EDGE - why dictate it?

[OldGreyEagle]

well then,I disagree

[sherminator505]

One could also argue that the rebranding of OA as "Scouting's National Honor Society" also contributes to the problem, for similar reasons.

 

Hmm... did I just hijack my own thread?(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[Twocubdad]

The final solution to the outdoor question? The hyperbole meter on my computer is smoking. Did you throw that in just because today is Passover?

 

I think Beav has a point. Unfortunately a solution would run counter to huge demographic currents. BSA has never had a tradition of 25-year-old Rovers running the program. And if we wanted them, I don't think there here. Of the 15 or 20 Eagles the troop has produced in my time as SM, I don't think a single one lives nearby. Our cultural tradition is to ship off all the young adults to distant colleges just as they would move into adult leadership roles. I had this conversations with one of my mates at World Jamboree. In the UK the Rover program works as most college kids tend to stay closer to home for college. Whereas here, my son absolutely refused to apply for any school in our area code. Kids who do attend local colleges tend to still stay on campus and pretend they are away from home.

 

(As an aside, my UK buddy also noted that the UK Scouts are always cash-strapped since most leaders are under age 30. We old farts may not be much on the trail, but there is something to be said for involving adults during their prime income-producing years.)

 

I don't know about the early years of the program, but in my lifetime BSA has always run with the model of parent-volunteers. I don't know that we've ever looked to the 20-somethings for leadership.

 

Now, in our troop, I'm guessing the average age of parents of our incoming Scouts is somewhere in the early-to-mid 40s. A huge demographic shift in the country is the age at which educated, middle class couples start families. Few folks start traditional families in their early 20s anymore. Of course, children born to teenage and unwed parents skew the overall statistics, but let's be realistic about where Scouting core market.

 

Looking at the potential ASMs among our new crop of parents, they all seem rather "comfortable." They still have some miles left in them, but I know that at 50-something and after more than a decade in the program my excitement at the prospect of another cold-weather campout isn't what it was.

 

It would be interesting to see some national research on the age of Scout leaders.

 

Changing gears, for those of you who question national's commitment to the ourdoor program, how do you explain the nine-figure commitment to The Summit? A case can be made that The Summit is a response to troops with "comfortable" Scout leaders. Within a day's drive of a majority of BSA members, troops will be able to take advantage of some pretty serious HA programs those troops' may not otherwise be able or willing to provide.

 

We're a big troop with a lot of resources. But it's still a struggle to put on HA programs for the older Scouts, especially in areas like climbing and shooting where BSA requires near-professional level certifications. But even an old, fat Scoutmaster can drive a group of boys to West B'God for a week of climbing or white water.

 

I'll be at the Greenbriar. Let me know when you're ready to go home.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[Kudu]

OGE,

 

When the "National Outdoor Badge for Adventure" requirement "4. A backpacking trip lasting three or more days and covering more than 20 miles without food resupply" is added "back" to Life Scout (as in Baden-Powell's equivalent "Bushman's Cord") then a Life Scout might be a competent Life Scout by international standards.

 

Bushman's Cord (Qualifying Venturer Badge)

 

2) Make a journey of at least 20 miles on foot or by boat, with not more than 3 other Scouts.

 

http://inquiry.net/advancement/traditional/journey_requirements.htm

 

When "National Outdoor Badge for Adventure" requirement "5. A canoeing, rowing, or sailing trip lasting three or more days and covering more than 50 miles without food resupply" is added to "back" Eagle Scout (as in Baden-Powell's equivalent "King's Scout,") then an Eagle Scout might be a competent Eagle Scout by international standards.

 

King's Scout (Senior Explorer Badge)

 

Take part in an expedition with not less than 3 and not more than 5 other Scouts. The expedition may be on foot, boat, or on horseback.

 

The expedition must be planned to last at least 4 days, and at least 3 nights must be spent in tents. All necessary equipment and food must be taken and all meals prepared by members of the party... An expedition by water will cover at least 50 miles and the log will cover such points as the state of the river, conditions of banks, obstructions to navigation etc.

 

"National Outdoor Badge for Adventure," huh? We literally took the "Adventure" out of Baden-Powell's international Outdoor Badges and offer it now "as something 'optional' or 'in addition to' the 'regular' Scouting program."

 

But to offer this Adventure to boys who join the Boy Scout program looking for, um, this Adventure, we would have to kick all the time-consuming Cub Scout office management theory out of Boy Scout training, wouldn't we?

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

http://kudu.net

 

(This message has been edited by kudu)

[desertrat77]

Kudu,

 

"indifference" was my attempt at being subtle!

 

I was a scout 74 - 81, and remember comparing my first scout book with one from the '60s. My '70s version didn't measure up to the old one, in any category. The new one was very, very light on the outdoors.

 

I was an SPL near the end of my scouting days when the Green Bar Bill rewrite of the scout handbook came out in '79. I was quite happy as it seemed that the spirit of scouting that seeped thru the pages of that '60s version was present in the '79 edition.

 

I agree with BadenP's observations in other threads about the appearance of Mr. Mazzuca's goals--it appears as if Mr. Mazzuca is trying to revive that old '70s program, and give it one more try. (BadenP, hope I capture that right--if not my apologies.)

 

Thankfully Philmont and other HA venues still exist. Units can adopt adventure and stay away from prolonged lectures at the camp mess hall.

 

But if National is moving away from the outdoors, I submit this impacts recruitment (not only numbers but also the temperment of adults and scouts who may or may not join) and the public image of the BSA. It sure did in the '70s.

 

Regarding fitness and participating in the outdoors: the young ones don't fault us old folks for losing a step or two on the field. They do lose respect when we don't even try.

(This message has been edited by desertrat77)

[BadenP]

Twocub

 

First of all the Summit was a gift to the BSA by a wealthy benefactor, a huge tax deduction for him. Mazzuca on his own would never had scored this gift, as he wouldn't want to divert funds from his urban diversity and science camp scouting programs, he was just in the right place at the right time and this was given to him (BSA). Any upgrades to the Summit will be paid by large donations from other wealty benefactors, and from all the PR it looks like the CSE wants to make it into some kind of scouting Disneyland. So we will see what happens, but don't expect National to veer too far from the course Mazzuca has set. In all honesty I truly hope my predictions concerning the BSA and the outdoor aspect of the program are wrong, but there are no current indicators to make me feel differently.

[Beavah]

Yah, da problem with the Summit and other high adventure bases is the Disneyland effect, eh? It's not part of da regular program. Let's face it, a large fraction of da kids at Philmont go as part of council contingents, not with their unit. So they're not really building unit teamwork and citizenship and program, eh? It's more like da expensive one-shot vacation from the unit. Even when units go, the various rules about numbers and whatnot tend to make 'em do provisional sorts of things. Exclude some eligible kids, or add some kids from another troop to make the numbers.

 

Though the high adventure bases have their place, I'd much rather see unit program. Real wilderness backpacking with your crew that assembled and planned the whole trip, rather than goin' with a council contingent where the budget and transportation are done by adults, the route is selected by the base, meals are delivered pre-planned to backcountry commissaries, and there's an "attraction" at every stop. . Disneyland is great fun for little kids and older more sedentary people, and a Disneyland vacation is novel and memorable. If that's all yeh can muster, go for it, it'll be fun. But I'm not sure it's really much more than advanced cub scouting. Boy Scouting isn't about what rides yeh went on, it's about patrols and youth leadership, and that's all unit program stuff, eh?

 

That means da unit leader can't be off at the Greenbrier Hotel, though.

 

Beavah

 

 

[Kudu]

I wrote:

 

But to offer this Adventure to boys who join the Boy Scout program looking for, um, this Adventure, we would have to kick all the time-consuming Cub Scout office management theory out of Boy Scout training, wouldn't we?

 

SeattlePioneer writes:

 

Sorry Kudu, I don't understand to what you might be referring.

 

I agree, SeattlePioneer. The sentence is not clear at all. I meant ADULT Boy Scout training.

 

OldGreyEagle had said "How about these really neat National Outdoor Badges?"

 

To which I pointed out that the "National Outdoor Badge for Adventure" is a collection of the Adventure requirements that were removed from the sequence of ranks in Baden-Powell's regular Boy Scout Program. To put them "back," (and turn the standard Boy Scout program into actual "Adventure for boys"), the week of adult "Wood Badge" training would have to teach practical skills:

 

Learning how to pack a pack, and then actually backpacking to a Patrol overnight location (if only a quarter mile down the trail).

 

Likewise for packing canoes, and then actually canoeing to a remote overnight location (if only across the Scout camp swimming pond).

 

And so on, for a week of practical Adventure training geared to pulling off legitimate Troop-level Adventure.

 

I have never understood why "leadership" principles can not be pointed on in the context of useful hands-on training for Adventure, as for instance OldGreyEagle did with his running EDGE commentary on Hillcourt's Patrol Leader Training Course.

 

As for the rest of your post, I agree with all of your points, especially "Getting to First Class might take two or three years depending on how motivated THE BOY was." I recently discovered in a family photo album that I was such a "motivated" Boy Scout that I wore my Uniform to my birthday parties! However, upon closer inspection of the photos, it turns out that at 11 I was a Tenderfoot, at 12 I was Second Class, and at 13 I was First Class.

 

Contrast that with a summer camp last year, where I sat in on an Introduction to Outdoor Leader Skills class that consists of adults sitting with first-year Scouts in the camp's Trail to First Class program. On the first day the course director announced to the Scouts and the adults that they will earn "90% of Tenderfoot, Second Class, and First Class" (including the five mile hike) in only one week of morning sessions!

 

So the two or three year "Trail to First Class" has become a half-week shortcut

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

http://kudu.net

 

[qwazse]

FWIW - After 6 years of ranting (or in my opinion, simply spewing the facts), our troop is not sending boys to the summer camp "trail to first class" courses. It took that long to build up the facts:

 

1. Advancement to first class was no faster than when crossovers learned skills in the troop campsite.

2. The percentage of boys leaving the troop before aging out was no lower than when they learned skills in the troop campsite.

3. The percentage of Eagles among boys who aged out was no higher than when they learned skills in the troop campsite.

 

I almost had them convinced last year -- pointing out the above plus explaining to people how having boys learn for unknown (although competent) scout instructors undermined the patrol method. There was still insistence that the PL's would be busy enoughtesting and signing off. (Even though PL's *knew* teaching was their responsibility as well.)

 

I simply didn't have the snazzy marketing campaign to parents for "Your boys can earn a couple badges that won't count toward advancement until 3 ranks down the road, fish, shoot some stuff, and --best of all -- sit around camp and learn essential scout skills from their mates."