more for them that they should have IMHO. They are not use to being responsible and taking charge. And now we have new Scouters in the troop that are placing adult expectation on Boy Scouts who have just gotten rid of the yoke of adult control.

 

And I am constantly arguing for the continuation of the current, mixed aged patrols. We have one Scouter, yes Gunship for those in the know, who is constantly telling the adults in the troop that we are doing it wrong since the book says we need to have 3 types of patrols. I keep reminding him that A) that concept has only been around since 1989 B) It has not worked in any troop that I've been in including ours C) In order for NSPs to work, we need to treat them like Cub Scouts still, which hurts them in the long run, and D) issues we have had when we did the 3 different types of patrols are no longer happening and adults are not getting involved, except the helicopter parents we are trying to break in.

[blw2]

I posted this in another thread but it relates to this one....  I don't know how to link them.

reading Stosh's post about "it has been decided"

and thinking about the thing I mentioned in my first post here about my wife's conversation with the other moms

and how as many times as I've tried to brainstorm with her....

and also discuss how this could be good for our son....

and how the whole patrol method boy led thing works, giving them freedom to learn, fail, grow, and lead

and how after all the hundreds of times I've made that point in many different ways....

but she never heard it.

 

yep, I'm officially singing a different tune now.....family scouting is going to be just what these guys need.....not so much....

[Ankylus]

I have never understood what y'all are calling NSP, or age-based patrols. So, we have a patrol of 11 years olds and one of them is going to be PL. How can you not expect that to be a dysfunctional patrol? Similarly, a whole patrol of 16 or 17 year old scouts? Why not spread them out to leverage their experience and maturity? 

 

As for the statistics regarding making First Class in a year, what does age-based patrols have to do with that? We have a separate program we call First Class Emphasis for the sole purpose of getting the boys to First Class within a year. Doesn't always happen, but that's the goal. But you can establish such a program outside NSP.

 

So perhaps those rumors were correct.

[NJCubScouter]

So, we have a patrol of 11 years olds and one of them is going to be PL. How can you not expect that to be a dysfunctional patrol?

Well, in theory at least, that patrol of 11 year olds has a Troop Guide (an older Scout, ideally a former PL), providing the PL and other NSP members with, well, guidance on how to operate as a patrol. There also is supposed to be an ASM specifically appointed to watch over the NSP.

 

Does it work? Sometimes. Personally I am on the side of assigning the new Scouts to "regular" patrols, but I have seen it work (and not work) either way.

Edited August 16, 2017 by NJCubScouter

[Stosh]

I use the layered age patrols.

 

NSP - PL from either the new scouts or an older scout, TG, to assist, Instructors, older boys needing POR doing ad hoc teachings, so they get plenty of interaction with older scouts.  Once they don't need the training wheels anymore they can do what they wish, go into regular patrol or join the older boys in High Adventure.  Makes no never mind to me.  Generally they like to stay together so they become just another regular patrol, generally of the same age because that's what their buddies are.  These other patrols provide the leadership because they are the ones needing higher rank POR's.  Once they get up around 14-15, then they are  challenged tor HA, and focus their attention on that process along with Eagle projects. 

 

I like the ranked patrols because the new guys can focus on FC, the middle groupings of patrols (majority) help out with the new boys, and the older boys can focus on their interest, HA.  If the ages, interests and friendships are spread out over multiple patrols, I found it difficult to keep the patrol intact for activities.  Before that, I found that 1 or two boys from every patrol went on HA, leaving the rest of their patrol behind, going off with an ad hoc patrol for the HA event.  Long term planning for HA took those boys out of their regular patrols on a regular basis.

 

I got  it to work, but not everyone is the same.  I hear a lot about mixed patrols and it works for them.  I have no problem with it.  My approach works for me, the patrols stay intact and my boys like it.  They are free to go to any patrol they get invited to and because of interest, age and friendships, they tend not to mix.  I've had at least 1 venture patrol when I had older boys.  They didn't call it that, but that's how they functioned.

[Col. Flagg]

Well, in theory at least, that patrol of 11 year olds has a Troop Guide (an older Scout, ideally a former PL), providing the PL and other NSP members with, well, guidance on how to operate as a patrol. There also is supposed to be an ASM specifically appointed to watch over the NSP.Does it work? Sometimes. Personally I am on the side of assigning the new Scouts to "regular" patrols, but I have seen it work (and not work) either way.

In theory.

 

In practice where I live an ASM runs the patrol like a Weblos den.