What would YOU change?

[Eamonn]

I'd change the age groups.

Seems to me that programs that run from age 10 thru 18 and 14 thru 21 just don't well that well.

But while we were changing we might as well go the whole hog.

Have Tigers run from between six and eight years old. Allow three months or so before their sixth birthday to accommodate fitting in with school years.

Sometime between eight and eight years six months have them move on up to become Cub Scouts.

At age 10 have them move into Boy Scouts.

The Boy Scout program would be for between 10 and 14 years. (15 maybe?).

Venturing would run from 14 to 18.

Bring back something for the 18 -25 year olds. Who might be away at college or just too busy to commit to being a leader. Some might say this is Rover Scouts? I think it needs to be very unstructured more of a social group where the members might get together to go on a hike or participate in some sort of an activity.

I'd also be happy if we went completely coed. When I read the vision and mission statements I see "Young people" not just groups of young people.

Ea.

[LongHaul]

I agree with the coed thing. I think coed Cub Scouts could work just fine, and Venturing seems to be doing great. Its the 11 to 14 year old coed group that concerns me. I just dont see 11 to 14 year old boys and girls being able to function in an outdoor, patrol method (lets all work together as a team), patrol outings without mandatory adult supervision (the father in me just passed out), type of program. As Adults I think we would have to be more fore ground and hands on than what we try to be in the current system. All the natural change and sexual awareness of the 11 to 14 year old age group would require a change when we look at youth led. Its your program but I cant let you out of my sight. I look at the repeated problem we have with summer camp staff that is coed and the endless problems a adolescence. Maybe if we went total coed that could change.

LongHaul

 

[emb021]

"I'd change the age groups."

 

The traditional program for 18-25 is Rovers (or Rover Scouts). It, like Venturing, has always been a fairly unstructured program. There are awards, but again, like Venturing, its up to the Rover to persue. Rovers are built around doing service, whether as leaders of the other programs or doing their own service work.

 

The only major change I would do with the age groups is end Boy Scouts at 14. In most countries, boy scouts are 11-14. I would not make them younger.

 

I would leave Varsity Scouts, Venturing, and Sea Scouts as the programs available for those after 14. Leaving Varsity Scouts allows for those 14 and over to do 'boy scouts' at that age.

 

I would only avocate ending Venturing at 18 IF Rover Scouts was put in place for those 18-25.

 

As to co-ed.

 

Am not opposed to it, BUT feel that the CO should have the power to determine if their unit shall be single gender (and what) or co-ed. This would allow for their to be all-male, all-female, and co-ed units at all levels. This allows for choices. For Cub Packs I would say that packs could be co-ed, and allow for single gender & co-ed dens.

 

[Eamonn]

I'd be OK with leaving the choice to go coed up to the CO.

I think but I'm not sure LDS units are not keen on having coed units.

I don't really know enough about Varsity Units to be able to talk about them.

 

I have never really understood by the idea of Scout Groups wasn't part of the BSA?

Having a Pack, Troop and Crew as all part of one seems like a good idea, having them under the watchful eye of a Group Scout Leader, would ease the burden on commissioners.

Ea.

[emb021]

"I'd be OK with leaving the choice to go coed up to the CO.

I think but I'm not sure LDS units are not keen on having coed units."

 

Agree. I've heard that the LDSers are a big barriers to going co-ed with Cub & Boy Scout programs. I don't understand why there can't be a compromise on this, by allowing the COs to determine this, as it is now with Venturing.

 

"I don't really know enough about Varsity Units to be able to talk about them."

 

Varsity Scouts is basically the Boy Scout program with some added elements, aimed at the 14-18 boy.

 

A big program with keeping Boy Scout troops from 11-18 is that its really too wide a range. A lot of the older boys get tired of dealing with the younger kids, which is what lead to the creation of the mainly older boy/youth programs, including Varsity Scouts. Plus you have the resistance of the scout leaders that you are 'stealing their boys' with Venturing/Sea Scouting, etc. End that nonsense by cutting down Boy Scouting to ages 11-14, like it is in most countries. But if boys still want to do 'boy scouting' after 14, keep Varsity Scouts for that crowd.

 

"I have never really understood by the idea of Scout Groups wasn't part of the BSA?

Having a Pack, Troop and Crew as all part of one seems like a good idea, having them under the watchful eye of a Group Scout Leader, would ease the burden on commissioners. "

 

Uh, it WAS part of the BSA, but not to that degree. West and the other professions DID push for the idea of a chartering organizations having the 'whole scouting family' of Pack, Troop, Post, Ship. And there could be a single Committee oversee them all, instead of separate pack, troop, etc committees. What DIDN'T happen was the creation of any overall group leadership (ie the "Group Scout Leader") as in England.

 

The idea of the 'whole scouting family' seemed to die out in the late 50s/early 60s.

 

 

[gwd-scouter]

The idea about changing the ages groups for Scouts is interesting. I sat on an Eagle BOR recently and I asked the candidate "if you could, what one thing would you change in your Troop."

 

The candidate had mostly given rote answers to questions up that point, but this really got him talking. He said that he thought the age range was too broad. He said (he was one week from 18 at his BOR) that he didn't like dealing with the 11-12 year olds in the Troop - they were too immature, they didn't fit in with the older scouts. He admitted that in his troop the older guys are rather "cliquesh" and hang together, leaving the younger (13-14) to deal with the really younger (11-12) scouts.

 

Now, without going into anything on this forum about how he and his older cohorts in the troop should be teaching those younger scouts, it was very interesting to me to hear that come from a youth member.

 

I have noticed over the years that most guys at age 15-16 drop their activity level in Scouts tremendously, sometimes dropping all together and sometimes coming back in the last few months to "get" Eagle.

 

Sadly, Venturing crews in our district have never done well, but maybe if the entire BSA program was changed drastically to be Boy Scouts from ages 11-15, Venturing after that, we'd keep more of these mid-teenagers active.

 

 

 

[local1400]

I would absolutely oppose going co-ed. I remember being 14-17 and having a one track mind. Imagine condoms being in your Scout handbook list of personal gear. How about a case in the chuck box? You can teach responsibility all you want. Sometimes things happen that are beyond your control. Now when I was 16 I would have liked camping with other teenaged girls. But as an adult, no way does that sound good. Any other fathers think it is okay? (BTW- I am not a parent). Now as to the topic: I would love to see the khaki backed patches dissappear in favor of the colored ones. The uniforms are fine- just lacking a little color. I also find the 3-ring binder type of SM handbooks and all the other program guides large and cumbersome. Happy Scouting to you all as the snow is almost gone and the sun is shining!

[kraut-60]

I am also in favor of going back to colored background position insignia,..however I would prefer the insignia that featured no written titles on it. These insignia featured the "old" universal BSA emblem,.. what we now see as the First Class rank emblem.

 

I would of course also embrace returning to the older wreathed insignia for commissioners,coucil presidents and vice-presidents and ditrict executives/coucil-scout executives.

 

These older emblems had combinations of colors that defined ones given position in Scouting. They made one have to study the insignia guide to know who was what,..I suppose today that may not be as readily encouraged as in days past...after all, we need to make it "easy" for everyone..dont want any complaints or difficulties..heaven forbid someone would'nt understand and have to look something up.

 

They could also bring out a new uniform shirt made of the same material and color as the new switchback pants. The shirt could feature the same outdoor intended features as found on the presently availble shirts for fishing..think new BSA action shirt...but take it a step further...add velcro strips /shapes in the areas where the insignia will go.

 

Bring back veteran patches for wear on the right lower sleeve of long sleeved uniform shirts...make All uniform shirts long sleeved with the provision to be zip-off short sleeve convertable...uniform MUST be outdoor suitable....older "Oscars" can be retained for indoor wear or for CoHs etc..

[ozemu]

sex and 14 year olds.

 

This topic comes up regularly here. Pardon if my response is a tad blunt.

 

We have been coed for years. I believe some kids might jump in each others tents and what follows is natural. But I have over 15 years as an ASM or SM. Never seen it. Not in my Troop or ANY other. Not even at Jamboree's (Four so far). NEVER.

 

Why? - Scouts are generally sensible. It takes two to tango and so two need to be dills. Tent walls are thin. Adults have eyes and ears. The other Scouts are not all dills. They can pursue sex elsewhere more easily. It is more the thought than the reality for them (and some US Scouters). The average age of first intercourse (according to one study) is 16 in Australia and Scouts max out in age at 15 here. Coed Venturers is more problematic but they seem to manage it.

 

Now is the max age at 15 a good thing? I certainly hate watching my 15 year olds leaving Scouting. Transition to another Group (Groups work well-definately) is difficult and we are not big enough to support a Venturer Unit. So they leave Scouting. If they had a choice I would set them to work as junior ASM's and they would be happy as Larry for at least a further 12 months or more. But I don't have a choice in this.

[Trevorum]

Re: coed Scouting, I agree with Oz. A properly run and supervised troop should not have to fear any hanky panky on a coed outing. I'm a parent and I would have absolutely no qualms about either of my sons OR my daughter attending a coed BSA activity. Most other Scouting organizations around the world are coed at all ages, and the system works just fine.

 

On the other hand, I'm not in favor of coed 10-14 but for reasons other than a fear of illicit nooky.

[OldGreyEagle]

I would implement an idea I have broached here a few times, that of a "BSA Accredited Troop". This would be a totally volunteer program. Similar to hospital or school accreditation, the process would involve a site visit to an Unit's meeting, committee meeting and outing. The criteria would be that which is published in the BSA program. Therefore the SPL would be elected by the Troop and he would appoint his ASPL's, etc. Patrols would elect the Patrol Leader (sorry Kudu) and then the PL would appoint his APL. And so on.

 

Once attained, a Unit would be reviewed yearly to maintain accredited status. A patch similar to the Honor unit patch used now would be available which would read "2007 BSA Accedited"

[JerseyJohn]

I would add the following two merit badges to Eagle Required

 

Entrepreneurship

With this MB as a prerequisite to American Business

 

American Business

Alter Req #5 to be organizing and running a troop fundraiser

________________

We expect them to contribute and pay their way. This provides a tool to do so. It also take the mysticism and magic out of business. Young men (and adults)see business as a lucky break, when in fact it generally is not.

 

With offshoring, outsourcing, etc, etc, it is in ones best long term interest to work for themselves - providing they can find somehting practicial to make a go of it.

 

Running a troop fundraiser is a great way to introduce them to haow business operates and provides a revenus stream of sorts for the troop.

 

YIS,

John

(This message has been edited by JerseyJohn)

[gwd-scouter]

OGE - your idea of a BSA accredited troop is interesting, but what would be the benefit of earning that distinction? If being accredited means your troop is running as a BSA "standard" troop, would that mean anything to most folks? Just from reading forum posts here, many operate troops differently, mostly within the BSA guidelines, sometimes not. Just as there are troops closely adhering to the BSA methods and are successful, others do their own thing and are successful as well (that, of course, depends on one's method of measuring success).

 

So, if the BSA were to adopt some sort of accreditation above the Quality Unit, what do you think should be the standards? Who would do the judging? How would the designation be explained?

 

[OldGreyEagle]

GWD, being accredited would mean you follow the program, it means you are boy lead, for real, not because the adults say so. It would mean when a parent asked what the difference was between your troop and another one, you could say we are accredited and explain what that meant without saying anything disparaging about another troop.

[ASM915]

Lisabob, I like the BOR idea as long as the older scouts are level headed and mature. There are a few I wouldn't allow to sit on the BOR because of being to cliquish and probably not giving a true overall picture of the BORee.

 

I agree with the age changes. Bring the Rovers south of the border.

Would the over 14's still be allowed to work toward Eagle?

 

Tighten up the requirements.

For scouts, prove you can do it more then once or twice.

AS for leaders, maybe this is unrealistic, but for SM and Venture Advisors, function in an ASM and ASST. ADV. postion first, so they realize what they are getting themselves into and understand the rules and regulations first.

 

 

Beavah, Had a hard time reading you past, no yah's and other Beavah idioms.

 

I would like to see a stronger push on the outdoor skill and conservation like we had in the 60's and early 70's. I was elated to see National bring back Botany, even though it was added as assitional requirements for Plant Science. At least it's not buried forever. What ever happened to Tracking, Stalking and to SOAR and other conservation related projects at both the Pack and Troop level? I see such apathy from the scouts when it comes to conservation related issues and projects, and from a lot of leaders for that matter.