Scouting the Web
Share tips and info for Scouting webmasters and discuss Scouting resources on the web
Subforums
-
- 54
- posts
211 topics in this forum
-
- 4 replies
- 3.5k views
-
- 6 replies
- 3.8k views
-
- 11 replies
- 3.9k views
-
- 15 replies
- 5.7k views
-
- 51 replies
- 17.1k views
-
- 21 replies
- 7.1k views
-
- 132 replies
- 30.4k views
-
- 11 replies
- 9.9k views
-
- 1 reply
- 3k views
-
- 0 replies
- 2.8k views
-
- 7 replies
- 3.8k views
-
- 9 replies
- 3.5k views
-
- 20 replies
- 7.2k views
-
- 12 replies
- 4.1k views
-
- 0 replies
- 3k views
-
LATEST POSTS
-
-
I cringed when I read the term "Family Troop". My initial reaction was, "there's the final nail in the coffin of the Patrol Method". -
This is so poorly worded and tone deaf. Family Scouting was a smart concept for Cub Scouts. It makes no sense as a marketing tool for Troops. And like Jameson76 mentioned, it's not what 11-17 year olds want. Also pitching this as a solution to inadequate numbers needed to start a single-gender troop is just pure nonsense. This didn't come about to solve that problem and we all know it. I'm 100% in favor of this all happening, it's long overdue, but I don't get this particular marketing pitch to roll it out as "family scouting". It makes no sense. -
I like your attempt at not swallowing the doublespeak. I would encourage everyone to be more direct and use the term “mixed sex troop.” The last thing the youth who participated in the mixed sex troop pilot need is for their efforts to imply that parents and siblings and extended family will all be part of the troop. No! These girls and boys weren’t testing the hypothesis that every scout’s family members would facilitate successful implementation of the program. The issue at hand was a neighborhood of boys and girls (not biological brothers and sisters) working the program together with beneficial outcomes that outweigh proposed detriments. -
It was forwarded to all District Commissioners on Saturday by our Council Commissioner.
-
-
Who's Online (See full list)