Learning for Life

[johndaigler]

Can anyone tell me more about "Learning for Life"? I've been to the website and read some resource material. Has anyone worked directly with the program?

 

Since, in another thread, it has been described as fitting this description,

 

". . . BSA will split off a program organization that has a more "open" membership policy. The BSA would remain what it is, but a BSA2 will come into existence (with program support from the "real" BSA - perhaps, less than publicly), which will accept Scouts whom aren't welcome into the present BSA. ",

 

and I am uncomfortably unfamiliar with the program, I'm quite curious.

 

IMHO, it doesn't really mesh with that description. It seems more like a "PeaceBuilders" curriculum for school classrooms. I know it's roots are in the Explorer program, but ...

 

jd

(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

[Bob White]

Let's do a comparison John,

 

". . . BSA will split off a program organization...

In 1991 the BSA formed learning for life a susidiary of the BSA actually owned by BSA Publications, the folks who bring you Boys' Life and Scouting Magazine.

 

that has a more "open" membership policy.

Learning for Life does not require it's members to subscribe to any faith based or lifestyle choices.

 

"The BSA would remain what it is,"

and it did.

 

"but a BSA2 will come into existence (with program support from the "real" BSA - perhaps, less than publicly)

LFL is headquartered in the national office of the BSA.

BSA coumcil offices across the country act as the local offices of the LFL program and BSA trained professionals are local coordinators, However its resources and finances are separate from those of the "traditional" program

 

... which will accept Scouts whom aren't welcome into the present BSA.",

And it does.

 

However I take exception to the term "not Welcome", they are in fact "not eligible" for the traditional programs due to personal controllable choices. (a person chooses atheism, a person chooses to avow their homosexuality. No one forces them to do either.) Had the individuals made different choices they would have remained eligible to obtain or retain membership.

 

So you see LFL is everything you predicted the BSA would do, they just did it several years before you predicted it.

 

BW

 

[johndaigler]

BW, as far as you've gone, that all makes sense. In fact, that part you needn't have broken out for me - and I understand your comments regarding the words "welcome" and "eligible".

 

My question is about the program. It doesn't seem to resemble the BSA National Programs for kids of the same age. It isn't delivered, structured or "methoded" in any way that I can see, as yet, similar to the Cub and Boy Scout program. As I've said before, given my limited research it most resembles a "PeaceBuilders" type curriculum for schools. That's a fine program to deliver in and of itself - I'm not being critical of the program (again, I've just begun to learn about it).

 

What I'm trying to learn is, if LFL is, indeed, BSA Scouting for All. At this point, I'm thinking it isn't.

 

jd

[Bob White]

"My question is about the program. It doesn't seem to resemble the BSA National Programs for kids of the same age. It isn't delivered, structured or "methoded" in any way that I can see, as yet, similar to the Cub and Boy Scout program. "

 

Of course not. That's the point. the tradional program works because it brings traditional values to traditional members.

 

If you want a program for non traditional mebers it will have to be a different program.

 

You cannot have different ingredients and expect the same cake to come out.

[johndaigler]

BW, I hope you're not purposefully missing the point. But since I've seen how informed you can be, it does appear that way in this thread.

 

Obviously, there would need to be programmatic differences; but to imply that the LFL is designed to bring the BSA Scout Program to "ineligible youth", but because of their needs cannot resemble the traditional Scout program is corp-speak at it's best. We know there are active Scouts and Scouters who keep their sexual orientation and faith private. The Program seems to work fine for them. LFL is certainly not a "tweaked" version of their BSA.

 

You can't be saying that the Methods only work for God-fearin' heterosexuals.

 

Cooking lessons aside, can we get at the 'meat' of the question?

 

jd

 

 

Has anyone out there 'round the campfire participated in LFL programs?

[scoutldr]

http://www.learning-for-life.org/

[Bob White]

LFL is designed for a different audience, it has a different purpose, and so cannot be accomplished with the same program.

[johndaigler]

so then it's not intended to be what you suggested in the "future" thread?

[torribug]

Didn't the Explorer program get absorbed by LFL?

[Bob White]

John...I didn't suggest anthything regarding the future

...it was your prediction remember.

 

 

[johndaigler]

BW, please, go look at your first "future" comment. You paralleled my description of a hypothetical future to the LFL program begun 14 years ago. You used my words, making them your own.

 

Your comment made me curious and I started finding out about LFL. In this thread, you haven't been helpful. Please, stop going round the word carousel.

 

LFL is not BSA for "others" - it's different content and intent. It's not different because of it's target audience - it's different because of its messages and methodology. The differences go well beyond necessary changes due to open membership

 

The program I described as potentally coming down the road would look more like a Scout Unit that had local option control over membership. Again, there would obviously be differences, but what I described would NOT look like LFL.

 

jd

 

 

[Bob White]

John you cannot take the values out of the pragrm aand have it be the same program. your argument is that there be a parallel program that is different but the sam, and while that may sound lyrical it is physically impossible.

 

What you said in tyour post was that " The BSA would remain what it is, but a BSA2 will come into existence (with program support from the "real" BSA - perhaps, less than publicly), which will accept Scouts whom aren't welcome into the present BSA.,/I>"

 

Which is exactly what happened in the creation of the LFL.

 

NOWHERE in your post did you make the specific program points which you made in your last post here. I could at the time only comment on what you wrote, not on what you were thinking but did not write.

 

 

 

 

[Eamonn]

I have posted in the past that I am not a fan of the LFL programs.

If they are indeed separate, you would never know it in our Council. The program is under the watchful eye of the Field Director and the staff are in the council service center.

They don't sell popcorn.

They are not involved with FOS.

When I donate to the FOS, I like to think that my donation is being used to help pay for traditional Scouting programs.

Programs that include duty to god.

It is wonderful that we can stand up and say that we have a membership of 4,398,858 (Feb,2005) However when 1,643,571 are LFL participants, the numbers don't look so wonderful.

I do not have anything against LFL, just as I don't have anything against many other youth organizations. I just don't want my money helping to pay for the program.

I am willing to say that they deserve a pat on the back for showing a 8.2% gain in membership, while traditional membership is showing a 1.9% loss.

Eamonn

[sitrep]

I want to know why Scouting is promoting a program whose goals we do not share. No business sets up its own competition and expects to survive.

[Bob White]

 

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)