Lone Scouts - a better structure

[David CO]

1 hour ago, Sentinel947 said:

Lone Scouting is more about individual growth in the context of youth to parent activities.

Where did you ever get that idea?  You certainly haven't heard anything like that from me.  
 

[DuctTape]

4 hours ago, ParkMan said:

There is somewhere around 74 million kids in the United States today.  At some point a program focused around providing to those 74 million kids needs to ask itself - how many are joining?  

The world is full of good ideas.  I can rattle off 50 ideas that would make Scouting better.  All those ideas require thousands of hours of peoples' time and lots of money to make them work.  If every idea that gets raised is measured solely on whether it's a good program idea or not we'd be all over the map as a program. 

Similarly - tone person's good program idea is that it's another person's bad program idea.  @David CO likes Lone Scouts and thinks it's the fix for Scouting.  Others look at it and think it's a bad idea.  How does one evaluate such an idea without some sort of basis to measure it.

To be honest, I think that's one of the issues the BSA has today - too many knee jerk reactions to different ideas people have without really thinking through if it actually will help build a better program and attract more members.  Soccer Scouts, STEM Scouts?  These are all someone's good, half baked idea.  

I think one of the major issues for BSA today and in recent past is/was primarily the focus on quantity. Growth and membership numbers do not equate with quality program and often the strategies implemented for the former are at odds with the latter. 

This is true for bsa and other businesses. One needs to choose whether they will be making Rolex or Casio.

[dkurtenbach]

1 hour ago, Sentinel947 said:

 Lone Scouting is more about individual growth in the context of youth to parent activities.

I think that is a fair description of BSA's current Lone Scout program as described in the Lone Scout Friend and Counselor Guidebook, https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/boyscouts/pdf/511-420.pdf , which is different from the original Lone Scout program as described by @David CO.  Page 5 of the Guidebook says, "It is preferable for the friend and counselor to be one of the Scout’s own parents, but this individual also could be the Scout’s minister, teacher, neighbor, a friend of the family, an interested Scouting volunteer, and so forth."  And page 6 of the Guidebook discusses the relationship and responsibilities between the Lone Scout and the Friend and Counselor:

Quote

The relationship between a Lone Scout and counselor is a two-way street. When both learn and accept their responsibilities, the result can be tremendously rewarding. The Scout, of course, must understand the need to take age appropriate initiative, and must be immersed in the Scout handbook for their program and age group.  

The counselor helps the Lone Scout get the most out of Scouting in much the same way pack and troop leaders help their Scouts.  This support includes setting a positive example. It also means getting to know  the Scout well enough to continuously challenge the Scout to reach further and to achieve as much as possible—with just the right level of assistance, guidance, and recognition.  

Parents who are counselors to their own children may experience the reward of getting to know their children in a different way, from another perspective.

 

[MattR]

9 hours ago, David CO said:

Lone Scouting can't be done within a unit.  I would have thought that was obvious.  Suggesting that we do Lone Scouting within our unit is like saying home schooling is fine, so long as it is done within a public school building.  It doesn't make any sense.  

It certainly isn't obvious to me. All I know is that your version of Lone Scouts and anything we can find in the documentation are not the same. Furthermore, I still don't know what your version is. You've mentioned no adult structure, pick up baseball, and now home schooling. That's all I have to work with. It sounds to me like Lone Scouting is a handbook, the rest is up to the scout. That could be easy but I'm not sure how many parents see that as anything they're interested in adding to their pile of work. A quick google search shows 3% of youth are home schooled while there are 2.2M BSA youth out of roughly 30M total available youth (~7%). Certainly that number is inflated but still, I'm not sure the home schooling mindset is what parents want.

I'm not sure why you need any organization if it's equivalent to home schooling. So why replace BSA with something else. Create a wiki and a forum and just ignore the BSA. You can use their handbooks and MB books and you're done.

 

[David CO]

1 minute ago, MattR said:

All I know is that your version of Lone Scouts and anything we can find in the documentation are not the same.

Well, I guess that's true enough.  I didn't learn the way of the Lone Scout from a BSA handbook.  I learned it from the guys who were there in the beginning.  

[Sentinel947]

17 hours ago, David CO said:

Where did you ever get that idea?  You certainly haven't heard anything like that from me.  
 

Unless you were a Scout in 1915-1924, you weren't involved in the original Lone Scouts program before it merged with the BSA. What you participated in was either a modern regional/local variation, whether BSA official or unofficial. Not sure, maybe you can tell us more about how you got involved in it. 

Based one what I've read, heard from older Scout volunteers, and what's supporting materials available from the BSA, what you participated in is not the typical Lone Scouts Program. You are in a sense, contradicting all other known sources of information, and making claims I am unable to verify. Your Lone Scouts experience is likely truthful, but that doesn't mean I should take it as representative of how Lone Scouting works everywhere, particularly when it contradicts every other source of information I have on the program. 

Your points about the program being for rural as well as urban youth is spot on. 

Therefore no, I haven't heard anything like that from you, and I didn't claim that I did, nor did I quote you, or use any of your comments in mine. 

Edited August 29, 2020 by Sentinel947

[David CO]

4 hours ago, Sentinel947 said:

Unless you were a Scout in 1915-1924, you weren't involved in the original Lone Scouts program before it merged with the BSA. What you participated in was either a modern regional/local variation, whether BSA official or unofficial. Not sure, maybe you can tell us more about how you got involved in it. 

LSA did not have an age limit.  There was no separate registration for youth and adults.  Total registrations peaked at about 450,000.  There is no way to know exactly how many were active, or how many were boys.  This explains the confusion over how many Lone Scouts there actually were.

When BSA bought out the LSA, they insisted on separate adult and youth registrations.  Almost all of the adults dropped out.  Many of these adults formed and joined alumni organizations such as the Lone Scout Fellowship.  Like the LSA, the alumni organizations did not have separate adult and youth registrations.  Some of the Lone Scouts joined BSA.  Some just joined the alumni organizations.  Some joined both.  

The alumni organizations continued for another 70 years after LSA was merged into BSA.  They didn't just have members from the original LSA.  They also had new members who were the children and grandchildren of the original Lone Scouts.  They attempted to keep Lone Scouting alive through these alumni organizations.  BSA knew of their existence, but largely left them alone, figuring that they would eventually die out.  My group, the Lone Scout Fellowship, faded out in the mid 1990's.

The history and legacy of Lone Scouting has largely disappeared from BSA history.  BSA likes to pretend it didn't exist.  They would rather have people believe that Lone Scouting was just a rural form of the traditional boy scout program.  

This topic started because I stated my belief that the LSA structure was better than the BSA structure.  I still believe that.  This doesn't mean that I am hanging on to some delusion that Lone Scouting (as I knew it) will ever return.  Maybe its story will return, to be include in the larger story of scouting in the USA, but I doubt even that.

Once upon a time, there was a scouting organization that had 450,000 registered members, about 250,000 kids, who seriously challenged BSA's monopoly on scouting.  It had a wonderful program, and wonderful people.  Now its gone.  That's really all there is to the story.

Edited August 29, 2020 by David CO

[dkurtenbach]

Friends of Lone Scouts of America - on Facebook - www.facebook.com/lonescoutfriends

 

"This page dedicated to the memory of those Lone Scouts who kept their friendships alive through newsletters and magazines. The Lone Indian Fraternity, Boy Scouts of America and scouting history, Information about members and events of the time."

[qwazse]

22 hours ago, yknot said:

Almost 100% of the scouts in our unit -- and most of the units around here --  achieve Eagle. Maybe one or two each year don't out of an entire unit. However, while we usually cross over huge classes of AOL scouts (for us), we lose about 75% of them after the first year post crossover. ...

So, really, 25% of your troop’s scouts earn Eagle. That number is even lower if scouts drop out after 2 or 3 years as well. That approximates how National calculates its proportion: Eagle ranks conferred in a given year to percentage of scouts registered that year. If you used a cohort model, e.g. number of 11 year olds in 2012 who joined a troop vs. those who made Eagle by now, the two methods of calculating would yield a similar percentage.

But, your perception highlights a very important point. It seems that troops have been brainwashed into thinking that the only thing that matters is rank advancement. If everyone isn’t doing it, they feel like the troop isn’t scouting. So, one forgets about all of the youth who left the program, and all of the youth who never joined the program, and all the youth who are fulfilling a vision of the pinnacle scouting experience of hiking and camping independently with their mates.

All eyes fixed on Eagle perverts that vision.

[ParkMan]

Thank you for such a throughout post - very impressive.

On 8/28/2020 at 5:14 PM, dkurtenbach said:

A few thoughts:

• Quantity (BSA membership) may not be a measure of BSA program quality, but it is a measure of something (or more than one something) about BSA.  Membership is the lifeblood of the Scouting program.  It would be useful to try to pin down the causes of membership decline and figure out if there is something that can be corrected or improved, and at what level.

I would agree with this sentiment. 

Whenever we talk membership here on the forum, conversations often tend to frame it as a choice - membership or quality.  But in reality, a true focus on membership isn't about lowering the quality of Scouting to get more kids to join.  True membership growth comes from delivering a quality Scouting program and then building membership around that.  

On 8/28/2020 at 5:14 PM, dkurtenbach said:

• . . . That challenge being is execution of the program at the unit level.  It is too uneven from unit to unit, and too uneven from year to year within the same unit.  

I see the same thing.  For all the reasons you listed in your post, unit execution is crucial  My gut tells me that we having many of the issues we see are because of poor unit execution.  

On 8/28/2020 at 5:14 PM, dkurtenbach said:

• There are some structural problems in Scouting that are well known and have an effect on membership.  

While I have no doubt that these are things that could be improved, I do not think they are the major factor in all of this.

The Scouting program lacks the clarity to allow your average parent to pick up a book and start a successful pack or troop.  Between the dynamics of the program and the reality that Scouting is inherently a group activity, you need a small team to make it successful.  That team needs support, coaching, and guidance. Yet, in the last 30 years we've seen a steady, continual decline in community support for Scouters.  In person training, roundtables, district activities, commissioners, etc...  In almost every meaningful way the very infrastructure that is needed more than ever is growing weaker and weaker.   Quality on going training isn't a luxury, it's a necessity.  As support for Scouters has diminished, so too has unit quality.

 

[DuctTape]

My wandering mind...

One of the difficulties over the last decades has been the increase in other options; whether it be youth sports, theater, clubs, etc... Scouts has pretty much said "we understand your other things, so show up when you can". I wonder if this has had a cascading effect over time. Regardless, what if... and I am just spitballing an idea here... what if the structure of scouting was changed from " once/week meeting and 1 weekend/month campout for the whole year" to "a single season; meetings 3x/week, 1 day every weekend for "day activity" and 1 long weekend campout/month". Initially thinking is that a scout  signs up and commits to the season just like they do for soccer or the school play. Scouts becomes an equal choice to commit to like their sports, etc... and doesn't take the entire year. Imagine a kid doing scouts in the fall, the school play in winter,  baseball in the spring. Over the summer he goes to baseball camp and summer camp. Imagine the intense experience he could have focusing on scouts for the season. Add to this, the scout can still "show up when he can" during his off-season. An older scout can help as an instructor, or just go on a campout. Some scouts would choose multiple seasons (like they do for soccer). I am not suggesting this structure replace all of scouting just pondering if this type of structure could benefit some scouts if they choose. I can see serious difficulties in organizing, volunteers, etc... but if this structure as an option has enough appeal the difficulties can be solved with even more creative thinking beyond just the initial thought.

[BAJ]

23 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

Initially thinking is that a scout  signs up and commits to the season just like they do for soccer or the school play.

That is a really interesting idea.  In our small troop, we have a subset that essentially did this, a set that committed to “scouts first, everything else as they could,” and a set juggling the two.  I wonder if the juggling set would have dropped out for half the year if this was an explicit model, meaning a net much smaller troop during that ‘season’ though.  It would align with six month leadership terms, and annual planning could move to two six month terms — with a ‘pre-season planning’ period before each season started.  And summer ‘season’ would be open to everyone.  An interesting thing to think about.

[Eagledad]

12 minutes ago, BAJ said:

That is a really interesting idea.  In our small troop, we have a subset that essentially did this, a set that committed to “scouts first, everything else as they could,” and a set juggling the two.  I wonder if the juggling set would have dropped out for half the year if this was an explicit model, meaning a net much smaller troop during that ‘season’ though.  It would align with six month leadership terms, and annual planning could move to two six month terms — with a ‘pre-season planning’ period before each season started.  And summer ‘season’ would be open to everyone.  An interesting thing to think about.

Our troop kind of did this out of necessity because of seasonal sports, band and other activities. With a members of 100 scouts, our meetings averaged 60 participation. Except for summer camps and holidays when we usually averaged around 90%. Scouts it figured out.
 

Barry

[Sentinel947]

2 hours ago, DuctTape said:

My wandering mind...

One of the difficulties over the last decades has been the increase in other options; whether it be youth sports, theater, clubs, etc... Scouts has pretty much said "we understand your other things, so show up when you can". I wonder if this has had a cascading effect over time. Regardless, what if... and I am just spitballing an idea here... what if the structure of scouting was changed from " once/week meeting and 1 weekend/month campout for the whole year" to "a single season; meetings 3x/week, 1 day every weekend for "day activity" and 1 long weekend campout/month". Initially thinking is that a scout  signs up and commits to the season just like they do for soccer or the school play. Scouts becomes an equal choice to commit to like their sports, etc... and doesn't take the entire year. Imagine a kid doing scouts in the fall, the school play in winter,  baseball in the spring. Over the summer he goes to baseball camp and summer camp. Imagine the intense experience he could have focusing on scouts for the season. Add to this, the scout can still "show up when he can" during his off-season. An older scout can help as an instructor, or just go on a campout. Some scouts would choose multiple seasons (like they do for soccer). I am not suggesting this structure replace all of scouting just pondering if this type of structure could benefit some scouts if they choose. I can see serious difficulties in organizing, volunteers, etc... but if this structure as an option has enough appeal the difficulties can be solved with even more creative thinking beyond just the initial thought.

Clarke Green at ScoutmasterCG had a similar solution. I cannot find the Podcast/Blog Post that had it, you're welcome to look: https://scoutmastercg.com/

More or less, he had patrols in his troop sign up in 3 month increments. Still one meeting a week, one outing a month. Patrols would form based on attendance, interest and availability for outings. This would ensure that the active scouts always had a cohesive patrol to participate in. Scouts who needed to be away from the Troop for sports or another activity would be in a "inactive" patrol. His troop had modeled this based off the academic/sports calendar for the local school system. I don't recall if he kept the usual 6 month terms, or went to 3 month terms for other Troop PORs. 

It's a great idea, and I'd encourage my Scouts to adopt a system like that if I was a Scoutmaster/still involved in a troop. 

Edited August 30, 2020 by Sentinel947

[MattR]

I think it needs to account for something else that just about every other youth activity has: a culmination. Sports have playoffs, theater has a play, robotics have competitions, band has a concert, 4H has shows. They all have something everyone works towards, new skills to learn, there's inherent teamwork required. And scouts has just 3 more campouts.

Seasons are certainly a good idea but there would have to be a lot more planning. Rather than one high adventure trip a year there needs to be something special each "season." There might be one week long high adventure trip a year but maybe 3 other long weekends? Maybe wrap this around a specific goal like learning a skill and having a meet that goes into it much more deeply than the usual camporee? The yearly planning session picks the challenges and patrols are formed around those at the start of each season.

It sounds nice but it looks like a lot of details. How much can the scouts do?