Woodbadge for Me

[David CO]

I don't want to see the data.  My moral values don't change with the poll numbers.

[CynicalScouter]

4 minutes ago, David CO said:

I don't want to see the data.  My moral values don't change with the poll numbers.

Refusal to allow girls into scouting is a "moral values" issue?

Refusal to allow homosexuals into scouting is a "moral values" issue?

Refusal to stop, address, or report sexual abuse in scouting is a "moral values" issue?

If so, and if they are simply things you will never, ever accept, then don't be shocked when BSA membership numbers collapse.

 

Edited October 18, 2020 by CynicalScouter

[TAHAWK]

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Note the contradiction here.

The girls membership policy no negative influence on membership...but was changed to increase membership.

Wha?

I think we need to just realize that some Scouters will never, ever listen a a female and/or anyone who isn't part of their old, antiquated, and dying system.

When Wood Badge became primarily about "leadership," I was told it was the end.

When female commissioned Scouters arrived, I was told it was the end.

When Wood Badge for the 21st Century arrived, I was told it was the end.

Those were merely changes, although not all change is for the better, as those familiar with the history of Poland can attest.

I see other changes as more critical.  Scouting flourished when it was about patrols, outdoors, service,  and conservation.  My old troop, operated on that basis, flourished until the Scoutmaster retired ten years ago.  That Scouting was generally gone  in the vast majority of  units by 1980 and increasingly gone thereafter, and if BSA did not cause it, it did little to nothing to stop it.   For one  example, magatrends  did not stop BSA from  emphasizing recognition of  individuals, units, and councils  that emphasized patrols, outdoors, service,  and conservation.   Many more examples could be cited.  

BSA did, by behavior, do a great deal to stop sexual abuse over time during the last forty years.  The suggestion that they did not defies reality.   That more should have been done in the previous seventy years is a valid criticism.

For those that see Scouting as "old, antiquated, and dying,"  likely  never actually experiencing it, what do you propose instead?   

 

 

 

 

 

[CynicalScouter]

2 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

Scouting flourished when it was about patrols, outdoors, service,  and conservation

It also flourished at a time when American looked much different in terms of its respect for and interest in Boy Scouts (circa 1960s-1980s).

Programming changed. So did people's perceptions of BSA.

How much of the decline in scouting membership is due to a failure to adhere to the "pure" Scouting of the 1920s or 1960s?

How much of the decline in scouting membership is due to a failure of BSA to address (until recently) abuse?

How much of the decline in scouting membership is due to a failure of BSA to allow girls?

How much of the decline in scouting membership is due to BSA's decision to fight allowing homosexuals in (all the way to SCOTUS)?

[TAHAWK]

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Refusal to allow girls into scouting is a "moral values" issue?

Refusal to allow homosexuals into scouting is a "moral values" issue?

If so, and if they are simply things you will never, ever accept, then don't be shocked when BSA membership numbers collapse.

 

BSA numbers collapsed in the early 1970's when the typical parent abhorred homosexuality, and have spiraled down for decades.  1970's trial lawyers with homosexual clients, were wise to take special courses on how to deal with overwhelming juror prejudice.  If it is foolish to reqard the past as immutable, and it doubtless is, it is equally foolish to regard the present as either inevitable, much less the best of all possible worlds.  For better or worse, it merely is what it is.  Opinions, of course, differ.  

[Eagledad]

37 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

 

So, cough up the "trends and program reviews". Produce your data showing that I'm wrong and that the failure to recruit and retain is entirely because of BSA's refusal to go with your "Back to the Future" 1927-or-bust plan.

I think not. I did all the heavy lifting of acquiring data until about 12 years ago and used our research results to fix programs. We didn’t have a grudge we were trying to support, we were just trying to make the program better.

It’s your theory, go find your support. There is plenty of National data if you are so inclined. I don’t think you can tho, your theory that girls and gays are the reason membership declined over the years is pretty out there. I interviewed and exit interviewed a lot of parents and scouts and compared that data with other people across the country. Gays, god and girls never came up. Maybe because families that would be so offended to quit would never join in the first place. We had several atheist parents in our units and several gay families in the district who joined and seem to enjoy the program.

trust me that a lot folks are also watching resent membership data very close after gays were admitted. Like you, folks want to prove their personal theories. But since the Mormons pulled out following the membership change, trends are a mess and convoluted. Now add girls. Well Good luck.

The trends we researched are still valid, but they are internal program issues. Stuff that doesn’t interest you.

Barry

[CynicalScouter]

3 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

I think not.

Because that data doesn't exist. Got it.

3 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Maybe because families that would be so offended to quit would never join in the first place.

Which was (part) of my point. Membership collapsed for several reasons. I believe social issues was a portion and I believe today is a very, very large portion why people don't even show up at the door (that and the abuse scandal).

Failing to address that and instead embracing a "Make Scouting Great Again"/Back the Future approach circa 1960 is not going to get you where you think it is.

Edited October 18, 2020 by CynicalScouter

[TAHAWK]

28 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

It also flourished at a time when American looked much different in terms of its respect for and interest in Boy Scouts (circa 1960s-1980s).

Programming changed. So did people's perceptions of BSA.

How much of the decline in scouting membership is due to a failure to adhere to the "pure" Scouting of the 1920s or 1960s?

How much of the decline in scouting membership is due to a failure of BSA to address (until recently) abuse?

How much of the decline in scouting membership is due to a failure of BSA to allow girls?

How much of the decline in scouting membership is due to BSA's decision to fight allowing homosexuals in (all the way to SCOTUS)?

 I have reached no opinions on your questions.  That is due to a lack of evidence that I  have actually reviewed  vs. "feelings."  People can reach different conclusions on the same data but opinions supported only by "feelings" or faith do not carry much weight with me, except as possible proof of sincerity.

Forty years does not seem "recent" to me.   Many  posting here were not alive in 1980.    I recall the reaction to the "No one-on-one" rule at roundtable.

As Scouting flourished under a Congressional charter that restricted it to "boys," as Girl Scouting flourished bereft of boys,  I await evidence that female Scouts added to BSA  is a key to BSA serving significantly more youth. I hope it is.   As I have served with coed Venturing and Scout units and taught coed history classes at university, it seems quite normal to me.  But that's me.   Coeducational scouting has not proved a panacea for membership in Canada.  A peak was hit in Canada in the 1960s, it became "Scouts Canada" in 1976, and membership has continued to decline.  

 

Edited October 18, 2020 by TAHAWK

[CynicalScouter]

6 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

A peak was hit in Canada in the 1960s, it became "Scouts Canada" in 1976, and membership has continued to decline. 

Which leads me to believe this has nothing to do with programming and everything to do with BSA simply being a relic of a bygone era OR associated with a bygone era.

Running Back to the Future and trying to recreate that 1960s program (including no girls, no homosexuals, etc.) is not going to get you what you want.

Or maybe it is what you (or others) want? A smaller, but "pure" "Traditional" scouting experience.

Edited October 18, 2020 by CynicalScouter

[TAHAWK]

You may be correct.  BSA may be beyond redemption.  

I have never suggested recreating the 1960s program.  Like Girl Scouts then, it was heavy on chopping things down, for one thing.  My troop as a Scout was regarded as "strange" for minimizing open fires and using WW II "squad stoves" for cooking.  Not all change is bad.  Not all change is good.

As to what I "want,"  I have been fairly clear.  I "want" program that stresses the Patrol Method, Outdoor activities, conservation, and service.  If that does not restore relative membership, such a program still seems preferable - to me - to the focus almost solely on revenue to make payroll.  I have no objection to changes otherwise.  I helped convinced BSA to allow female participants in our NYLT course in 2010 -  a year early.  (They were all Staff the next year - superior leaders.) 

I again ask what you "want"?   The end of BSA?  The end of Scouting?  A wholly indoor program?  More like school?

 

 

Edited October 18, 2020 by TAHAWK

[RememberSchiff]

52 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Or maybe it is what you (or others) want? A smaller, but "pure" "Traditional" scouting experience.

 

43 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

I again ask what you "want"?   The end of BSA?  The end of Scouting?  A wholly indoor program?  More like school?

Good question. What do I/you want? The better parts of 1927, 1960, 2020? More scouts (outreach?) or better scouts (program)?

an old fogey nostalgic for the good old days

[Eagledad]

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Because that data doesn't exist. Got it.

We kept hundreds of scouts in the program with that Non-data.LOL

1 hour ago, CynicalScouter said:

Which was (part) of my point. Membership collapsed for several reasons. I believe social issues was a portion and I believe today is a very, very large portion why people don't even show up at the door (that and the abuse scandal).

Failing to address that and instead embracing a "Make Scouting Great Again"/Back the Future approach circa 1960 is not going to get you where you think it is.

That’s just a theory, you don’t even claim Data to support the theory.

I happen to know a few young  dads who were in scouts not considering it for their kids because it doesn’t look like the program of their youth just 20 years ago. I don’t know if that is any kind of trend, but it has to be considered.

Barry
 

[ParkMan]

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

For those who are advocating the "Back to the Future" program, here's the two data points I'd like to see (it may not exist, I get that).

Drop Outs

Market research (properly done) on parents/scouts who DROP OUT OF THE PROGRAM.

1) Causes for dropping out (and if they self-offer that they "just wish things were like it were back in 1927", great!)

2) Offered solutions: "If we adopted the practices we had in 1927 (and spell out what those practices are) would you have stayed in scouting (for the scouts)/put your scout back in scouting (parents)?"

Never Entered

Market research (properly done) on parents and youth who NEVER ENTERED THE PROGRAM.

1) What caused you to not want to join? And ask directly whether the Scout's policies on homosexuals, girls, and God made a difference (either positively or negatively)

2) What if we changed our program to what it was in 1927 (and spell out what those practices are) would you be interested in joining (youth) or putting your child in such a program (parents)?

This is a good concrete recommendation.  Yes - let's do some market research to determine why people drop out of the program or never join.

 

[Eagledad]

12 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

This is a good concrete recommendation.  Yes - let's do some market research to determine why people drop out of the program or never join.

 

Will you believe it? I give the results of our research of why families drop out and it’s disregarded. Folks here seem to only accept what fits their agenda. In fact, I would be surprised if today’s research didn’t support our data 25 years ago because program hasn’t really changed.

We didn’t have a theory when we did research. We had a problem but didn’t know why. Research took us to the problem. Once we saw the problem (like why first year scouts have the highest dropout rate), we could track it to when National started recording membership numbers. 
 

Barry

[ParkMan]

I feel like much of this conversation has morphed into some sort of ridiculous theoretical debate.  The argument I see being portrayed is:

• The BSA should abandon it's program and turn into something completely different that is more relevant to the needs of today's families.
• The BSA should have a program that is exactly the same as it was in 1927.

If so, this is a nonsense debate because neither side makes any sense.  The reality is that the way forward for the BSA is somewhere in the middle and everyone knows it.  The real debate needs to be about specifics.  What would you change and why?  What is important to preserve and why?