Woodbadge for Me

[ParkMan]

2 hours ago, yknot said:

Does anyone seriously think more girl dads are somehow bad for the future of scouting?

Nope.  And I don't think that more girl moms or more boy moms are bad either.  I've always found the best indicator for success in Scouting is a desire to be a great leader.  I'm thrilled with the diversity we see amongst the leaders.

[yknot]

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

Nope.  And I don't think that more girl moms or more boy moms are bad either.  I've always found the best indicator for success in Scouting is a desire to be a great leader.  I'm thrilled with the diversity we see amongst the leaders.

Refreshing and much appreciated. 

[Eagledad]

2 hours ago, ParkMan said:

Nope.  And I don't think that more girl moms or more boy moms are bad either.  I've always found the best indicator for success in Scouting is a desire to be a great leader.  I'm thrilled with the diversity we see amongst the leaders.

Yep, and no body said that. Girl Scouts would be dealing with the exact same situation if they encourage more male leaders

 Barry

[ParkMan]

47 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Yep, and no body said that. Girl Scouts would be dealing with the exact same situation if they encourage more male leaders

 Barry

I'm not attempting to suggest that you are saying you don't want female leaders or girls in the program.  I'm pretty sure from earlier conversations you're happy that we have both in Scouting today.  My deepest regrets and apologies if you perceived otherwise.

I'm just proud of the fact that we have leaders and scouts of all different genders in Scouting today.  In fact, when I talk with my wife (who is a girl scout leader), I often point out that we have as many female leaders as we do male leaders in the program.  I think that's a really good thing.  In fact, many of the Scouters who I respect the most are women.  

I do get the point you are making.  The way I took it was that for a long time continuity in the Scouting program occurred because kids in the program turned into leaders in the program.  With a high percentage of leaders having a youth BSA Scouting background, it led to a pretty consistent program.  As the percentage of leaders with a youth BSA background dropped, we saw less consistency in the program.  New leaders without a Scouting program began to "guess" and "interpret" what they were supposed to do.

Regardless of why this transition has occurred, I don't doubt that it has.  Myself, I believe that the BSA has relied too much upon leaders showing up with prior experience.  It made the BSA unprepared for the time when leader development really mattered.  When that occurred, the BSA wasn't (and still isn't) prepared for it.  That the BSA training program today is essentially a few online orientation courses and a one weekend overnighter speaks to how little this is understood.  Scouting needs more in-person training, more in-person roundtables, more commissioners who understand how to mentor newer scouters.  Scouting need COs to develop stronger units so that those units have enough continuity and senior leadership to effectively run an unit.  Scouting needs a stronger development program for senior Scouters like we were discussing. 

If I had my way, I think there's a whole shift in mindset that needs to occur.  Encourage experienced leaders to share their knowledge.  Make roundtables work again by having them be hands on, Scouter workshops.  Make roundtable a series of four 15 minute talks by experienced Scouters where they teach and share knowledge.  Bring back Scouting magazine - but have it be filled with article after article with "how to" stuff.  Make the BSA the role model in outdoor adventure for kids.  Create such an adult learning environment in the BSA that adults want to attend roundtable just to talk about gear and adventure.  Stuff like that...

[Eagledad]

9 hours ago, ParkMan said:

I'm not attempting to suggest that you are saying you don't want female leaders or girls in the program.  I'm pretty sure from earlier conversations you're happy that we have both in Scouting today.  My deepest regrets and apologies if you perceived otherwise.

My reply was a general response, really to the ladies, that I was being sexist. I only mention the females membership changes as time events. There is not bias or anything against or for the event changes, just a marker of in history.

9 hours ago, ParkMan said:

I'm just proud of the fact that we have leaders and scouts of all different genders in Scouting today.  In fact, when I talk with my wife (who is a girl scout leader), I often point out that we have as many female leaders as we do male leaders in the program.  I think that's a really good thing.  In fact, many of the Scouters who I respect the most are women.  

I have worked, been trained and trained a lot of female leaders. One of which credits me with her Silver Beaver. I have lots of good stories of working along side with women, but I'm not one to sit here and defend myself against folks who don't read my post within the context it's written.

I'm a big picture person and a fixer. Which is why I have so much experience with understanding programs. I've turned around a lot of trends once we looked at the numbers and understood the situation. Like the huge huge loses of 2nd year Webelos. That basically comes down to a 5 year cub program that burns out adults. Burned out adults either drop out or lead boring programs. Less than 30 percent of Tigers get to the troop program. That is a lot of drop outs based from a top heavy 5 year program.

If a person is one to follow trends and numbers, they can start predicting changes. A few of us predicted a membership drop in 2005 as a result of some program changes National implemented to the Tiger program in 2000. Why five years? Because that is the average number of years for a Tiger to work their way to the Troop program. Facts are facts and if one wants to ignore the facts, like National does, it often leads to their peril. 

A couple of members here are angry at the BSA and just don't like the program. They let their emotions drive their opinions, which is usually wrong. It's been that way for the 20 years I've been on this and other forums. Folks let their unit experience drive their opinions about the whole program. As I said, they are rarely ever right.

9 hours ago, ParkMan said:

I do get the point you are making.  The way I took it was that for a long time continuity in the Scouting program occurred because kids in the program turned into leaders in the program.  With a high percentage of leaders having a youth BSA Scouting background, it led to a pretty consistent program.  As the percentage of leaders with a youth BSA background dropped, we saw less consistency in the program.  New leaders without a Scouting program began to "guess" and "interpret" what they were supposed to do.

 

Exactly. Pretty basic really. In everything a human does, experience is the number one motivation of actions when there is no other information to set a path forward. Scouting was male program of which a lot boys joined. If they had a positive experience, and most do, they join the program with their sons and duplicate their experience. They did that for over 100 years. 

National is out-of-touch enough to not understand that reality, so they didn't see the tsunami coming when the sudden rush of new adults didn't have a clue. They started playing catch up with new training programs, but they were only guessing on how to fix the situation. They are still guessing because they have bigger problems to fix at the moment. But, that doesn't mean you can't start fixing the problems locally. That's what I did, I fixed problems locally.

9 hours ago, ParkMan said:

That the BSA training program today is essentially a few online orientation courses and a one weekend overnighter speaks to how little this is understood.  Scouting needs more in-person training, more in-person roundtables, more commissioners who understand how to mentor newer scouters.  Scouting need COs to develop stronger units so that those units have enough continuity and senior leadership to effectively run an unit.  Scouting needs a stronger development program for senior Scouters like we were discussing. 

The design you are talking about is already there. The problem is the lack of selling the program at the top. Good councils generally have good Scout Executives who understand the big picture and sell it to everyone down to the unit. The lesser productive councils are usually reflective of the SE.

9 hours ago, ParkMan said:

If I had my way, I think there's a whole shift in mindset that needs to occur.  Encourage experienced leaders to share their knowledge.  Make roundtables work again by having them be hands on, Scouter workshops.  Make roundtable a series of four 15 minute talks by experienced Scouters where they teach and share knowledge.  Bring back Scouting magazine - but have it be filled with article after article with "how to" stuff.  Make the BSA the role model in outdoor adventure for kids.  Create such an adult learning environment in the BSA that adults want to attend roundtable just to talk about gear and adventure.  Stuff like that...

I'm with you. In fact, this is what I have been doing for 25 years. I'm retired now, but some of the programs I developed that were made for this goal are still there.

Start local. If your changes really make a difference, people will notice and use them. You will always have the nay-sayers like the like ladies yesterday,  Everybody is an expert, but some experts actually know something of what they are talking about.

Barry

Edited October 15, 2020 by Eagledad

[HICO_Eagle]

On 10/15/2020 at 7:49 AM, Eagledad said:

I'm a big picture person and a fixer. Which is why I have so much experience with understanding programs. I've turned around a lot of trends once we looked at the numbers and understood the situation. Like the huge huge loses of 2nd year Webelos. That basically comes down to a 5 year cub program that burns out adults. Burned out adults either drop out or lead boring programs. Less than 30 percent of Tigers get to the troop program. That is a lot of drop outs based from a top heavy 5 year program.

If a person is one to follow trends and numbers, they can start predicting changes. A few of us predicted a membership drop in 2005 as a result of some program changes National implemented to the Tiger program in 2000. Why five years? Because that is the average number of years for a Tiger to work their way to the Troop program. Facts are facts and if one wants to ignore the facts, like National does, it often leads to their peril. 

 

Agreed.  A lot of us predicted overall loss of membership due to parent burnout when Tigers were announced.  One of the points I tried to make at bridging ceremonies was that we were maturing the boys and while we wanted parent participation, they shouldn't feel they needed to be at every activity or every meeting.  I would close with a recollection that in my time as a Scout, some of the best campouts and hikes were ones where the parents were as far away as possible (usually got a laugh).

 

On 10/14/2020 at 11:50 AM, ParkMan said:

By bling, I simply meant that we're used to getting patches, t-shirts, and other similar items for attending events.  Go to camporee, get a patch - that kind of thing.  This is why I don't mind a few items for a specialty training like this.

On the topic of showing off I'm a bit more restrictive myself.  I believe our culture should be consistent and that we shouldn't ever show off.   5-10 minutes for a beading at any meeting - regardless of whether it's pack meeting or a roundtable.  I don't think it should ever be a big to-do.  That said, I don't think we should ignore adult accomplishments.  If anyone does something noteworthy, let's celebrate it.

Okay, I don't regard patches and t-shirts as "bling" -- they're simply recognition and souvenirs of certain events.  I did wear a Philmont or commemorative belt buckles on my uniform but I tried to avoid the "look at me" stuff.  You either have the skills or you don't and you don't need to put fancy stuff on to demonstrate the skills.

My general rule was to recognize adult awards during announcements at general meetings but the COH was all about the Scouts.

 

On 10/14/2020 at 4:05 PM, yknot said:

Hurt? I'm flat out annoyed. Our current situation establishes just how unreliable and arbitrary internal BSA research and data is, because it's usually self validating and self congratulating. Who cares what BSA thought in the 1970s?  Over decades, it has routinely manipulated data to reinforce already presumed positions and initiatives and that has resulted in one of the most poorly managed nonprofits in existence. Does anyone seriously think more girl dads are somehow bad for the future of scouting? Why would that even be relevant when you are looking at upcoming generational cohorts that, until Covid, almost never went outdoors in any substantive sense?  I can't see the logic -- it's not like the apparently less desirable girl dads will somehow be replacing more desirable boy dads because the reality is there just aren't a lot of dads of any progeny type out there who are interested in scouting for their kids. That's the problem that needs focus and has to be fixed. 

I'm annoyed, because attitudes like yours misdirect attention and try to scapegoat more rallying emotional targets, like girls and women in scouting, over more reality based ones. It prevents us from addressing root reasons why fewer kids and families choose scouting today. 

I care what BSA thought in the 1970s because the culture was different.  IMO they did NOT routinely manipulate data then the way they do now, they did NOT screw around with the program to feed some adult's ego at National.  I applaud the fact that you've learned and developed skills to match your peers but you do come off at times like you've got a chip on your shoulder about being "a girl."

The fact of the matter is that National changed the training programs -- including Wood Badge -- and made them replicate training that earlier generations of leaders would have gotten simply by virtue of having been a Scout (or a Marine or in the Army or ...).  The need for that kind of fundamental training came about as a result of demographics and a lot THAT came from increased involvement by mothers and others.  That itself was and is a good thing but IMO it should have been addressed with a fundamentals course, not watering down WB so that more people felt "included".  Of course, that "inclusion" factor itself seems to have arisen from the cliques that arose and that clique-ish attitude (when/where it arose) should have been beat down from the top.  It's somewhat natural human behavior but it just never made sense because there will always be people with advanced outdoor and Scoutcraft skills that haven't taken WB.  Wearing beads doesn't make you superior.

I don't recall ever encountering this clique-ish attitude myself but I tended to concentrate on activities at the unit level and I think it was pretty clear that I wasn't paying attention to "bling" when I dealt with other units or with district/council.

 

On 10/14/2020 at 10:59 PM, ParkMan said:

I do get the point you are making.  The way I took it was that for a long time continuity in the Scouting program occurred because kids in the program turned into leaders in the program.  With a high percentage of leaders having a youth BSA Scouting background, it led to a pretty consistent program.  As the percentage of leaders with a youth BSA background dropped, we saw less consistency in the program.  New leaders without a Scouting program began to "guess" and "interpret" what they were supposed to do.

Regardless of why this transition has occurred, I don't doubt that it has.  Myself, I believe that the BSA has relied too much upon leaders showing up with prior experience.  It made the BSA unprepared for the time when leader development really mattered.  When that occurred, the BSA wasn't (and still isn't) prepared for it.  That the BSA training program today is essentially a few online orientation courses and a one weekend overnighter speaks to how little this is understood.  Scouting needs more in-person training, more in-person roundtables, more commissioners who understand how to mentor newer scouters.  Scouting need COs to develop stronger units so that those units have enough continuity and senior leadership to effectively run an unit.  Scouting needs a stronger development program for senior Scouters like we were discussing. 

If I had my way, I think there's a whole shift in mindset that needs to occur.  Encourage experienced leaders to share their knowledge.  Make roundtables work again by having them be hands on, Scouter workshops.  Make roundtable a series of four 15 minute talks by experienced Scouters where they teach and share knowledge.  Bring back Scouting magazine - but have it be filled with article after article with "how to" stuff.  Make the BSA the role model in outdoor adventure for kids.  Create such an adult learning environment in the BSA that adults want to attend roundtable just to talk about gear and adventure.  Stuff like that...

I would disagree that BSA has relied too much on leaders showing up with prior experience.  The development of courses like Scoutmaster Fundamentals in the 90s and devolution of Wood Badge are symptoms of this.  Also, I don't know what has happened since I retired from the program 4 years ago but we never used to have to encourage experienced Scouters to share knowledge.  It was usually more of a problem letting them know when you had to move on.  I got a lot simply by talking with other Scoutmasters over morning coffee before flags at summer camp.  The older Scouters were usually eager to share their experience and knowledge.  The move to online orientation was a response to contemporary culture where parents and other volunteers wanted to be able to get the rote stuff on their own time at home.  I for one appreciated that but perhaps they took it too far?

Getting adults to like Roundtable has always been a challenge.  I think the problem is that simply going through announcements, providing program information, etc. takes up a good portion of the time and a lot of the adults want to get home, have dinner, etc.  I liked the introduction of University of Scouting even though the title was a little pretentious because it was a way to pass on beginning, intermediate, and advanced knowledge.  It's really hard to do a worthwhile class on anything in 15 minutes -- having 45 minutes gives you enough time to really get into things.  I didn't have to be part of the WB clique for UOS, I was simply asked by the organizers to conduct or supplement various classes based on what they knew I knew (to be fair, our council's WB crew wasn't really cliqueish -- I think they wanted me to join them but of course I'd have had to go through the program and earn beads to be an instructor and I just didn't see a lot of value in that).

I think if BSA looked at training as a big picture, you'd break out overall training into beginning, intermediate, and advanced levels with clear tests to let some graduate (or immediately move) to the appropriate level.  Beginning level would basically give the adult First Class skills (or what used to be First Class skills) plus the necessary adult adds of youth protection, how the troop works with district and council, etc. Intermediate would build on those skills, and advanced would build even further.  Put WB in the intermediate level and have an advanced outdoors course so you can do the bead thing and unit improvement or just have intermediate courses focusing on unit improvement and make WB the advanced course.  Filling Scouting magazine with "how to" articles is an excellent idea.

[Eagledad]

54 minutes ago, HICO_Eagle said:

Agreed.  A lot of us predicted overall loss of membership due to parent burnout when Tigers were announced.  One of the points I tried to make at bridging ceremonies was that we were maturing the boys and while we wanted parent participation, they shouldn't feel they needed to be at every activity or every meeting.  I would close with a recollection that in my time as a Scout, some of the best campouts and hikes were ones where the parents were as far away as possible (usually got a laugh).

Yep. Our pack was crossing over 30% of the Tigers until we made similar changes to ease the load on the parents. We gave all the Tiger families one Tiger coordinator who basically ran Tigers Program outside the Pack program. The Tiger parents were asked to attend two activities each month in a relaxed environment. We only included Tigers in the pack activities of Blue & Gold and Pinewood Derby. Our Crossover rate jumped to 95% and far fewer adults were involved. National changed the Tiger program in 2000 to require at least one parent attend one weekly den meeting and a monthly Pack meeting, which in many packs forced more adults to manage the Tiger program than all the rest of the Pack. Burnout! 

 

1 hour ago, HICO_Eagle said:

I would disagree that BSA has relied too much on leaders showing up with prior experience.  The development of courses like Scoutmaster Fundamentals in the 90s and devolution of Wood Badge are symptoms of this.  Also, I don't know what has happened since I retired from the program 4 years ago but we never used to have to encourage experienced Scouters to share knowledge.  It was usually more of a problem letting them know when you had to move on.  I got a lot simply by talking with other Scoutmasters over morning coffee before flags at summer camp.  The older Scouters were usually eager to share their experience and knowledge.  The move to online orientation was a response to contemporary culture where parents and other volunteers wanted to be able to get the rote stuff on their own time at home.  I for one appreciated that but perhaps they took it too far?

National did not knowingly rely on experienced scouters to maintain a level of program quality, it was just a natural occurrence for generations until the sudden "Demographics changes" of diluting the pool of adults. Even now, there has never been an organized systematic program for encouraging experienced scouters to pass along their knowledge newer adults. The quality control for maintain a minimum level of program is the simple result of newer scouters observing the more experienced scouters in action. Ironically, using older role models to pass along traditions and scout skills is a known tool of Patrol Method.

The program reaction to the membership (demographic) change must have been almost instant in the 90's because training changes were occurring within five years and a completely new adult training format was implemented in 10 years. National never works that fast. So, there must have been a lot of pressure.

A lot of people ask why Woodbadge was completely overhauled when it was considered a successful training program at the local level. I never heard an explanation, but I heard conspiracy rumors that it was a pollical opportunity for National.

Barry

[Jameson76]

8 hours ago, HICO_Eagle said:

I care what BSA thought in the 1970s because the culture was different.  IMO they did NOT routinely manipulate data then the way they do now, they did NOT screw around with the program to feed some adult's ego at National. 

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with on the National not screwing around with the program in the 70's.  That is exactly what they did with the "Improved Scouting Program" and decided that the real way to win hearts and minds was to focus on inner city and urban youth.  That was the ticket.  Also the infamous "BOYPOWER MANPOWER" initiative to tie in with the 1976 Bicentennial.

The ISP turned rank advancement on it's head and for several years you could earn Eagle without ever camping or doing any traditional outdoor stuff.  Scouting lost about 2 million members in the decade

Boypower Manpower resulted in the largest membership scandal up to that time. maybe more than the In School Scouting programs in the 90's.  Many of the members showing in 1970 were likely not there in reality, so the actual loss will never be known.

BSA National the the "adults" that feel they are all knowing always feels they know best and they never go and see what actual units are doing to be successful.  They are so far out of touch it's silly.  Leads to things like shrinking membership and bankruptcy so I've been told

[yknot]

6 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Yep. Our pack was crossing over 30% of the Tigers until we made similar changes to ease the load on the parents. We gave all the Tiger families one Tiger coordinator who basically ran Tigers Program outside the Pack program. The Tiger parents were asked to attend two activities each month in a relaxed environment. We only included Tigers in the pack activities of Blue & Gold and Pinewood Derby. Our Crossover rate jumped to 95% and far fewer adults were involved. National changed the Tiger program in 2000 to require at least one parent attend one weekly den meeting and a monthly Pack meeting, which in many packs forced more adults to manage the Tiger program than all the rest of the Pack. Burnout! 

 

National did not knowingly rely on experienced scouters to maintain a level of program quality, it was just a natural occurrence for generations until the sudden "Demographics changes" of diluting the pool of adults. Even now, there has never been an organized systematic program for encouraging experienced scouters to pass along their knowledge newer adults. The quality control for maintain a minimum level of program is the simple result of newer scouters observing the more experienced scouters in action. Ironically, using older role models to pass along traditions and scout skills is a known tool of Patrol Method.

The program reaction to the membership (demographic) change must have been almost instant in the 90's because training changes were occurring within five years and a completely new adult training format was implemented in 10 years. National never works that fast. So, there must have been a lot of pressure.

A lot of people ask why Woodbadge was completely overhauled when it was considered a successful training program at the local level. I never heard an explanation, but I heard conspiracy rumors that it was a pollical opportunity for National.

Barry

Look, the stuff you and some others are talking about from 30, 40, 50 years ago is just not terribly relevant today. The comments you process as negative really are not. Scouting is the Titanic and some people like me for years have been shouting iceberg dead ahead.  Maybe try listening instead of getting perpetually offended? 

 

[ParkMan]

COMMENT REMOVED

Edited October 17, 2020 by ParkMan
Decided I didn't want to comment

[yknot]

33 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Gotta admit - I'm confused by your point.  

Pretty much everyone commenting here has been saying there is a problem with training the needs to be addressed.   This discussion is mostly about what do we think can and should be done.  Isn't that what you want?

I absolutely agree. And if I'm wrong, please correct me, but it seems like the answers that keep being delivered up on this site are connected to returning to or at least harkening back to practices from decades ago. I've been on this forum for years and have yet to see many threads truly examine what modern families and scouters need or want. Every time the topics come up, people freak out.

I've read some of the long posts on this particular thread about training and traditional organizational structure and I feel like it is so disconnected from what modern day families are interested in or willing to spend their time on. I realize we're often weaving in two discussions -- how to deal with the bankruptcy with how to survive post bankruptcy -- and if I've confused that I apologize. 

[ParkMan]

3 minutes ago, yknot said:

I absolutely agree. And if I'm wrong, please correct me, but it seems like the answers that keep being delivered up on this site are connected to returning to or at least harkening back to practices from decades ago. I've been on this forum for years and have yet to see many threads truly examine what modern families and scouters need or want. Every time the topics come up, people freak out.

I've read some of the long posts on this particular thread about training and traditional organizational structure and I feel like it is so disconnected from what modern day families are interested in or willing to spend their time on. I realize we're often weaving in two discussions -- how to deal with the bankruptcy with how to survive post bankruptcy -- and if I've confused that I apologize. 

My apologies.  I deleted my prior post in an attempt to not come across as combative.  Didn't realize you were reading it at that time.

[CynicalScouter]

26 minutes ago, yknot said:

I've been on this forum for years and have yet to see many threads truly examine what modern families and scouters need or want. Every time the topics come up, people freak out.

Because there is a large and vocal contingent who want things "the way they were." Except, of course, that that program they remember with such fond memories was developed for a time that no longer exists and for a nation and society that simply will not embrace it.

Organisms and organizations have three choices: move, adapt, or die. Since Boy Scouts of America isn't going to move, that leaves adapt or die.

And I honestly thing some of the people where would rather see a dead but "pure" Boy Scouts of America vs. one that adapts.

[ParkMan]

45 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Because there is a large and vocal contingent who want things "the way they were." Except, of course, that that program they remember with such fond memories was developed for a time that no longer exists and for a nation and society that simply will not embrace it.

Organisms and organizations have three choices: move, adapt, or die. Since Boy Scouts of America isn't going to move, that leaves adapt or die.

And I honestly thing some of the people where would rather see a dead but "pure" Boy Scouts of America vs. one that adapts.

Or maybe it's because those with some continuity in the program recognize that the BSA keeps adapting without an underlying plan or vision.  As a result, the BSA keeps rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic without really dealing with the primary issues.  Those issues become apparent when people see it happen a few times and recognize the pattern.

History is full of failed organizations that adapted to the wrong trends.  It's not simply adaptation that's important - it's making the right adaptations.

Edited October 17, 2020 by ParkMan
clarified a thought

[ParkMan]

11 hours ago, HICO_Eagle said:

Getting adults to like Roundtable has always been a challenge.  I think the problem is that simply going through announcements, providing program information, etc. takes up a good portion of the time and a lot of the adults want to get home, have dinner, etc.  I liked the introduction of University of Scouting even though the title was a little pretentious because it was a way to pass on beginning, intermediate, and advanced knowledge.  It's really hard to do a worthwhile class on anything in 15 minutes -- having 45 minutes gives you enough time to really get into things.  I didn't have to be part of the WB clique for UOS, I was simply asked by the organizers to conduct or supplement various classes based on what they knew I knew (to be fair, our council's WB crew wasn't really cliqueish -- I think they wanted me to join them but of course I'd have had to go through the program and earn beads to be an instructor and I just didn't see a lot of value in that).

15 minutes talks at roundtable was just an idea.  The picture I keep seeing is roundtable becoming a place with very few announcements and most of the focus on tech talks.  Let's discuss going outdoors and make it really interesting for participants.  It strikes me that the world today is actually more outdoor focused than it once was.  There is greater interest in physical fitness and more people seem to be out camping and hiking than years ago.  You look at the rise of companies like REI that didn't seem to be around when I was a kid.  There has to be a way to capture that spirit in the adult community.

I'm pretty sure you won't capture that with a couple of beginner classes online.  My sense is that you can build that in a district or council, but it will take effort.  

11 hours ago, HICO_Eagle said:

I think if BSA looked at training as a big picture, you'd break out overall training into beginning, intermediate, and advanced levels with clear tests to let some graduate (or immediately move) to the appropriate level.  Beginning level would basically give the adult First Class skills (or what used to be First Class skills) plus the necessary adult adds of youth protection, how the troop works with district and council, etc. Intermediate would build on those skills, and advanced would build even further.  Put WB in the intermediate level and have an advanced outdoors course so you can do the bead thing and unit improvement or just have intermediate courses focusing on unit improvement and make WB the advanced course.  Filling Scouting magazine with "how to" articles is an excellent idea.

This sounds like a great sequence to me.  I would be excited about this kind of progression.