Leaderboard

I don't mind that you keep saying that you're better than us. The thing I do mind is that you describe yourself as humble while you are saying that you're better than us.

They need something in place. I went into today to buy 7 Whittlin Chip cards at .19 cents each. I left with a new 3 Burner Propane Camp Chef stove and a new cast iron griddle. Because "Camping Equipment Sale"

There can be no doubt that BSA refusal to include homosexuals or girls until forced to do so due to social and financial pressure has had an impact on membership. It might not have affected it in terms of scouts immediately withdrawing, but it has definitely had an impact on recruitment and image. Its recalcitrance definitely cost BSA financial support from such high profile donors as the United Way to Levi Strauss. Why would that happen if not a reflection of increasingly negative public opinion? In the nearly 20 years I've been involved in scouting, I've seen schools gradually cut involvemen

You may be correct. BSA may be beyond redemption. I have never suggested recreating the 1960s program. Like Girl Scouts then, it was heavy on chopping things down, for one thing. My troop as a Scout was regarded as "strange" for minimizing open fires and using WW II "squad stoves" for cooking. Not all change is bad. Not all change is good. As to what I "want," I have been fairly clear. I "want" program that stresses the Patrol Method, Outdoor activities, conservation, and service. If that does not restore relative membership, such a program still seems preferable - to me -

I would encourage you to ask them what they mean by that - just as I have been attempting to do with you about your ideas. When I have asked traditionalists that question, usually what I hear is a belief that in earlier times there was more integrity to the underlying program itself. That people took patrol method more seriously, that people took advancement more seriously. There is a compelling argument to this effect. Many organizations react to challenges in membership (or sales) by watering down their core offering in order to "appeal to more people." This is always a dangerous p

This is a good concrete recommendation. Yes - let's do some market research to determine why people drop out of the program or never join.

Which leads me to believe this has nothing to do with programming and everything to do with BSA simply being a relic of a bygone era OR associated with a bygone era. Running Back to the Future and trying to recreate that 1960s program (including no girls, no homosexuals, etc.) is not going to get you what you want. Or maybe it is what you (or others) want? A smaller, but "pure" "Traditional" scouting experience.

I am just going to tell you about Traditional Scouting in my neck of the woods. IT WORKS! (emphasis). We have two "old school," or as some of my Scouts have said "sweaty," troops in my district. My troop has 11 active, is Scout led, and is a "hiking and camping" troop. Although we probably should add "Biking" to that list since we have 3 biking trips scheduled for the upcoming year since the Scouts want Cycling MB. They plan and organize everything, and adults are there for health, safety and guidance. It is messy, and mistakes are made by the Scouts. But they are learning experiences. We

Agreed. @yknot and @CynicalScouter what changes are you advocating? Being a premier youth outdoor program is a mission statement not a change. What are the specifics?

Where's a moderator when you need one, LOL?

Where I struggle with these kind of discussions is the lack of specifics. I've got no idea whether we are talking about uniform colors, removing religion, getting rid of advancement, or turning Scouting into a badminton club. I found this helpful to understanding perspectives here: Yet, in a comment like this one: I get the very high level concept that yes, change is desired. But I have no idea what change is desired. It's impossible for me to think about what is being advocated for here because I simply do not know what change is wanted. If it's a badminton club you

I sense we are not communicating effectively here on some very basic level and you're descending once again into questionable territory with comments that sound more like insults than discussion. I am not insulting you. I am merely disagreeing with you. You somehow interpret that as being offensive. I've given reams of facts and research. I can't help it if you don't want hear what I have to say.

Lot of people here would rather a "pure" buggy whip to any kind of adaptation and modernization. If it worked for great-grandpa, it is good enough for the great-grand kids? We need to go Back to the Future (tm)

Camping rates are actually slightly down and flat but what has increased exponentially is spending on gear. Exhibit A: Boy's Life. I am a practical person, so if your goal is try to return to some version of scouting from 1970 or 1990 or even 2010, I personally don't think there is much point in discussing that much because it won't happen. Thinking we know best what people need vs. what they want is by definition bound for failure. History is always good for context but there is a reason why buggy whip manufacturers went out of business after the Model T. I have advocated in multi

It's called disagreeing, not bias. I am disagreeing with you.

They absolutely are more broken. And offering 1920s solutions to 2020 problem is the definition of anachronistic.

I am familiar with the distinction between exploratory, descriptive and explanatory research. Only, here's the difference. According to @Eagledad they had the answer they wanted to test: programmatic failures are the sole cause of membership decline. If that is the case, his methodology was inherently flawed. And using data from 25 years ago to examine current conditions? Forget it. But as I said in a prior post. I'm now utterly convinced. Scouting needs to go Back to The Future, purge/cleanse the program of anything developed post-1969. Because nothing's changed since the Nixon administr

First, your link does not mention anything anything about a "research question/theory," and talks about how to conduct polls. @Eagledad did have a research question for his survey, "Why did you leave Scouting?" which according to your link, is an acceptable type of question for a survey. I think you are confusing the Scientific Method, a specific type of research method, and research methods in general. The Scientific Method is the one that has a theory that you perform tests, experiments, etc to prove or disprove your theory. And it is one type of research method. You see this in scien

I think my up and coming iceberg is bigger than yours. Mine is based on facts seeing it through the eyeglass. Yours, up this point, appears to be based bias. Barry

Disagreeing with what? Your only only disagreeing argument is that a 110 year old program doesn’t fit in today’s culture. You are offended by post that you take out of context and you pretend your experience is equivalently to everyone on the list. You don’t give details, just generalizations. Your generalizations come off as personal, not structural to any weakness. You don’t have a youth scouting experience and pass it off as irrelevant, which is condescending to those who believe the BSA made a difference in the lives. if you truly want to have have a discussion, ask a q

Again, since you lack a BSA scouting experience and haven’t shown any intellectual understanding of the program, your post can’t be taken seriously. Integrity. The buggy whip worked for 110 years, why not 111? Barry

There is no data for this assumption. First of all, there is ZERO data to even suggest that the girls membership policy had any more negative influence on membership than the GSUSA boys membership policy had a negative effect on their membership. Even National admits they only changed the membership policy to increase numbers (money). BSA beacame a target, but no data even suggests homosexuality was a cause for a decrease in membership. Infact, if you look at the numbers, the membership decline didn’t change through or after the Dale period. Membership did declined, but you’ll h

Better? Who is “us”? Several posters lately have been going out of their way to, well to impose an alternate reality. Why? There are mature adults here who only want to develop a program where their youth actually grow from their experience. The scouters come here Looking for tidbits of information to help them get closer to their efforts by asking real questions hoping for sensible solutions. The “us” are noise that pushes those real scouters away, thus keeping them from doing the best they can with the resources within their reach. Is wanting to be a resource for th

Why is taking freedom of speech the go-to weapon for those who can’t sway their ideals on those with experience and knowledge. Barry

I know the perfect solution! Let's go Back to the Future, turn the clock back to 1927, and pretend that the last century never happened. Let's pretend that the kids of the Depression Era (or the post World War II Baby Boomers?) remain the target audience. Therefore, let's simply go back to 1908 and Baden-Powell's Scouting for Boys, That will solve everything. A "pure" scouting from a bygone era will solve all problems.

No contradiction, there has never been any indication that not admitting girls caused membership losses. National admitted they started taking girls to stop the bleeding after the Mormons left the BSA. Barry

RIght - as @Eagledad just correctly noted that doesn't point to a contradiction. Adding girls to open up a new market doesn't mean that not having girls was the reason that fewer boys were joining. Who knows why fewer boys are joining - but we cannot simply assume it's because there are no girls. To borrow the phrase "correlation does not imply causation." One reason you see a lot of experienced Scouters push back on suggestions of blanket change is because Scouting's history is full of people who show up and make changes. In most cases those changes have not improved things. Some qu

I think not. I did all the heavy lifting of acquiring data until about 12 years ago and used our research results to fix programs. We didn’t have a grudge we were trying to support, we were just trying to make the program better. It’s your theory, go find your support. There is plenty of National data if you are so inclined. I don’t think you can tho, your theory that girls and gays are the reason membership declined over the years is pretty out there. I interviewed and exit interviewed a lot of parents and scouts and compared that data with other people across the country. Gays, god and

We kept hundreds of scouts in the program with that Non-data.LOL That’s just a theory, you don’t even claim Data to support the theory. I happen to know a few young dads who were in scouts not considering it for their kids because it doesn’t look like the program of their youth just 20 years ago. I don’t know if that is any kind of trend, but it has to be considered. Barry

Will you believe it? I give the results of our research of why families drop out and it’s disregarded. Folks here seem to only accept what fits their agenda. In fact, I would be surprised if today’s research didn’t support our data 25 years ago because program hasn’t really changed. We didn’t have a theory when we did research. We had a problem but didn’t know why. Research took us to the problem. Once we saw the problem (like why first year scouts have the highest dropout rate), we could track it to when National started recording membership numbers. Barry

😀 Exactly what is it that should die? At it’s best, scouting builds maturity by learning from bad decisions. My wife and were asked by our kids school to listen to a Nationally known child psychologist they sponsored Talk about techniques for encouraging kids to grow and mature in society. The theme of his talk is “The more mistakes your kids make as while they are young, the fewer mistakes they will make as adults.” That is the foundation of scouting. I mean no disrespect, I’m sure your smart and talented in many things. But I’m wondering if we are being played by continually s

There is no integrity in this statement because you haven’t shown any evidence of understanding how the scouting program develops growth. Barry

Well, as usual, another condescending generalization. The steep slope you struggle to climb here is that your among experienced scouters, so you are lacking leverage. I’m trying to help you, but you aren’t listening. Many believe scouting made a difference in their lives. What is the part of the program that made a difference and why do you think it’s irrelevant today? You don’t have that experience, so you have no integrity even attempting to address the question. If you want anyone to take you seriously, you have to humble yourself to their knowledge. Barry

I worked with concerning and skeptical parents for years. You have no integrity because you condemn the organization without intellectual reason. Parents want some kind of intellectual reasoning So they can trust you with their kids out in the wilderness for a weekend. You are close-minded and resort to flinging emotional spit-wad insinuations. It’s not the same. Experience trumps anger. Parents see it in an instant. Barry