Eagledad

I stand corrected. Barry

My personal opinion is the program will change dramatically, not so much by admitting girls, but from the adults that will join as a result of all the membership changes. Most of the adults will have very little understanding or experience with Patrol Method, so while it will be set up in the spirit of the handbooks, the adults won't let it process toward the design intention of the method. The adults that do know will be few and far between. If they don't know what they are looking for, they won't know how to drive toward it. Barry

The UK didn't see the rise for over 30 years. And the Canadian case is a great example of the BSA is basically following the same model. Barry

Several of us have been saying the same thing for several years, especially in the last year. But my opinion is that BSA is only focused on the new program. They are basically scrapping the idea of the traditional "Boy" Scouts and going full speed ahead of a Family Scouts program. It's a work as they go along type of development, but there is no doubt in my mind that they are driving toward that program. Someone said it earlier in this thread, but I have been saying it for a long time, the BSA only needs to look at the Canadian Scouts to see their future. Barry

Troops and Crews have been trying some form of your idea for 50 years. However, the most successful crews are typically not tied to a troop program. The most successful Troops typically understand the value and importance of older scout role modeling for younger scout development. A few Troop/Crews are successful, but the general idea doesn't work because the combined program format is too complicated for continuing through future generations of leaders. Success requires a visionary who understands how to develop young scouts from the actions of older scouts setting the example. And the two programs clash somewhat between the "Patrol Method" Method hierarchy of leadership and the Crew Method hierarchy of leadership. The adult who understands how to make both programs successful is rare. The name "Venturing" itself seems to lure many adults away from the First Class Skills part of the program for a more adventure part of the program. Those programs tend to fail within five years, by the way. Without the right adult (qwazse or MattR) to understand the complexity of the two programs, the quality of both suffer and typically the Venturing Crew folds. I've seen the scenario repeat itself many times. Why not MattR's idea, it worked for us. Our troop had the largest group of 14 to 17 older scouts in the Council. We were also considered the most Boy Run Patrol Method program in the council as well. Barry

I don’t how you can say that. You said it yourself, he invented American Boy Scouting. His vision of how Patrol Method changed boys is the big picture. The rest of your post is very good, but I respectfully disagree on this. Barry

Im not sure, you are certainly not slow, but what are the odds of 2 brilliant Scouters on the forum. Over the years Matt, you have represented yourself as a big picture person and a problem solver. Now that you’re not in the midst of the chaos, the picture is probably more clear. I have mentioned our temporary patrol program several times over the years, but one contributer here consistently responded that we were adult run because in his mind, patrols are to be aged based and “alway only” do activities together. I’m sure the interference from the discussion turned readers away. I wish more Scouters were problem solvers like you, then there would more drive to understand the goal of program. It’s hard to fix problems if one doesn’t know how it supposed to work. Natural Patrols? Why? Boy run is hard for adults because a lot of times the boys don’t know and keep wallowing. How far and how long are the adults supposed to let scouts fail before bringing in some kind of infusion? I use to tell our adults that we are doing it wrong if the Scouts don’t want to play the game anymore. It’s hard for many here to understand that the adults are in charge of the “game with a purpose”. Boy growth requires balancing and risk. Risk for letting Scouts push the boundaries too far to find their limits. And balance of just enough of adult interjection to keep the boy run patrol method program working towards the vision. Natural Patrols? Why? Barry

This describes our troop when I was with the troop. I imagine they are still using the program because the Scouts really liked it. Any scout any age can start and/or lead the activity, event, and trek. They have to provide a plan to get accepted. It has no effect on the existing patrols. We averaged 6 temporary patrols a year. Barry

Limiting the troop program to 14 will drive the program to a Webelos III formate. 14 to 15 is the average age and maturity boys are ready to take on real responsibility. It is also the best age for role modeling to young scouts. Without the older scouts, it’s an adult run program not much different from Webelos. And it doesn’t do the scout any good to get pushed to the bottom of another program when he is ready to lead. Venturing is most successful when used as an adventure program, not the “next step” of the scouting program order. Barry

We had a similar situation. Long long story short, we asked the church to look into the matter instead of just blaming our scouts for all the damages they where finding. The committee was upset because the ceiling tiles were being pushed out of place in their 40 foot tall meeting center. I understood their problem, it was a difficult task to find a ladder tall enough to replace the tiles. Turns out the teen Sunday School class boys would compete in slamming balls on the floor hard enough to see if they could bounce them to the ceiling. The other problem was the mystery of ceiling tiles and lights getting torn up in another room. Mystery solved, the Girls Scouts where scrapping the ceiling with their flag poles during opening and closing ceremonies. The church committee was quite embarrassed and never bothered us again, even when our scouts might have been responsible for damage. Barry

I was also the staffer (ASM) at Woodbadge who approved ticket items. You need to have a clear explanation of when each ticket item is finished. Like the end of the first course. Or 3 courses. Or whatever. The shorter, the better.

A committee member in our troop was frustrated by the counselor misinformation throughout the district, so she created a course for counselors the scouts in our troop were using. The course was so successful that district asked her to teach one course each year. Well they wanted more courses, she said only one. She started the course teaching the Aims, Methods and Mission before moving on to the rest of the training. She would answer many of the participants questions by referring to the Aims, Methods and Mission so that they would not get side tracked on advancement as the primary goal. That was 15 years ago, so I don't know what District is doing now. But I would say it's a worth while ticket item depending on how you plan to repeat the course. What would you consider to be the completion of the ticket item? Barry

I kind of agree. I liked the Venturing program because it was, in my opinion, an appropriate time to mix the two genders. Before puberty, youth learn best by observing same gender role models. Mixing the genders only confuses the possible growth. But after puberty, after the youth set their basic behavior habits, mixed genders add to the gains of the possible growth from the more mature program. Now that the program is mixed in the younger ages, the advantage of growth at the troop age has been negated. On the flip side of your thoughts, the most successful Venturing Crews in our area are the ones that specialize in non scouting related activities like: Law Inforcement, Medical, Aviation, Scuba and others that I forgetting. The least successful are the Venturing Crews created by troops to extend their older scout programs (actually to save their older scout programs). My guess is that whatever membership trend follows these new changes will have the same affect on Venturing. Barry

That is very cool. AS we've come t know you on this forum, I would say the gift represents your passion and contributions to the program. I met a SM who met him on a Philmont trail while backpacking. He can't talk enough about Bill and how his encounter inspired him to become a SM. Barry

This is the standard opinion of most scout leaders in the BSA program, and I cringe every time I hear it. When I was the district membership adviser and SM trainer, I taught troop and crew leaders that program is the attraction, or detraction, for older scouts. And, the older scout program is the performance indicator of the "whole" troop program. If the average age of your older scouts is 14-15, your program isn't very good for the younger scouts either. And directing the program toward advancement is a sure killer of a successful adventure program. My experience is troops that focus on advancement for the younger scouts will loose their older scouts to outside programs with more mature mentally and physically challenging activities. Some will go to OA, Venturing Crews, sports, band, and even chess club, depending on how the maturity of those activities are compared to the troop. Venturing is more successful when the program is viewed by it's adults as another adventure scouting program, not as the next step (or higher step) in the BSA ladder. Barry

“”I'm still struggling with the "masculinity" part of the equation. For starters, I never felt like cultivating masculinity was ever a keystone of Scouting. The whole "turning boys into men" thing, I know that's the ultimate goal of Scouting for some folks here, but officially it's leadership training and character development, as it has been for ages. Two things that are gender-neutral and not dependent on masculinity to achieve. “” This was the first mention of masculinity as a scouting goal. It fueled any following post that referenced masculinity as a goal. You have been clear through several discussions that you don’t believe a gender specific program provides an advantage for a scout’s growth. Some topics appear to trigger (emotional?) responses that apparently are intended for balance. However there is a difference between “agreeing to disagree” and “changing the tone of a discussion”. Barry

I’m wondering if you are confusing discussions because I’m not seeing posts showing concern with loosing masculinity of the program as a result of girls until you mistakenly refered to masculinity as a program goal. Where did that come from? Barry

You are lucky, my wife assumes I can read her mind. Barry

Cocomax has a good grasp of the intended context of this subject. The intent isn't to change a boys masculinity, but instead to give him and environment where he learns how control his masculinity within the boundaries of the Scout Oath and Law by making multiple decisions. Some here believe that everyone is from Venus and nobody is from Mars. But the context of the this discussion assumes that boys and girls are different. The objective is to help boys learn how to control their behavior when they are mixed in within the chaos of different behaviors, lifestyles and ideals of the world. Anyone who has been a coach for 14 year old sports teams of both genders understands how much their biological changes effect their behaviors, and how differently effects are between the two genders. So, keeping the genders independent in the program during this stage in their life helps make the task of building boys into men, or girls into women, less challenging. Of course there are those who disagree, but this thread isn't about the debate, those who disagree with the article or how the article fits within the context of the scout program can certainly start another discussion for balance. As many here are saying, the outdoor program and the patrol method provide plenty of challenges that forces a boy to see his limitations of behavior and the changes required to stay within the limits of the Scout Oath and Law. Stick with the basic patrol method outdoor program that gives scouts the independence to makes decisions and measure the consequences against the law and oath, and your program is good to go. I also agree that women leaders in general behave differently toward leadership in this program than men. But without defining the differences (because it's not important), we should understand that biological nature (instinct) at this age drives youth to learn faster from observing role models of their own gender. That can be a challenge for a unit, so we just do the best we can with the resources provided to us. But, that biological drive is the only reason why I prefer the SM be of the same gender of the scouts when ever possible. Barry

Read the article for context of the subject. Barry

I'll ask the same question that was asked during the gay scout debate, if everyone is living the Scout Law and Oath to the fullest, how can they be disrespectful? Barry

After rereading my post, I can see where the word "failure" might come off a bit blunt and ambiguous. We could call the failure, "struggle", instead so as to understand the point better. So let me give a small example of a programmed structure with the purpose of failure (struggle) as a teaching partner. "Time" is a great teacher of failure. In the early years, most troops planned their program activities around an agenda. Meeting starts at 7:00. Patrol Corners from 7:13 to 7:40. Program 7:43 to 8:20. Closing 8:23 to 8:30. If the scouts fail anywhere in the schedule, they leave the meeting late. Not a huge deal in the scout world, but the PARENTS are a different story. If late meetings occur often enough, the parents will inflict enough pain to drive change for better performance. Our troop has a 45 minute PLC meeting before every Troop meeting. It didn't take the SPL very long to insure the PLC meeting was over in time to start the Troop meeting on time. One thing that impresses a lot of scouter visiters from other units is that our troop meetings start on time. One scouter asked how we did it. He said the adults spend 20 herding the scouts around just to get the meeting started. I told him the adults aren't even in the room when the scouts are getting ready to start. In fact, the SPL disciplined the SM (me) once for being late. The SPL has a timed schedule he is driven to follow. It's not instant, but like a small slow stream that shapes rocks, time will shape the scouts to change to be more efficient. Same goes on campouts. Have the PLC make an agenda for the whole weekend that forces the patrols to perform their activities within a time schedule. While I was SM, the SPL would send me their agenda the night before the campout for the adults. The adults don't start any activity, we just follow the agenda. Sometimes the adults are at the designated activity area before the scouts, wasting the adults time, which the SM will certainly inform the SPL, painfully. Time is a very powerful teacher. Barry

Problem with most bylaws is that they are usually adult rules forced on scouts without the scouts consideration. Your bylaw is an adult rule forced on adults. I am OK with that. In the big picture, adults don't trust scouts because they don't like failure. Failure in the adult world is a ding against pride and stature. In my Scoutmaster Specific class, I taught that not only is failure OK, but the more scouts fail, they more and faster they grow and mature. Adults need to learn how to embrace failure as a teaching partner. I also taught that if the scouts don't seek help or advice from the adults, they will likely not learn from any advice "volunteered" by adults. Failure is painful. Pain from failure is good because it drives the scout to seek (learn) a change that will ease the pain. Adults need to build a culture of developing the program to embrace failure and to wait patiently for the scouts to seek help and advice. When the scout wants to ease the pain of failure, he is very willing to seek a change. Barry

Personally I think the I&P section is healthy, especially during these times. It is intended to be a safe place to learn and understand how others think differently. I think one reason other threads aren't as active is because new members feel some hostility in the answers to their questions. So, they don't hang around. I'm sure I'm part of the problem also. Where the I&P goes off track is when posts get personal forcing additional responses to defend or equalize the offending post. Still, I think the positives outweigh the negatives. I would love to experiment one thread with a rule that each poster only gets one post to express their opinion, and then see how the discussion tracks. I really have no idea, but it would be a fun experiment. Barry

It's not so much orchestrating the game differently, but allowing the freedom to experiment with decisions without interference of girls. I know from experience that the choices youth make will very greatly depending whether the opposite sex is within the vicinity. How many of us have watch our own children change their demeanor in some of the activities when we as their parents got near them? Same goes with Girl Scouts. Barry