Do we really need BSA ?

[JMHawkins]

If there were a startup national outdoor adventure association that pitched its offerings to middle schools and high schools instead of to churches, my guess would be that they'd decimate the BSA. I've been surprised that nobody "real" has moved into the space; so far all we've had are some fringe groups who cared more about their agenda than doin' good outdoor adventure youth work. That never works. Worse, they try to do somethin' with the uniform and badges stuff that the kids don't care for.

 

Well, the badges and uniform stuff is the easy part. I can come up with a spiffy (though maybe not boy-loved) uniform and some ranks and bling and requirements without much trouble. I suspect I could even make the ranks and advancement requirements fun for the boys. The big challenge is getting enough capable adults to buy into the program to provide the volunteers needed. Part of that includes solving the logistics and liability problems associated with an outdoor program.

 

Plus, I think groups that are likely to target schools will go in with a classroom-, or sports-oriented approach without the youth-led aspects of it. A 'teacher' or 'coach' will run the program, instructing kids on this and that, rather than letting them do it themselves, which won't be much fun for the kids. Sure, it doesn't have to be like that, but that's the tendency absent any countervailing force. Just look at BSA - it takes a fair amount of guidance and cajoling to keep the helicopter parents from following their natural instincts and making it an adult-led outfit. Frankly BSA is a total anomoly in the US that way - what other organized program allows kids to run the show? It would take the organizers of a new replacement national outfit a lot of work to instill the right approach with the adult unit leaders, not to mention build some credibility with mere parents who are asked to entrust their children to the program.

 

BSA has a huge amount of social capital that's been built up over 100 years. I think it's squandering a lot of it, and I'm really worried about that because I don't think it is or will be easy to create a nation-wide replacement organization. Sadly though, I get the feeling our society will have lots of experience rebuilding massive amounts of social capital that the this generation has been so effective at frittering away.

 

 

 

[desertrat77]

Beavah and JMHawkins, excellent points.

 

There is indeed a seam in what the BSA provides and what kids really want. Kids love the outdoors. And many like the idea of progressing thru some kind of advancement program. The organization that can capitalize on these is going to take off.

 

Sadly, the BSA has historical excellence in both categories--outdoors and advancement. Seems to me, thought, that National has greatly favored advancement over the outdoors for the last several years. Which is too bad. Sure, it's easier to track "progress" and "growth" if you are a bean counter and comparing stats. In BSA's glory years, outdoors was first and advancement wasn't the lockstep/drag 'em across the goal line thing that it is now.

 

Two hypothetical scouts:

 

a) Star/Life scout, SPL, very active, with much outdoor experience, good scoutcraft instructor...camporees, summer camps, 50 milers...looked up to by all scouts

b) Eagle scout, Scribe, camped only when he had to, went to summer camp once and spent the entire time sitting at the picnic table, working on 12 MBs with the ultimate goal of earning all MBs available before turning 18.

 

If National had an "ideal" scout in mind, as a true representative of the program, which scout would it be? In years past, it would have been scout A. I don't think so any more. The days of the outdoor adventurer being the ideal scout OR scouter is long gone.

 

Thing is, outdoor adventure is not obsolete, nor undesired. It's our very best product that can be offered, yet generally speaking it is put on the shelf.

[KC9DDI]

If National had an "ideal" scout in mind, as a true representative of the program, which scout would it be?

 

Why does that have to affect your own unit's program?

 

It seems like we're giving National a bit too much credit. Unit-level folks have a much bigger impact on an individual Scout's experience in the program. Can National be blamed for units running watered-down programs?

 

I agree that National has been moving away from outdoor adventure in some ways in recent years. But that doesn't limit your troop's ability to take on a challenging outdoor program, develop a strong patrol system, etc.

[desertrat77]

KC9DDI, that's true. But National sets the tone, just as any corporate hq will do. National's priorities eventually ripple to the units, for good or ill, and will directly impact what kind of volunteers step forward, what councils spend their money on, etc. If we are speaking of the BSA being relevant, and something that fills a need, what is the "product" they are pushing? I think that's what I'm trying to get at.

 

 

[JoeBob]

EagleDad said: "the average scouting volunteer actually puts in far less than 20 months."

 

I have to believe that that is because new volunteers run into the National BSA red tape that this thread is about. New volunteers are all starry-eyed and fired up to be like the SM that they remember, until some dude in a tan neckerchief tells them that scouting has changed, a lot!

 

My opinion of myself has dropped. I was enough of a sucker to hang around...

[Eagledad]

>>EagleDad said: "the average scouting volunteer actually puts in far less than 20 months."

 

I have to believe that that is because new volunteers run into the National BSA red tape that this thread is about.

[JoeBob]

I think we've got two kinds of troops.

 

Youth led troops who use adults for chaffeurs, credit cards, and safety supervision. A little coaching (advice) from an adult may smooth over a bumpy spot.

 

Adult troop. The national organization seems to be based on adults having a place to play boyscout while pretending to support the youth troops. But National has become more about obstacles than opportunities.

 

If we really believe in "Trust them, train them, let them lead." then the National Adult Troop needs to get out of the way.

[JMHawkins]

No, they just don't have the ambition or passion for the vision. Believe or not, probably less than 10% of volunteers don't haves desires of being a leader.

 

Of course not. They have the desire to help out, make a difference, maybe vicariously re-live a little of the adventure they had a boys. That's not a bad thing, assuming they can temper it with some adult perspective and not let their own maudlin' trample the fun for the Scouts. Very few adults really have the desire to lead a group of 12 year olds. Those who do we should maybe be concerned about...

 

Actually, seems to me the worst problems are the adults who get into Scouting in order to be "in charge." They don't mind the red tape and bureaucracy because it empowers them. That's part of what I meant by National not helping. As things are, volunteers who just want to help boys learn to be independant citizens of good character are frustrated by a blizzard of forms and "can't do thats" while the guys who want to be the big shot use all those rules to build their castle against any intruders.

 

Again, I think the folks who run my District have the right attitude and work against that trend. But it sure seems to be a trend. Locally, you can make a difference and run a good program. KC9DI says:

 

Unit-level folks have a much bigger impact on an individual Scout's experience in the program. Can National be blamed for units running watered-down programs?

 

I agree that National has been moving away from outdoor adventure in some ways in recent years. But that doesn't limit your troop's ability to take on a challenging outdoor program, develop a strong patrol system, etc

 

I both agree and disagree. Unit level folks do have a much bigger impact, but the sort of folks attracted to and retained in unit-level volunteer positions is affected by National. National i to blame for units running watered down programs when National publishes watered-down requirements and provides watered-down guidance. National is to blame for watered-down adventure when YMCA camps will put a kingerdartener on a climbing wall while BSA insists Scouts have to be High School aged to do that.

 

National does limit a troops ability to take on a challenging outdoor program when the hoops to put one on get worse each year. That doesn't mean local unit volunteers can't still put on a good program, it just means it's arder for them to do so, and when something is harder, that means it'll happen less often.

 

Another big factor is the lack of adult leaders with previous Scouting experience. They're sort of blank slates. They can be phenominal leaders if they get the right direction. But National is pushing an advancement-focused indoor program. If those non-scouter background folks get the right direction, it'll come from the dwindling cadre of "old-timers" (in body or spirit, perhaps both), and not from the official training program supplied from Irving. now, on the one hand, that shouldn't be. The information that comes out talks about a monthly outing, but somehow it's just not working that way.

 

 

 

 

[TAHAWK]

Do "Troop Program Features" seem to you to be pushing an indoor focus? 'Cause most of them were written decades ago and they provide for a a campout as the high-point for the vast majority of months.

 

That is not what we tell them in the two councils I train for.

 

It is rather sad that only "building a fire" rather than starting one is enough to advance.

 

I did get an answer to my latest request that elements the "Patrol Method" be expressly set out. The answer was that my observations would be referred to the appropriate people. In more words, that was the initial, form response. No, that does not satisfy, but it may even be accurate.

 

(I also asked them to do away with "patrol leader" [it's "Patrol Leader"] and the infamous "BP" quote about the patrol system, but those are minor errors compared to the slippery business of what the Patrol Method is to the corporation these days.)

[Eagledad]

>>Actually, seems to me the worst problems are the adults who get into Scouting in order to be "in charge." They don't mind the red tape and bureaucracy because it empowers them. That's part of what I meant by National not helping.

[desertrat77]

Eagledad, I'll grant you that many unit leaders need training and are headstrong...but frankly, I expect district and council folks to be a little more astute in how they handle this. Often, The Good Old Boys at district and council seek to stifle the leaders who DO know what they are doing, because they won't line up and a) kiss the ring, b) sheepishly buy into "this is how we do it here."

[qwazse]

That is the one thing national *does* offer: standards and examples that show how you (and your youth) can be distinctive.

 

Simple case (one of the first I posted on this forum): several life scouts in or troop were officers in their crew. They put that as their POR on their Eagle application. Although I had cleared this with the district advancement chair years before, the registrar at council HQ thought they could only have troop POR's since their app went through the troop. Phone call to national settled that in our boys' favor.

 

There are plenty of "my way or the highway" folks out there. And many of them will settle down when you have program materials that explicitly allow you to stay on you donkey path!

[Eagledad]

>>Eagledad, I'll grant you that many unit leaders need training and are headstrong...but frankly, I expect district and council folks to be a little more astute in how they handle this.

[acco40]

Um, we are the BSA just as much as the professionals, so I'm not sure what you are asking, Scoutfish (plus, I repeatedly see "bing" which I'm interpreting as being).

 

The question is do we need a paid professional staff? The answer is yes. The problem is that the paid professionals are many and woefully underpaid. I'd like to see the quantity go way down and the quality go way up.

 

(This message has been edited by acco40)

[OldGreyEagle]

It is possible District folks have the positions they have because no one else will take the job. A good Distrct moves titles around a bit so no one gets saddled with anything too long or the Distrct gets saddled with them. It takes a culture of accepting change that I luckily walked into.