fred johnson

Good discussion above.  Exactly right.

Another reason some camps or SMs put an age limit, many give up.  Most first years don't complete shotgun.  Their smaller size makes the challenge much more difficult.  And if you don't do it right, it definitely can hurt.  We want younger scouts to have positive experiences and to walk away with the MB if possible.  

So age 14 is listed as a restriction, but it's more of a guide to avoid a bad experience.

Personally, I hate when groups add restrictions.  I see it all the time.  How about just a guidance note saying it's harder for first years and a friendly suggestion for scouts to hold off for a year or two.  

Units the deal with these conflicts the best are the ones that maintain a consistent program. 

I agree.  Conflict, scout behavior or specific incidents ... It's best to address them early.  Things fester.  

No FOS ??  ... I'll believe that when I see it.  Money drives everything.  

When it comes to the uniform, I think as long as the boys feel comfortable wearing it while camping, then I will be happy. This whole silliness of "wear it in the car then change once we get to the campsite" stuff shows what's wrong with the current uniform. When I was a scout we wore the uniform at all times, backpacking, at summer camp (OK, not while swimming), at troop meetings, parades, etc. If we were doing scout stuff, it was in uniform (it was the old green uniform shirt). That is what we should see today. As a scouter, I wear my uniform proudly no mater the activity (OK, not swimming). I just wish it fit better, and wore better, and didn't have so many bits that can catch a pack strap, and I hate the convertible pants (if I want to wear shorts, I will wear shorts). And it costs too much for what you get. And it isn't made in America anymore (though has Made in America prices). Hmm, I guess I don't really like the current uniform much. Oh, and the dis-emphases on the necker - probably the most recognizable scout uniform element in the world! That should not be optional! There are countries where the only specified uniform elements for their scouts is the necker. And neckers are not neck ties! They should not be treated as such!!! If you are showing scouts how too roll and press their neckers, you are missing the point! <hey you kids, get off my lawn!>.

 

Actually I think part of the problem is that too many scouters think of the BSA uniform as the equivalent of a military dress uniform. It's not a dress uniform, and shouldn't be treated as such (So it's wrinkled, so what? You brought a ruler to the uniform inspection? Really? What is this, the marines? They are backpacking, who cares how "sharp" they look?).

I love your post in many ways.  I agree that 

• Too expensive.  I can't afford to have more than one fully assembled uniform.  
• Too decorative to be functional.  
• Poor quality.  I've had letters fall off and seams fail.  Different versions have been quality hit and misses.  Mostly misses.  After the Centennial version, I've bought similar looking pants elsewhere.  The Centennial pants failed, were replaced and the replacements failed again.  Belt failed too.  ... And no, not because of my size.  
• Not comfortable to be worn all the time.  On really hot days, most versions just don't breath well enough.  Fit could be better too.  .
• Wear it in the car and then change out is silliness.  If changing out, then why do we have it.
• My old old red wool jacket was great.  It adjusted to the temperature up and down great.  Blocked wind.  The new green jacket I bought, just did not block the wind and did not keep me warm the same way.  

It seems we have two contradicting purposes for the uniform.  Functional and formal.  It almost seems like we need two.  One for formal events.  One for out and about.  

Anyway ... just sharing my frustration with the many scout uniforms I've bought over the years. 

I do admit I really miss the old pants from before the centennial version.  They were like wearing pajamas out in public.  They breathed well.  They were extremely durable.  You could wear them formally or all weekend in camp.  One of the best decisions I made was buying as many as possible when they went on clearance.  I can still find my adult sons wearing them at times because they are comfortable and still good 10 years later.

I used the phrase "guideing" the scouts in the sense of the EDGE method.  On things like setting up tents, making dinner, figuring out how to run the troop election, I'm there with you that ASMs sit in the background.  If a committee member is around, they are on the other side of the room carrying on with adults talking about troop finances or something like that.

 

In the case of something like organizing a camping trip, there would be enough of a skill base that the SPL & others could organize that.  But, in the case they do not, it would seem to me that a SM/ASM would have some sort of role.  Ideally, it's just to ask the occasional question - check status, etc..  But, if you've got a bunch of scouts who's idea of trip planning is to send out an email to the troop saying - "come to my camping trip", it would seem there's mode EDGE involved here.

 

I'd think in this case, the SM/ASM would meet with the scout, talk about the process, give him some pointers about getting started, and then check in from time to time.  if the scout picks is up quickly, then maybe it's just an occasional question.  But, if not, I'm thinkinthe SM/ASM would have to do some more prodding.  i.e., perhaps he coaches the scout to put together a timeline of when he needs to get things done.  perhaps he asks the scout to show him a schedule for the weekend.  If the schedule looks weak, then perhaps he points the scout to some resources to take a look at. When I say guide, that's what I'm thinking.

The issue I have is with "SM/ASM".  It's a minor issue, but key.  It's not an interchangeable either/or.  "The SM would meet with the scout..."  .... "If not, the SM would have to do more prodding."  ... It's only when the SM is not available that an ASM needs to do this and even then it's in the exact same mode and same content.  And the moment the SM returns, the ASM defers to the SM.  The key I'm trying to point out is all leading, prompting, coaching is funneled through the SM whenever possible.  I've seen whole weekends where 20 or 30+ scouts only work through their SPL with the SM and the rest of the ASMs play cards and relax.  That's how it's supposed to be.  Scouts with scouts.  Adults with adults.  SM & SPL is the bridge.  

I say this because I've seen so many troops with 5+, 10+, 20+ ASMs that it just defeats the concept of it being a youth program.  It's often these troops that emphasize their "youth led" or "patrol method".

But, the troop committee should not be organizing trips for the scouts to attend.

BSA documents troop committee as having an outdoor / activities coordinator.  The coordination is within the committee and to the scoutmaster.  The scoutmaster represents this planning to the scouts.  

From BSA --> "Outdoor/Activities Coordinator:   The troop outdoor/activities coordinator is appointed by the committee chair to secure tour and activity plans and permission to use camping sites, serve as transportation coordinator, and ensure a monthly outdoor program.

• Help in securing permission to use camping sites.
• Serve as transportation coordinator.
• Ensure a monthly outdoor program.
• Promote the National Camping Award.
• Promote, through family meetings, attendance at troop campouts, camporees, and summer camp to reach the goal of an outing per month.
• Secure tour and activity plans for all troop activities.
• Work with the secretary to assemble the medical and insurance binder for the Scoutmaster to take on each outing.
• Report to the troop committee at each meeting."

One might view that as a "fortunately" rather than an "unfortunately."

I think it is fortunate too.  Unfortunately, it means some charter orgs might walk away when BSA makes membership policies consistent with the teachings and practices of other charter orgs.  That's really this situation.  One charter org has a key membership criteria that is not really that important to other chater orgs.  

I think you missed the part where the BOYS learned a new skill and then taught it to the boys under the supervision of an expert..who just happens to be an ASM. As B-P would say, "Never do. for a boy what he can do for himself." Why on God's green Earth would I want the Troop committee involved?

 

"A good ASM shouldn't do squat?" Then what is the position for?

ASMs are self starters who take their orders from the SM, BUT they don't need every little detail spelled out for them.

I didn't miss anything. I know what you are saying.  And yes at some point, an expert needs to teach the teaching scout so the scout can teach other scouts.  I challenge though that it should be an ASM.  It could be just an expert parent.  It could be almost anyone.  

The issue I have is referring to ASMs as "self-starters".  Perhaps the SM and one ASM have agreed that that ASM helps pick up the trailer from storage, drives it back to storage, locks and unlocks it each night.  Beyond that though, there is no need for "self-starters".  You need knowledgable people so that if a SM is busy dealing with one issue, an ASM can temporarily step in his shoes.  When the SM returns, the ASM needs to defer back to the SM.  Beyond that, ASMs are not "self starters" that drive anything.  It's a bad practice as it strongly infers adults that will grab the ball and interact with the scouts when they think they need to interact with.  It subverts the SM and it subverts the patrol method.  

The simple fact is you don't need that many adults.

Thanks again for all the thoughts - especially the words of encouragement.  It's been a frustration road to say the least.  I've got a couple of items I'll follow up on after work.  I wanted to jump in quickly on the last two posts as we get hung up on this too.

 

My view is that the committee should limit it's trip planning role to some logistical/equipment support.  Seems like trip planning is a scout (or perhaps patrol) function.  The SM should explain the process.  Maybe he recruits a parent to teach a class on trip planning.  But the actual trip planning is the scout's job. The SM asks questions at the right time to keep the boys oriented correctly - but other than that, the adults stay out of it.

 

Now, I'd have no problem with an ASM who worked across multiple trips and was the person who scouts went to as they planned trips.  He'd explain it, answer questions, guide the scouts.  But, the committee is pretty much not involved here.

 

Is this what you see?

"Is this what you see?"  Similar, but there is a significant nuance.  The idea is the troop committee is involved to make the scoutmaster's job lighter.   The committee does NOT interact with the scouts.  They interact with the scoutmaster to lighten his load.  Similar, ASMs do not ever "guide the scouts".  The SM coaches the scouts through asking supporting questions and ASMs support and defer to the SM.  

IMHO, troop committee and ASMs are very similar.  It's just one is behind the scene and the other is visible to the scout (activities, camping, etc).  But all interaction with the scouts is funneled through the SM.  

Trip planning is absolutely a scout role.  The issue is having ASMs who jump in because they are experts and/or feel entitled by the moniker "ASM" that it's their job to interact.  IMHO, that's absolutely not how it's supposed to work.  When working with the scouts, everyone defers to the SM and his guidance with the troop.  If adults are experts or can lay out the trip, they do it through the scoutmaster.  Maybe the scoutmaster will ask a committee member or ASM to present or talk or other.  

The issue is keeping the adult interaction with the scouts small.  If it is well funneled through the SM, then it's easier to promote the patrol method and the PL/PLC/SPL chain of command.  Otherwise, scouts will jump to the nearest adult for questions.  

Your facts are mistaken about the Venturing program - the Church has never at any point chartered or endorsed Venturing units for girls. We have our own programs for girls and young women that we have run for more than 120 years, so we have never had any need to include them in any of Scouting's programs.

I'm interested in your view.  If LDS used Venturing for years and Venturing allowed girls and LDS simply did not register girls in their Venturing crews, isn't that parallel do how LDS could function if girls were allowed in Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts?  Or is it the additional mixed perception (materials, words, etc) that would cause trouble?  I know many camps already have LDS only weekends.  Going to state parks and other areas are already co-ed type of events.  I'm just curious.  

This is always the challenge.  Most churches have co-ed youth programs.  Even my conservative church had co-ed faith formation in the 1970s.  I'm just curious.  

I'd hate to see LDS leave over this as LDS had a rich wonderful history in BSA.  But BSA also needs to keep relevant to the times and serve the needs of all charter organizations.  Unfortunately, charter orgs are vast and diverse.  

We are both organizations with different strengths and GSUSA should remain strong regardless of some girls joining BSA (if that occurs). No organization should attack the BSA (other than our own existing charters) if the BSA decides to offer more programs to girls.

I agree.  BSA and GSUSA are different programs.  Gender membership is one issue, but the fundamentals of the program are very different.  BSA should stay focused on the achieving it's goals (physical fitness, citizenship, leadership, etc) through a strong outdoor program.  That's why I value scouts.  It's not the gender issue.  I value having my sons learn through experiences that stretch their comfort zones. 

Anyway, he had a few podcasts and maybe some blog posts that talked about how there really isn't need for a lot of ASM's.  His perspective was that all communications should be with SM, and if he was unavailable then the ASM would be his surrogate but the ASM was only to repeat what the SM said...nothing more.  Maybe 2 ASM's was all...and one of those would be the "#2" sort of in grooming to take SM eventually.

     Now this is how I remembered it, so it could be off a bit

 

At first I thought this sounded very odd and off putting even....but I do admit I see some logic in it.

 

Anyway, it might be worth it to you, to do a little digging around over there for podcasts and posts re. the roles of ASM's.

 

I went ahaed and did a little digging.  here's one to get you started.  not sure if this is the one I'm remembering or not.  Think ha had a few things on the topic...

http://scoutmastercg.com/podcast-284-assistant-scoutmasters/

I agree with the idea.  IMHO, you need way more on the committee than you do as SM / ASMs.  

For my money an ASM that needs the SM to direct him is not worth much. An ASM should take his training and then dive in to the program to see where he can help. He can and should ask the SM where help is needed but shouldn't wait around to be directed.

 

For example, if I am a canoeing expert I might ask the SM when the canoe trip is. I might take the time to put together a proposal for the PLC (through the SM of course) for a cool trip, with plans to teach canoeing skills during troop meetings. I might work with the Instructors to train them first, then have them train the troop. I'd look up outfitters and other special vendors, maybe arrange a few guest speakers.

 

But I wouldn't wait for an SM to direct me to do anything. A good ASM is self motivated and a self starter. They don't wait to be directed. Who needs someone like that? That's not helping or helpful.

I strongly disagree.

Using your example, I'd view that more as a committee role.  Scoutmaster tells committee that the scouts want to do a canoe trip on this date and asks the committee for an experienced canoe person to look at trip plans and provide him information so he can support the scouts and their planning.  Maybe, the SM would ask the committee member to mentor the instructors.  Maybe serve as an expert for training.  But that's 100% through the SM.  

Beyond that, a good ASM shouldn't do squat.  It defeats the scouts taking initiative and defeats the SPL working with the SM.

BSA is not trying to take over GSUSA.  BSA has had a huge membership drop and they are competing with many other organizations for participants.  We are lucky that given the huge membership drop that 50% of the camps have not closed.  If it continues, BSA won't be able to afford it's own infrastructure.

GSUSA and BSA have never had a healthy relationship and have never been interested in working together.  GSUSA leaders (professional and volunteers) for a long time have snubbed BSA leaders as participating in a out-of-date, discriminatory program.  I find the GSUSA letter to be protesting a bit too much and definitely re-writing history.  

BSA has a good program.  Open it up as co-ed and they will get more actual members in the long run.

The day the Boy Scouts program looks like the Girls Scouts program is the day I think 99% of this forum throws in the towel.... 

I always thought the "Cub Scout" program resembled the Girl Scout program.  Seriously.  Crafts.  Go-see-its.  Minor camping.  

It's funny how people flip flop and then reverse accusations that could easily be said about the speaker.  For decades, GSUSA has allowed GSUSA leader to speak badly about BSA being stuck in the past and have not wanted to coordinate camps, resources or program.  GSUSA has represented themselves as more current and progressive and not discriminatory.  I remember GSUSA paid employees commenting about BSA and how BSA was discriminatory because of membership orientation policies ... unlike GSUSA which was more accepting.   

The GSUSA leader accuses BSA of allowing derisive and bad mouthing of the girl scout program by Boy Scout leaders when I've heard the reverse.  For decades, I've heard GSUSA leaders talk about BSA and that GSUSA is more progressive and not discriminatory.  

The point is to be current and representing society today, organizations need to be more open and that does mean co-ed.  If a church wants to charter a single-gender unit, fine.  That's their unit membership choice.  But BSA as an organization needs to focus on program and structure and not get stuck on the more fluid dynamics of the times. 

Obviously we don't know the long term retention rate of this group but the first year went well.

Glad the program is working.  I always want to hear about year 6.  That's the first boy scout year.  Of those 18 Lions, how many will complete year six.  My bet is on average 5.  Just too much burn-out and re-doing the same thing.  Plus, cub scouts is way way more work for the adults than Boy Scouts.  I'm really amazed at that.  

My fear is impact.  The Boy Scout program can have a HUGE impact on kids even if they are in it for just a few years.  I doubt Cub Scouts has the same long lasting impact that Boy Scouts has.   

Never liked the mixing part, just let the boys decide and it's surprising how layered their choices tend to be.  Everyone's different on how they perceive this process, but for some reason it works really well for me, but then when it comes to the patrol method, I give the boys free reign.  I get in a lot of nice HA trips too which is a nice perk.

I agree.  NSP is good in that everyone's joining together and it's a chance for them to have new friends starting at the same point they start at.  But if they want different, fine.  If they want to switch later, fine.  

IMHO, the question is why have patrols?  Teaching or doing.  IMHO, more senior scouts can always mentor younger scouts.  I want the scouts to form patrols around those who they want to spend time with and go do things with.  I've seen too many times scouts ditch their patrols to hang with their friends or ditch their patrols because the scouts are doing starting-age activities or MBs they've already done.  I'd rather have them hang with scouts that are around the same point of growth and wanting to do similar things.  

Well, I doubt that "ideal" is a term that could ever be applied to my district but our district's process (both before and after 2011) was more reasonable than what you are describing from your district.  There are two project review meetings per month (held at the same time and place as EBOR's and post-project reviews.)  I do not recall whether the workbook had to be pre-submitted, but it was reviewed by one person, with the Scout, not by the entire committee.  It was not (and is not) unusual for the Scout to have to make one round of changes, but more than that is unusual - meaning that in most cases the Scout should be able to get approval within two weeks after the initial review meeting.  (Which is a good thing because in many cases in our troop, district approval is being obtained three months or less (in my son's case, much less) before the Scout's 18th birthday.  And when time is getting short, most of the reviewers will do follow-ups by email and/or phone.)

 

Usually the only thing that might add to the two-week time frame would be if the district requires a significant change to the scope of the project, in which case the project beneficiary's approval is required for the revised proposal.

We've never had a post-project review.  In our district, that's the EBOR purpose.  I never saw that documented in the process before and definitely not in the GTA now.  I've heard of some groups doing this.  I always wondered why.

Our turn around is now days.  Scout is there as proposal is read.  Almost always signed at the same meeting.  I like this as it keeps the success or failure on the scout and not waiting on another group.  

I'm not sure the process has really been "simplified". What they did is to take the "pre-project" part of the workbook (whatever it was actually called previously) and divide it into two sections, the "proposal" and the "plan", and made only the "proposal" part required as part of the signoffs to begin work on the project. The "plan", to be filled out after approval of the "plan" is obtained, is supposedly "optional" and does not require approval, but in my district (and I suspect elsewhere) the Scouts are "strongly encouraged" to complete the plan before starting work. I do not have an old workbook handy, but my impression is that the "plan" section requires MORE detail than was required in the old workbook.

 

Not to mention that the Scout now has to get through several pages of legalese, including excerpts from the Guide to Advancement, before he even gets to the proposal section.

 

So overall the process does not seem "simpler" to me.

Maybe your district was an ideal district.  Our district was a pain before the GTA and eagle workbook were re-done in 2011.   In our district, it was one chance to review with district committee per month on a shared date.  Scouts had to pre-submit the workbook.  Reviewed as a committee without the scout.  Then review findings were shared on that shared review date.  Get workbook back and make changes.  Then, resubmit.  It was not uncommon for scouts to go through 3+ months of reviews before being approved to do a project.  I remember some taking 5+ months.  

I still know districts that even now add a drastic amount to the Eagle process.  

I think the current workbook is trying to strike a hard balance.  

1. Scouts only use the workbook once.  So some orientation is appropriate.  Some ins and outs are expected.  But the "legalese" reads mostly as protection to inform the scout and his family as what can be expected and allowed by those working with the scout.  
2. The workbook PDF targets multiple audiences.  Scouts.  Parents.  Unit leaders.  District and council advancement volunteers.  Getting all these audiences equally informed is hard.  When I read the legalese written for the scout, it's mostly about what others can't ask of him.  Limitations on others.  Quoting the official sources too.  

The current workbook is only bad when considered in isolation.  When compared to all the other standardized process docs I've seen, it's a home run.  Best of breed.  Authors should be proud.  ... Please note I was not even faintly involved.  I'm low low down on the totem in our council.  

1, The two primary reasons I hear is so that "someone can pick up and complete the project" and to "get a taste of the real world". First, is it really that hard to "pick up and complete the project" is somebody puts their mind to it? There may be a project here or there, but I have yet to see one. Second, "the real world"? Perhaps some parts of it, but not all of it. In my profession you would bankrupt yourself proceeding along these lines.

 

2. A "good learning experience for doing projects as adults".  Again, I haven't seen anything in the real world approaching the kind of crap going on in the Eagle project and application process. Perhaps some people do, but I haven't either when I was an engineer nor now as a lawyer.

 

3. How many Eagles do you know who can even find their Eagle project book. I know I couldn't if my life depended on it. Perhaps a poll would be interesting. Can we do polls on this forum?

 

4. Even if all that is true, those are all justifications from the adults' and the organization's perspective. No matter how justified, what if we are burning the scouts on scouting? Is it worth the price? 

Your answers are correct, but I'd emphasize we need to follow a consistent direction.  If everyone adds their own twist, then expectations keep growing and it's hard for the scout to fulfill a moving threshold of expectations that are not clearly communicated in his scout handbook or in the published Eagle workbook.   

For #2 ... I'm against trying to make an Eagle project mimic what adults or professionals have to do, but I've seen many times documentation that is much more rigorous in the professional world than in Eagle projects.  Eagle projects using the current BSA eagle workbook are a shell of the planning most places I work for require.  

Why did it need to be simplified?

I suspect you know the answer.  But to state it, there was huge differences district to district and council to council on what was expected.  Perhaps a simple drawing was enough in your area.  In our area, scouts were bounced around for months to get approval as their project documentation grew and grew.  I've seen scouts take six months of reviews and the project binder routinely be inches thick.   

I view the current PDF process as pretty innocuous and quick and easy to do.  If you protest filling the proposal section out, you'll probably protest anything.  The "proposal" section could be filled out by myself in five to ten minutes.  I'd expect a scout to take one to two hours.  The good part of the current workbook PDF is consistency.  

ASM's and patrol method are two different issues.  You don't need ASM's to make the patrol method work.  In fact, too many ASM's subverts the patrol method and the troop.  ASMs often feel entitled and look for opportunities to show their value.  Often this is in conflict with the scoutmaster and the patrol method.   

The simple fact is you don't need many adults to take a troop camping.  You need drivers, but not camping adults.  A small troop of 20 camping needs one SM and one ASM or parent camping.  Over 20 scouts, a 3rd camping adult is nice.  Over 45 scouts, maybe a 4th adult.  

As for the original post, there is enough good advise already.  People often complain and ask for help, but then don't welcome help and often don't really want to change.  They really just want sympathy and people impressed with how hard the job is that they are doing.  I suspect that's your case.  

Yeah. Eagle is much harder to earn today. I show scouts my three page (typed, triple spaced) project report and hand drawing of a table. And they are jealous.

Ban the workbook .pdf, give the boys a rubrik. Have them bang out a free form report in plain text, and you'll go a long way in making service project planning great again.

I agree the paperwork aspect of it is out of hand.  I see how it can be a good preparation for later (applying for college, scholarships, etc.)...but there's for sure room for improvement.

The workbook PDF was a major step to simplify the process. Maybe the current process is too much, but it's way way more simple than it was six years ago. If the workbook is a problem now, it's because of adults that want to add their contribution to making sure scouts earn Eagle ... and thus making the process more than it was supposed to be.

***  As of August 1st, any active Eagle Scout should be entitled to all Eagle Palms that he has merit badges for, provided he is still active and has had a position of responsibility in the Troop.  Then moving forward the same rules apply to every Eagle for an subsequent Palms.   ***

 

Again, simple.  How National didn't forsee this as a problem and this as a fair solution is beyond me.

 

Yes.  This nuance should have been anticipated.