Eagledad

When our troop was 100 scouts strong, I would say 50 percent of those scouts were in sports and other outside activities that demanded some of their time. But, it was seasonal. I average troop meetings between September and December averaged about 60 scouts. 100  scouts January through March, then 60 to 80 scouts until June. We took 100 scouts to summer camp and then the cycle started over again. 

I agree that parents understand the value of the scouting experience better than their kids, but, I also think if the troop has a good (fun) program, the scouts will attend when they can. They will come to meetings late after practice and arrive at campouts after their Friday night or Saturday games. The parents are big part of that because they have to take up the slack for getting their kids to scouts.

I remember one scout showing me his schedule to be the elected SPL in two years. It was impressive to see on paper, but I also remember it included the time on the high school swim team. And he did it.

Of course, I'm learning that families today are different than when I was a scout leader 20 years ago. But, that was our experience. Don't sweat sports. You just need to make sure the program is worth coming back to.

Barry

13 hours ago, qwazse said:

I think single moms are a serious consideration, but many single moms that I’ve met are looking for unisex programs for their boys where they believe male role models to be instrumental in a young man’s development. So those moms will value sex-segregated programs over co-ed. So, any mom rhetoric is just corporate double-speak.

This has always been the situation during my time in scouting. What might be a little surprising is that even some two-parent families look for programs with male role modes to help develop their sons. I'm not sure if the reason is because the culture is anti-male and they are looking for reinforcement of masculine behavior, or the father is out of the picture a lot from work. But our troop had several scouts in that situation. 

Looking at this further, I wouldn't be surprised that families would be looking for the experiences for their daughters since the evidence also shows that girls suffer greatly from single-parent lifestyles. The GSUSA probably has some statistics on that.

13 hours ago, qwazse said:

The ground truth, I believe, is that the organization has collapsed to the point that it is unreasonable for it to produce an all-boy and all-girl unit in every small community; therefore, it is positioning itself to allow each unit to be more flexible in its configuration in hope that doing so may make up for six decades of losses three decades from now.

 Yes, I believe this to be the situation as well.

Barry

3 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

That said, it is tough to determine if BSA numbers would be better now if they accepted gay youth at the same time GSUSA did. Loosing relationships with public schools was damaging, but I expect trends would have worked against BSA regardless.

Gays had very little influence one way or the other on membership until National decided to allow gays. That caused the exodus in numbers as well as as alumni funds. And that was the beginning of raising membership fees.

Forcing scouting out of schools was done by the atheist.

Non of the progressive activism really affected membership except for the girls. What really hurt the BSA the most was the financial support from past members. While liberal corporations taking away their support got all the media attention, it was the huge alumni pockets that hurt the most as National tried to walk the political tightrope.

Barry

2 hours ago, ToKindle96 said:

Maybe it was never about "serving more youth." Maybe it was about serving different youth. 

You had me going there for a moment. Then I remembered that National only makes program changes that serve the folks at National.

I’ve been wondering lately what the Boy Scout program has that would attract girls over the Girl Scouts program. Then I ran into a BSA girls troop fundraising at a local store yesterday. These girls were in full uniforms with every patch they could wear appropriate for their rank. They looked really sharp and any Scoutmaster would be proud. I think these girls are attracted to the legacy Boy Scout program. Sadly, National is going to shuck that away from them like they have been doing to the rest of us for years.

Barry

1 hour ago, Eagle1993 said:

Most of the best Troops and Packs in my area have older scouters involved.  One major issue is that there appears to be less willingness to volunteer the massive amount of hours scouting requires from the upcoming generation of parents.  One Troo I talked with mentioned that in the past there was some competition over who would be Scoutmaster and now parents want a program but don't want to volunteer.  This may be a N of 3-4 and may not be widespread, but I get the sense that BSA sees a problem.  

Simplifying programs could be beneficial but could also lead to some really bad outcomes.  I hope for the best but I respect Mike and if he is concerned I am as well.

I’ve been preaching for a more simple cub program for many years because it pulls down the membership for all the other programs. But, I fear it’s the troop program that will be changed, which doesn’t need change.

National has rarely shown to make changes to better the program toward a better program.

Barry

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Part of having a discussion  is the ability to leave your prejudices behind and listen folks are actually saying.
 

 

Thanks.

Barry

Scouting is local. While scouting is marketed as outdoor, there is room for local leaders to push the gray area that fits more to their level of comfort.

A lot of adults are living their scouting dream through their youths’ program and don’t even realize it.

Even Woodbadge can suffer from different interpretations of the syllabus. 
 

Barry

6 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Agreed; but that does not have to be lost with Coed or even with changes in views of normal human interactions.  We are only one of the players, and the family should be the number one, with schools and maybe churches  involved as well as families allow.

Everyone here uses the normalcy of family, schools and churches as a justification to normalize scouting. Scouting was always intended to be different to give ethical and moral growth a chance for males.

Nobody today wants to admit males and females are different and different programs give both genders the chance for the best growth.

A scout is brave is the first trait to go in this culture.

Barry

34 minutes ago, skeptic said:

It does not appear to have been any real issue in the larger World Scouting.  Adolescent youth are just that, and a coed unit is no more a real problem than simply having classes together or even going to Sunday school.  It is normal life for youth, and the coed part is NOT the problem, if there is one.  It is poor supervision and lack of parental involvement to teach right and wrong.  JMHO of course.

 

“Boy” Scouting has been a program of ethical and moral growth without the distraction of normal that compromises the growth that eventually contributes to the greater good of normal.

Ethical and moral growth are a worthy sacrifice in today’s self centered search for importance. 
 

Barry

https://www.foxnews.com/us/boy-scouts-america-making-big-change-more-inclusive

21 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

convoy so that if a vehicle has a failure, we can still get the youth/adult to the train on time. And the wounded vehicle can sort out repairs later.

4.  Things happen.  Run out of gas. Bathroom stops. 

5.  Lead MUST know the number of vehicles following, and MUST have a good sense, well perfect, of what the last vehicle looks like headlight wise.

6.  A written list of cell phone numbers distributed to all drivers, and if not, MUST exchange cell phone numbers to lead and tail drivers.

7.  Tail driver NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, passes the second to last driver.  The tail driver is always, ALWAYS the last driver. Some driver stops for any reason, the tail driver always remains the tail driver. The tail driver never passes any vehicle in the convoy.

We have had times, rarely, where the convoy got quite spread out and the lead pulled onto the Interstate shoulder for folks to catch up.  A questionable thing to do, but depending on circumstances, traffic load, sunshine, etc., not as risky as might be thought.

It is a lot to ask of the lead, but if everyone is paying attention it does work.

HOWEVER, in light of the information I've learned on this thread, I have to reexamine the wisdom of convoys.

(On one convoy to summer camp, a dad, once hitting the interstate, disappeared at 80-85 mph., flying past everyone.  Met up with him an hour later at the summer camp. Well beyond the speed limit.)

My half cent's worth. (not pricing myself above that sage, the Remember guy…)

Take out point 5, everything else applies when drivers are on their own. Before cell phones, we moved a whole troop of 120 six-hundred-miles and ended up at the destination with in 15-20 minutes. So it works well. 

Before cell phones, we used radios that had a range of 50 miles. Our trailer broke an axle in Colorado and all other cars knew within minutes. A plan was set to which car would help and which ones would continue to next stop at a safe place for a bunch of scouts. Much better than stopping a  whole caravan of cars along side a busy two lane highway.

Barry

Should still be there. National added it when they found scout car accidents occur more often in convoys. Following drivers pay less attention when the aren't navigating and often break traffic laws trying to catch up to the lead car. A lot of motorcyclist have accidents in group rides for the same reason. We found that all the cars typically show up to the destination within 15 minutes even after a 600 mile day.

Of course the the SM always showed up first.

Barry

6 hours ago, DannyG said:

One of the simplest ways it was described to me as a uniformed adult leader: The scouts should know that you participate in elections. They shouldn't know who you are voting for.

As a SM, this is the approach took with politics as well as religion.

Barry

3 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

 

My point is, I do not appreciate being called duplicitous, and I do not appreciate teachings that are very precious to me and considered a religion by the BSA being called duplicitous. You don't have to agree with the view, but attacking me for holding it is not cool.

Hmm, I know exactly how you feel.

Barry

She thinks that way because she didn’t have a scouting experience as a youth. Patrol method is only limited by adults fears.
 

I used to teach a course teaching adults how to push their fears boundaries out. The adults need to ask themselves what it would take to let the patrols to cook on their own. I’m not a fan of no cooking, but some healthy easy to fix meals might help the adults grow in the program. 
 

Discussion?

Barry

1 hour ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

Forgot one of the most important things... Scout-led! Absolute must. Took it for granted while writing.

I agree, but I have never met a Scoutmaster who didn't think their troop was scout-led. 

I will come up with some things that made me feel really good about our program, but what makes scouting so great is that the rewards change as the program changes and matures. Look forward to those wonderful unexpected rewards too. Many are coming your way.

Barry

4 hours ago, yknot said:

My views are a little different. I think people pretty much have a right to say whatever they think, wherever they want, and it's better to know what those thoughts are. If those views include thinking a certain class of children doesn't belong in a youth organization they are involved with, then they shouldn't still hold an active role within it. If registered leaders hold these views -- that girls in this case, or gay, minority, or non Christian religious scouts in other cases, shouldn't be in scouting in opposition to BSA policy -- then they should not be adult leaders responsible for these children and should step down. It is preferable for people to be honest about how they feel, because otherwise how does a parent know they are unwisely entrusting their child's safety to someone who doesn't think their child should be there in the first place? Broader society is largely trying to move past the point where you are not welcome because you are Black or Jewish or Muslim or Gay or a Girl. There are organizations you can belong to if you still hold those views, but BSA is no longer one of them. Parents of any of these classes of children in scouting have an expectation that their child is being entrusted to registered adult leaders who support BSA policies. 

This, by far is the most hostile post I ever read on this forum. Can you imagine how many of our kids would get education and skills instruction if every teacher, little league coach, dance instructor, and so forth who doesn't agree with all the policies of the organization stayed away from kids? There would be nobody.

This forum has had hundreds of these kinds of discussions for 30 years, but there is a difference between posters today and the earlier years; Posters today don't want to learn why folks think differently, and they want to censor any speech they disagree with.

Ironically, free speech is how bad policies that can be dangerous to youth and adults are exposed. We live in a dangerous time.

Barry

Whatever each one of us wants to think we are, there does seem to be a predictable tendency to diverge away from the center to one side or the other; instead of toward the center where we each seem to think we should be. 

Barry

20 hours ago, yknot said:

I'm not sure that's a great example to pick, because when Tigers were added to the program, verbal or physical threats weren't made against those children by other scouts or adult leaders. I don't know why people think it's OK though when it's about girls. Protecting children shouldn't require discussion. It's not censure ship to expect that registered and trained youth leaders in a youth organization protect and support the youth in their care. 

It depends on the interpretation of threats. I believe that bringing in girls has created, well lets just say a less welcoming environment for boys. There have been several discussions over the years of how adults are pushing the girls program and performance over the boy's program. And there was even mention of how the differences between girls and boys put the boys at a disadvantage in this program. I stand for the fairness and safety of all the scouts. But, in these discussions, it is fairness and safety of the boys' side of scouts.

I understand that emotions are powerful for forcing change, but I'll be here to keep reminding the list of the negative effects of change just like I have been doing for the last 25 years.

Barry

12 minutes ago, yknot said:

Change is indeed painful but we are talking about adult leaders who are responsible for children so there really isn't much leeway to accommodate adult issues. Adults who resent the presence of some of the children they are supposed to be supporting and protecting probably shouldn't be in the organization six years in no matter what other value they bring. 

There is a huge difference between not agreeing with a policy and passionately working with youth. I'm a firm believer that the Tiger Cub program is the cause of thousands of families dropping out of the BSA, but I found a way to raise our numbers. I believe education about the struggles from policy changes is healthy because it provides dialogue for ideas to approach and improve or fix the issue.

Sad that so many folks feel that censure is the only way to stop discussions they don't like. 

Barry

1 hour ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Just  remember Venturing celebrated their 25th year last year, and people still call them venture scouts and venture crews, not Venturers and Venturing Crews.

Or Explorers. 

Barry

21 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

I agree that there is a strong narrative around saying that everyone has to 'pick a side', but I don't know that the narrative is correct. Why are there only two 'sides'? Why are these the sides? Why must I buy an entire 'side' hook, line, and sinker? Reeks of false dichotomy to me. I don't think the world works that way, and I think - to your later point - that in order to preserve scouting as a place to find healthy acceptance, we need to reject that basic frame. Everyone should feel welcome and accepted as they are, quirks and all, in Scouts. That can't happen if scouts/scouters are on two different 'sides'. And while I've read various suggestions for where the narrative came from, I think this is a case of "pull the arrow right out". Solve the problem without first comprehensively analyzing why it came to be. We don't have to participate in sorting people into two absolute categories. Or, if we do, the categories 'scout' and 'non-scout' make sense 😄

 

I like what you're saying, but your posts don't reflect more than two sides. In the first discussion we had about mixed-gender scouts, you, in so many words, told me to butt out. I didn't and don't take offense, your style of moderate "my way or the highway" is common these days. But, how can you encourage a less pick a side discussion if you intimidate the discussion to go one sided? Is it so hard to not die on the hill of your opinion? 

That is why I keep bringing up using the Scout law for Civil discussions. The Scout Law is common to all of us, so we don't have to lecture or dictate our own set of rules on the group. But, allowing other opinions without intimidating our own opinion on the group takes practice. Especially if that style of discussion is part of our character.

This forum will be a perfect place for you to practice listening without leveraging your opinion of how the discussion should be moderated because you are about to become a leader in the troop program.

As you know, we are not supposed to shape the youth into the scouts we think they should be, we mentor them so they willingly shape themselves into young adults of character and integrity. We do that by giving them respecting them as equal adults and giving them opportunities and space to think about how their decisions affect those around them. We want them to reflect on their actions of ethics and morality through the common filter of the Oath and Law. 

Youth learn 90% of their behavior by watching others who influence them. Actions, not words. They basically shut out long judging lectures and diatribes. Youth of the troop age are doubly hard because they resent being talked down to when they are told THEY are supposed to learn from their actions. They open up to more curious non-judgemental single-sentence questions from trusted mentors. Even more powerful is showing trust by walking away after presenting the question to allow time and space for reflecting on the question. Our human pride often puts up an instant defense mode because wrong actions hurt. Walking away saves them from putting up shields and instead lets them ponder on the questions. 

We can't change a young adult to be a better ethical and moral decision-maker, they have to decide that on their own. A good day is when the scout comes back for further discussion on the question. 

Future discussions in the forum are going to be tough because the progressive culture is pushing harder to neutralize judgment of moral decisions. I once heard a gay activist explain they are pushing god out of the culture so homosexuality can be considered normal. In other words, taking god out of the discussion takes the guilt out of the behavior.

You have already commented on allowing atheists in the program. That is next. BUT, KNOW THIS, when the atheists move in, god in the Law and oath will be pushed out. God and immoral guilt don't mix. God is the focal point of morality and ethics. A scout leader never has to take responsibility for defining morality because that burden is on god. Once god is gone, moral and ethical behavior will depend on the unit's leadership, not the scout's personal moral guidance, which is usually their parents. 

So, these discussions will get more complex and two-sided. This is going to be good practice to add a personal opinion without trying to force the direction of the discussion. This is also a good place to practice those one-sentence questions and step back to allow responses. I think you will be amazed at how intellectual the discussions can go when posts take on an educational tone instead of accusatory or judgmental.

Barry

17 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

I'm also hoping that people will notice in their reaction that aggression towards women is disallowed even by the latest traditional male gender role, so further unity regardless of what one thinks of gender roles...

I'm curious, what is the latest traditional male gender role that is considered a threat?

I'm one of those people who believe mixing females into the patrols puts the males at a disadvantage for personal growth, and possibly some harm by the adults. So, I struggle with the idea that girls are the ones at risk. I've seen way too much overhype on this forum to not be concerned for the boys. One poster was bragging just the other day about all the girl cubs on the podium after the derby races. What was the point of the statement? Were boys also on the podium? We don't know, but we can imagine that adults were saying plenty of the same type things in front of the boys. Normal adults doing normal adult things I guess. But that is an example of what boys will have to endure in mixed patrols. 

Barry

How can a troop over ride the camp director?

Barry