Eagledad

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

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 those asking for help prideful? 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

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 have to find the real causes. There is no data to support your assumption. But I know and data supports me. I’ve posted that data many times. Has nothing to do with the changing culture. 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

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

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 question. I don’t think your bias will allow the humble approach. Barry

There is no integrity in this statement because you haven’t shown any evidence of understanding how the scouting program develops growth. 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 showing respect to posters who obviously don’t have a clue of a subject they pretend to be experts. I find the shallow bias tone toward experienced scouters and their knowledge condescending and disrespectful. Barry

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

Yep. Our pack was crossing over 30% of the Tigers until we made similar changes to ease the load on the parents. We gave all the Tiger families one Tiger coordinator who basically ran Tigers Program outside the Pack program. The Tiger parents were asked to attend two activities each month in a relaxed environment. We only included Tigers in the pack activities of Blue & Gold and Pinewood Derby. Our Crossover rate jumped to 95% and far fewer adults were involved. National changed the Tiger program in 2000 to require at least one parent attend one weekly den meeting and a monthly Pack meeting, which in many packs forced more adults to manage the Tiger program than all the rest of the Pack. Burnout! National did not knowingly rely on experienced scouters to maintain a level of program quality, it was just a natural occurrence for generations until the sudden "Demographics changes" of diluting the pool of adults. Even now, there has never been an organized systematic program for encouraging experienced scouters to pass along their knowledge newer adults. The quality control for maintain a minimum level of program is the simple result of newer scouters observing the more experienced scouters in action. Ironically, using older role models to pass along traditions and scout skills is a known tool of Patrol Method. The program reaction to the membership (demographic) change must have been almost instant in the 90's because training changes were occurring within five years and a completely new adult training format was implemented in 10 years. National never works that fast. So, there must have been a lot of pressure. A lot of people ask why Woodbadge was completely overhauled when it was considered a successful training program at the local level. I never heard an explanation, but I heard conspiracy rumors that it was a pollical opportunity for National. Barry

My reply was a general response, really to the ladies, that I was being sexist. I only mention the females membership changes as time events. There is not bias or anything against or for the event changes, just a marker of in history. I have worked, been trained and trained a lot of female leaders. One of which credits me with her Silver Beaver. I have lots of good stories of working along side with women, but I'm not one to sit here and defend myself against folks who don't read my post within the context it's written. I'm a big picture person and a fixer. Which is why I have so much experience with understanding programs. I've turned around a lot of trends once we looked at the numbers and understood the situation. Like the huge huge loses of 2nd year Webelos. That basically comes down to a 5 year cub program that burns out adults. Burned out adults either drop out or lead boring programs. Less than 30 percent of Tigers get to the troop program. That is a lot of drop outs based from a top heavy 5 year program. If a person is one to follow trends and numbers, they can start predicting changes. A few of us predicted a membership drop in 2005 as a result of some program changes National implemented to the Tiger program in 2000. Why five years? Because that is the average number of years for a Tiger to work their way to the Troop program. Facts are facts and if one wants to ignore the facts, like National does, it often leads to their peril. A couple of members here are angry at the BSA and just don't like the program. They let their emotions drive their opinions, which is usually wrong. It's been that way for the 20 years I've been on this and other forums. Folks let their unit experience drive their opinions about the whole program. As I said, they are rarely ever right. Exactly. Pretty basic really. In everything a human does, experience is the number one motivation of actions when there is no other information to set a path forward. Scouting was male program of which a lot boys joined. If they had a positive experience, and most do, they join the program with their sons and duplicate their experience. They did that for over 100 years. National is out-of-touch enough to not understand that reality, so they didn't see the tsunami coming when the sudden rush of new adults didn't have a clue. They started playing catch up with new training programs, but they were only guessing on how to fix the situation. They are still guessing because they have bigger problems to fix at the moment. But, that doesn't mean you can't start fixing the problems locally. That's what I did, I fixed problems locally. The design you are talking about is already there. The problem is the lack of selling the program at the top. Good councils generally have good Scout Executives who understand the big picture and sell it to everyone down to the unit. The lesser productive councils are usually reflective of the SE. I'm with you. In fact, this is what I have been doing for 25 years. I'm retired now, but some of the programs I developed that were made for this goal are still there. Start local. If your changes really make a difference, people will notice and use them. You will always have the nay-sayers like the like ladies yesterday, Everybody is an expert, but some experts actually know something of what they are talking about. Barry

Yep, and no body said that. Girl Scouts would be dealing with the exact same situation if they encourage more male leaders Barry

I agree, don't wait for National. Because of the reputation of our Troop level Junior Leadership Course, I was invited by council to develop a council level Junior Leadership course. My advise for developing your ideas at any level is recruit professional writers who believe in your ideas and aren't intimidated with complicated documents. I recruited two Scoutmasters who were also college professors. Develop your plan with enough details that you can sell your ideas. Then fill in the details with your recruited experts. Barry

Wow, I like this a lot. And I think scouters would enjoy it. We talk a lot about Scouting being for the youth. But, adults enjoy growth and develop passion with the experience of maturing as a leader. Creating passion is probably what WB does best. The courses can be presented in such a way that participants attend a more advance environment as well. We had an old-timer who was involved in the development of the original WB course. He eventually developed an advance Scout Leader Outdoors course where the participants spent a couple weekends backpacking. They learned advanced knots, first-aid, cooking and so-forth. The instructor spent time on the reasons and theories of the skills so that the participants became experts of why and when to use these skills. Something the old WB course did as well. Since only one person led the class, it was very limited, which was very frustrating because there was a long long waiting list. It was the favorite of all our classes. So, my point is make the advanced classes both in education and experience. Not sure how yet since we want committee leaders an equal part of the course. But we are creative. Good job. I'm really excited with your idea. Barry

No attitude. There is, or was, plenty of data over the years that tracked the membership changes and the program issues that followed. To ignore the facts because your feelings are hurt doesn't contribute to solving the real problem. Rationally, when ever a large change is introduced into balanced system, repercussions are the result of the imbalance. We can look at the issues of the imbalance and react proactively, or reactively. Barry I

Yes, but admitting girls also gives more opportunities for dads without a scouting experience to join. So, it's a wash. Scouting has always had inexperienced adults join the program, but before membership changes to admit female troop leaders and female scouts, the number of inexperienced adult leaders wasn't large enough to upset the balance of using experienced leaders to maintain a quality program. Eventually the ratio of new leaders with a scouting experience will rise enough to bring a balance back. Then training will not be the priority it is requiring now. But, the changes to the program in the next few years to accommodate the present lack of experienced leaders are what I fear could gut the real mission of developing ethical and moral decision makers. It's just one of many challenges my adult kids are dealing with right now. Barry

We commented on this forum 20 years ago of the shift from a majority of new leaders having a youth scouting experience to now a majority of new leaders without a youth scouting experience. It's a huge thing. Scouters without a youth experience required three times more hands-on experience. The BSA noticed the problem after admitting women as troop leaders. I met and coached several female Scoutmasters. I remember be left speechless after listing to one female SM brag that she introduced more of the Webelos style arts and crafts to her scouts and they love it. I was told by someone in her district that she was loosing scouts right and left. Not having a youth scouting experience doesn't make the adult bad, but it does challenge a 100 year old program that relied on roles models setting the standard for program quality. Its a shift that needs to be understood so the program can be fixed to deal with the situation. I brought up this issue again when the forum got hot and heavy on the BSA admitting girls. Admitting girls will bring in more adults with no scouting experience. It's just the way it is. When the majority of scouters don't have a scouting experience, the culture is going to change. There will certainly be less opportunities for new scouters to observe experienced scouters in action. I remember one forum member proposing that districts round up their experienced scouters so they can work with the new scouters. But, it's like using Troop Guides to role model patrol method in New Scout Patrols, it's not the same. Add that National has not be very welcoming to age experienced scouters. The culture has to change for the new influx of scouters just like National changed the training curriculum in 2000. My personal fear of the new culture's lack-of, and misunderstanding-of, Patrol Method. Training can teach the definitions Mission, Aims, Methods, Scout Oath and Scout Law until scouters are mumbling in their sleep. But, if they don't "trust" how patrol method changes a scouts character, it will get lost in the future program. I enjoyed reading MikeS72's post of his WB experience. It took me back to time when being a mentor for adult leaders was a fun experience. There was a humble pride that your skills could make a difference for making scouting a better place for boys. WB Participants in the old days had to be invited into the course. It wasn't about levels of training, the honor of being invited by the best of the best was acknowledgement of your dedication in the field with the boys. And it usually required many years of experience. Arrogance wasn't a trait of a Wood Badgers back then, in fact you likely didn't know many of the adults who were WoodBadgers. I also got my regalia in the mail, but I never wore it around scouts. In fact, I don't remember ever wearing it except during the WB courses. Barry

As a bicycle rider who spends a lot of time on county roads, I have passed a couple of bobcats and wondered how fast I needed to go just in case I looked like lunch. Just my luck the chase would start while riding up hill. Barry

OK, your post makes sense. My WB experiences are all good. Of course I'm the kind of person that makes my experience good. Our courses are presented very well because our Council has a tradition of presenting good courses. I have observed that some courses are better than others as each tends toward the personality of the course director. But, even the worst course is good. As I said, I was excited with the new WB course because I felt it fit better for improving overall unit adult performance. All that being said, I talk to a lot of scouters and most of them couldn't really explain exactly what they learned on the whole. Which was OK, because my focus was always on ticket design. Still, I believe folks struggled to explain the main objective of the course is because the material isn't presented well in the since that each subject or discussion is a piece of a larger picture. If the course director gets it, then the course presents each part as part of the whole. But, if they don't, then the presenters practices and presents each subject as described in the WB Syllabus without much thought to connecting all the presentations together. However, no mater how the course is presented, if the participants had a good experience, they believe they attended a good course. As you know, we have a lot of fun. I'm not asking for the demise of the WB course, it think it's the best they have presently for the goals of team building. If I were king of the world, I would put a Harley in every garage and then I would scrap all the training materials today and start over. Actually I would go back to the pre 2000 courses because I thought they were much better, but I would adjust them to fit today. I would push WB back to an advance SM Course and create an advanced Adult Leaders course that would resemble todays WB a lot in content, but not the troop presentation. I would call it, Flaming Arrow. FA for short. I think units today are missing senior scouters who are respected for not only their experience, but their extensive Scouting knowledge and Education. That sounds like you ParkMan. And that is exactly what the WB course did for participants before it got hijacked in the 80s as a king of the hill type program. Woodbadgers where supposed to be respected teachers. Simple, but we are talking the Google Search of Scouting. Respect comes from hard work and humble application. Those people want to improve scouting without taking any credit. It's hard to imagine that kind of respect for even WB Course Directors today. There are a few, but that respect isn't necessary to direct the course. What the BSA needs right now is an advanced scouter course with the intention of the WB goals. But in a format that a Scouter from a Pack would feel at home as much as the Venturing Scouter. Or the the Committee Chair want of education as the SM. I believe the format would be more on a business professional spending two or three days at a conference center. I ran our council Junior Leadership course that way and the scouts loved it because the new format set all the participants equal at the very beginning. Doesn't matter whether the participant comes from the pack, troop, Venturing Crew, District Committee, or Council Committee, they all start at the same place. Most here probably didn't know that the early Wood Badge course was so respected by it's format and content that several businesses would send employees to the course. Others would accept the experience as credit for hiring. Interesting considering the course was intended for Scoutmasters. A lot of it had to do with how the top level staffers worked with the lower level staffers (Team dynamics). But, also once the participant understands how the format leads to gaining knowledge, the experience can be applied in the business world. That is what I would try get back with the Advance Scouter course. As for presenting a course online, I would design courses that would give the scouters more knowledge for their responsibilities in their units, but also wet their appetite for attending the rest of the course together for full respect for being a Flaming Arrow. Still haven't thought through wearing a Flaming Arrow around the neck. Needs more time for that.. Barry

OK, but I staffed a few courses myself. I counseled a lot of participants for their Tickets and I worked with a lot of adults in my units. In general scouters are recruited from the day they join. Not like grabbing them and pulling them to a course, but telling them that WB is the final ultimate course. Oh, it doesn't hurt to get the woggle that all the other experienced leaders wear. And, I can honestly to We will just have to agree to disagree. Barry

This the theory behind the newer WB course, and mine at the time in 2000. But, there are a few unexpected complications that seem to upset the theory. 1. Scouters, even those coming from Packs, are expecting to learn some hands on scouting skills, especially leadership skills. 2. The staffs don't really understand what WB is trying to pass along, so they aren't selling their program very well in their course. Just reflect back on all the posts in this thread where WB is called a leadership course. It doesn't matter how much previous training a participant brings to WB, if it is called a Leadership Training course, they expect a leadership training course. AND, even the participants coming from packs believe the training is basically Troop related, if not intended. Don't get me wrong, I like the intended course, but if it's not presented properly, a lot of unsatisfied participants come out of the course. Maybe what is needed is a train the the WB trainer course. I would love to be on that staff. Barry

No, most folks take the course for the Status, not the skills. The ones who want the skills are the one who are disappointed because skills are taught. And, there isn't a true Troop training course, which seems to be what most participants want. I think a better Advanced Beginner course could be developed that does a better job developing leader for their roles a team members. As a staffer, I feel working the Ticket has the most value, but it is not used to it's best advantage because staffs don't understand why it is so effective. I had control of Ticket proposals and counseled participants on how create them. Many staff don't give that effort. Barry

Yes. National changed their membership policy in 1990 to accept women troop leaders. The unforeseen consequence was the sudden rush of unexperienced troop leaders needing training for a troop leader experience. Wood Badge was at the time an "ADVANCED" Scoutmaster training course designed for EXPERIENCED Scoutmasters who wanted to expand their skills. As an advanced course, the curriculum was heaving into using an idealistic simulator troop environment and culture as well as using scout skills for teaching models. The simulated troop and scout skills were just props for teaching ADVANCED TEACHING SKILLS. Not Troop Leadership skills. Big difference. You would think that Wood Badge would be the ideal course to for adults with absolutely no scouting experience to learn the scouting program because the participants live as boy scouts for 7 days. BUT, as I said, the course curriculum was an idealistic model for experienced participants, it was not intended as a demonstration for the common troop. However, because the participants didn't have any experience, they took the course as the idealistic model for their troop, and they went back to duplicate a troop where the adults eat all their meals with the scouts, then did skills trainings all day long and sang songs all night long. As a result, National we getting a lot of negative comments along with a drop in membership. National realized that if they were going to deal with a large percentage of new adults without a scouting experience, they needed a way to bring them up to speed on the Goals and Aims of the BSA program and give them better initial adult skills. That is what the course started as in 2000. Not sure what it is now, but I don't think it is all that different. I know it certainly isn't a troop leadership course. As someone who was asked to work with struggling units while on District, I liked the new WB course because the vast majority of the issues I was dealing with were adults who didn't understand the goals of the program and didn't know how to operate as a team. Scouts skills (at all levels, Cubs Troops, venturing) were not issues causing these units to struggle. Understanding why they were there and working as a team was the number one issue I was dealing with. Where National failed with the new WB was they took the WB name and respected reputation to develop the team building course. They should have started with something completely new. Now everybody wants a woggle. Shesh.

LOL, WB used to be an advanced Scooutmaster course until 2000. WB is a designed team building course for all Scouters from Cubs to Venturing. But because of it's legacy, most participants and staffers think of it as Troop Leadership course and are greatly disappointed. Personally, I believe the value of the course is in the working the Ticket because that requires the participants to think what they want to do and then create a plan to do it. The rest of the course agenda is filler to have an excuse for serving frozen cheese burritos. Barry