Breaking Point

[Eagle94-A1]

6 hours ago, FormerProfessional said:

There is a reason for this...

A National Council employee, the current associate director of volunteer training for National BSA, never was a Cub or Boy Scout as a youth. This person doesn’t have sons, never had children in the program. Before their National Council position they served as a Learning for Life Executive and promoted to Field Director in charge of traditional units (Packs, Troops, and Crews)

So, the second in charge of training at National was never in Boy Scouting as a youth or adult volunteer and was not a traditional unit serving executive.

 

1) WELCOME TO THE FORUMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2)  Why does this not surprise me. I bewt she went straight from college to being a LfL exec too.

 

I think the reason why BP and Green baer Bill were so successful is that they based their training programs on their personal experiences as youth growing up. They further experimented with their programs as adults before implementing, i.e. Brownsea island for BP, Troop 1 Schiff for Bill. Classes and theory  can only take you so far. You have to LIVE IT to experience it.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Eagle94-A1

[Eagle94-A1]

8 hours ago, Chris1 said:

There is no such thing as the "end all be all training course" in Scouting. The older course was good, but just had a DIFFERENT focus. Neither was perfect. 

Well, Wood Badge was described as the "Mountaintop Experience" and promoted as the completion of training back in the day in my home council. Once you went through the weeklong course and were working your ticket, you usually staffed all the other training programs. Heck the only reason why I was able to staff the Junior Leader Training Conference as a 20 year old Scouter was because I went through the old Brownsea 22 Course for Scouts, and had the same training foundation as the other Scouters who were working their ticket, or complete WB.

While the previous Cub Scout Trainer and Boy Scouter Courses were not perfect, from my experiences having Scouters in my troop who went through the older course, and dealing with both Boy Scouters and Cub Scouters who went through the two courses, if you compare them to the folks who go through today's course, the older course produced better Scouters who could work with their scouts and provide an outstanding program. And from talking to folks who have staffed both courses and have professional experience as trainers, they also said the older courses better served our youth.

[an_old_DC]

Regarding a breaking point, it is all adding up quickly for me. Scouts BSA announcement, Councils turning a blind eye to a lack of female leaders in packs, professionals pretending early adopter packs are not running co-ed dens, professionals ignoring conversations right in front of them about troops planning to run co-ed, and now the OA membership eligibility changes.

I am not anti-girls. I have had young women in my crew for almost 12 years, including trips to Philmont, but this is all starting to be too much.

 

[Gwaihir]

2 minutes ago, an_old_DC said:

Regarding a breaking point, it is all adding up quickly for me. Scouts BSA announcement, Councils turning a blind eye to a lack of female leaders in packs, professionals pretending early adopter packs are not running co-ed dens, professionals ignoring conversations right in front of them about troops planning to run co-ed, and now the OA membership eligibility changes.

I am not anti-girls. I have had young women in my crew for almost 12 years, including trips to Philmont, but this is all starting to be too much.

 

Someone at national turned the burner up too fast on the frog... I think you're going to see a lot of leaping where just the inclusion of girls would have weathered most of the storm. 

[Tampa Turtle]

10 hours ago, MattR said:

I talked to a guy in town that took wb from Hillcourt. Each patrol made and led games that taught outdoor skills. That was the program - fun with a purpose. That would have been a great course.

Sue Nunn's Scoutmaster MB course at Woodruff SR was like that. 

[an_old_DC]

I am not an LDS Scouter but their timing is starting to look pretty good to me.

[Gwaihir]

I remember hearing something at membership meeting this year, about how national crunched the numbers and in their decision to reach changing demographics and single-mother house holds, they threw this factoid in there, that they can always count on former boy scouts and eagle scouts to be members.  It feels like these decisions were all made under the assumption that Boy scout and eagle scout alum would sign their families up regardless of what they did to change the program.  Now, I have no more to go on except that little blurb, but it certainly seems to me that the dropping of all traditions and history in lieu of a completely new scouting would seem to mesh with this theory. 

[FireStone]

10 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

...they can always count on former boy scouts and eagle scouts to be members.  It feels like these decisions were all made under the assumption that Boy scout and eagle scout alum would sign their families up regardless of what they did to change the program.  Now, I have no more to go on except that little blurb, but it certainly seems to me that the dropping of all traditions and history in lieu of a completely new scouting would seem to mesh with this theory. 

 

I have a hard time believeing that they really felt that way. When the BSA still banned gay scouts and units were actively kicking out gay kids or blocking Eagle applications for gay scouts, many Eagle Scouts (myself included) were appalled and vowed never to rejoin the BSA while that policy stood. Some Eagle Scouts returned their medals to National during that time. 

I would think that that was a clear indication that no group is guaranteed to support whatever National does in terms of membership policy changes. 

Edited May 23, 2018 by FireStone

[qwazse]

33 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

Someone at national turned the burner up too fast on the frog... I think you're going to see a lot of leaping where just the inclusion of girls would have weathered most of the storm. 

I definitely agree about the timing. I felt 2020 to be a more sensible roll-out year. That would let BSA to assign 10,000 scouts the challenge of interviewing scouts from around the world (including Saudi and Pakistan) and learning something about how things are done in different WOSM organizations.

I think some of the rush did have to do with not wanting to look like hosts with something to learn from their guests.

[Gwaihir]

1 minute ago, qwazse said:

 

I think some of the rush did have to do with not wanting to look like hosts with something to learn from their guests.

that's a shame, shouldn't we always be in a position to have something to learn?  And conversely, who's to say we couldn't put ourselves in a position to teach the guests something about how we do things. 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Gwaihir

[Gwaihir]

7 minutes ago, FireStone said:

I have a hard time believeing that they really felt that way. When the BSA still banned gay scouts and units were actively kicking out gay kids or blocking Eagle applications for gay scouts, many Eagle Scouts (myself included) were appalled and vowed never to rejoin the BSA while that policy stood. Some Eagle Scouts returned their medals to National during that time. 

I would think that that was a clear indication that no group is guaranteed to support whatever National does in terms of membership policy changes. 

Perhaps, but that's what was said. 

[FormerProfessional]

It’s unspoken but yes there is a belief those that “drank the kool aid of Scouting” will always be paid members and give an annual FOS donation even if they arent active. Same goes for enrolling their future children.

[an_old_DC]

I was just called a "conditional Scouter" by a council professional for expressing my displeasure about girls in OA. 🤢 I guess being an adult volunteer for 15 years and helping 49 Scouts earn the rank of Eagle Scout, being OA Chapter Advisor, taking Venturers and Boy Scouts to Philmont 4 times, and having held key district committee positions several times doesn't count for much. Oh yeah, my dad's an Eagle Scout, I am too, and so are both my sons. But somehow I am not "committed."

Edited May 23, 2018 by an_old_DC

[David CO]

1 hour ago, FormerProfessional said:

It’s unspoken but yes there is a belief those that “drank the kool aid of Scouting” will always be paid members and give an annual FOS donation even if they arent active. Same goes for enrolling their future children.

It is best left unspoken. BSA is a youth organization. It is not a cult.

 

[Jameson76]

2 hours ago, Gwaihir said:

I remember hearing something at membership meeting this year, about how national crunched the numbers and in their decision to reach changing demographics and single-mother house holds, they threw this factoid in there, that they can always count on former boy scouts and eagle scouts to be members.  It feels like these decisions were all made under the assumption that Boy scout and eagle scout alum would sign their families up regardless of what they did to change the program.  Now, I have no more to go on except that little blurb, but it certainly seems to me that the dropping of all traditions and history in lieu of a completely new scouting would seem to mesh with this theory. 

Revamping and assuming all the current folks / participants would stay worked really well for ISP the "Improved Scouting Program" in 1973