fred johnson
-
Content Count
1975 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
28
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Store
Posts posted by fred johnson
-
-
3 hours ago, DuctTape said:
I also see the "it's adding to the requirements", when disagreeing with any decision or practice of the troop even when it has nothing to do with advancement. I think this is partly due to the (over)emphasis put on advancement. For many, it appears, advancement is the mission instead of a method.
I'm deeply involved in advancement locally and I advocate for my scouts to advance. BUT, my real focus is to get the scouts out doing interesting stuff. It's by doing interesting stuff that friendships are grown and the program thrives.
-
1
-
-
Scouters love to argue how to do scouting. Years ago I probably said no adding requirements because of things happening locally. But these days I'm just worn out on certain phrases. "adding to the requirements" is one. "boy led" is another. I'm sure I could find more.
-
2
-
-
43 minutes ago, scotteg83 said:
I will say, that my council is claiming that if the parent is just in the background and not participating (not giving instructions or teaching) then that time does not count to the 72.
Interesting ... That explicitly contradicts the G2SS ... "All adults accompanying a Scouting unit who are present at the activity for 72 total hours or more must be registered as leaders." Pretty clear that in the background means they are still present.
-
I'm surprised we don't hear about this more often. I know my church requires all volunteers to have a background check and specific vulnerable person training. Because of situations, there is zero flexibility on it. I'm sure if we chartered a scouting unit, the requirements would apply to the scout leaders.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, cocomax said:
I hope scouting does not adopt safeyism to the point that it is no longer a life changing experience and is just a glorified one stop babysitting service for today's busy parents.
Scouting is far away from overly safe. Are we drastically more sensitive to safety now then 50 years ago? Absolutely. Are we too safe? Very debatable. But we are bringing kids we know relatively little out into lightening storms and sleeping in sub-zero weather. Giving them knives and fire. Teaching them to shoot. At the same time, leaders are napping and trying to sleep through the night while we trust our urchins are also sleeping.
-
I'm agreeing the interpretation is bad and BSA G2SS is one activity and not meaning one program year.
BUT ... I'm interpreting some of these changes as good. From what I've seen in the last few years, we have too many parents on boy scout camp outs and it damages the program. We have too many parents at boy scout summer camp. It damages the program. Helpful registered parents are critical, but too many causes real damage to the program.
-
1
-
-
Forgive my opinion, but I think this is a reflection of how our generation has been taught to parent by the public schools.
- Teachers that praise parents that are involved in their kids schooling.
-
Teachers that assign 10 minutes of homework per grade level.
- It's okay for kids that are already at that level (and probably don't benefit from the homework much).
- It's a nightmare for the families who's kids are still struggling.
- It stresses situations at home and forces parents to be detail involved in their kids achievements.
- From what I've seen, following what our kid's teachers said we should do really is bad advice and produces bad results.
What I'm saying is giving homework to 1st and 2nd graders when many are just not ready yet causes parents to be involved in their kids homework. Sitting next to them. Erasing answers and helping them re-write the answers. Parents having to initial communication packets sent home each night and kids having to return it to prove to teachers the parents saw the packet. It's forcing the parents to be intimately involved in their kid's achievements. IMHO, it's a bad pattern. And, it prevents kids from developing the confidence that they can leave the nest and do it themselves.
In hind sight, I'd take a much more passive approach to parenting. Show empathy. Provide food, paper, clothing and maybe a clean and quiet environment. Beyond that, homework is their job, not mine. Their achievements are theirs and should come when they are ready and not when I think they are ready.
When I think about my schooling, I did the work. I did the assignments. My parents were involved a bit at times. Beyond that though, I did my assignments and my parents were mostly out of the picture.
-
3
-
8 hours ago, Saltface said:
What is it that we know?
I'm scared that adult leaders mock this topic and don't take it seriously. This is not a light switch where we either free range or baby sit every moment. Abusers look for programs in which they can abuse. Kids will sneak in alcohol, tobacco, pot, drugs, fireworks and more. Kids get hurt, drown, fall in fires, break bones and more.
We can be effective as leaders while at the same time minimizing our presence and impact. It's about keeping kids safe.
-
IMHO, I think BP would very much support the concept. But at the same time, we don't live in his time. Things have changed. We know more than we did. IMHO, I think it's appropriate to value the concept and hold it as our ideal, but we need to then correct for modern times and what we know now.
-
Boards of review are for
- Confirming requirements are "previously" evaluated
- Learning about the scout's experience with the troop
- Encouraging future advancement and involvement.
Boards of Review are NOT for evaluating if a requirement is done.
As such, I'm just not comfortable with a 2nd BOR. It's a very bureaucratic and heavy overhead process. Plus, I'd fear it just won't not be done well.
I could see assigning scout spirit requirement to the SPL. But, I like keeping it with the scoutmaster because it's the scoutmaster's catch all for when things hit the fan. The scout gets suspended from school for something. The scout does something bad while on a campout. The scout spirit requirement lets the scoutmaster avoid advancing a scout to the next rank while the scout is dealing the incident. If the SPL signs off and then the scout asks for a SMC and the scout and the SM talk, then the SMC requirement is done. The scout has complete rights to a board for advancement. BUT, if the scoutmaster keeps the scout spirit to himself,
-
Are BSA annual dues changing ?
-
10 minutes ago, gblotter said:
In my opinion, the best solution would have been a closer collaboration between BSA and GSUSA, but not in the cards apparently.
I don't think that was ever in the cards. If national reflects state, council, district and local levels, BSA has tried to coordinate multiple times in the past. GSUSA has not been interested though. In fact, GSUSA has promoted themselves at times based on problems in the BSA organization.
IMHO, it would be like expecting Apple and Microsoft to collaborate closer. Both have partnered repeatedly, but neither is interested in the long-term health of the other except when it's to keep another competitor in check. Even then, it's only temporary.
15 minutes ago, gblotter said:To frame support for BSA's girl decision, some like to assert that Scouting in the US has been like Scouting in Saudi Arabia or other places that exclude girls (pretending somehow that GSUSA never existed or that they are not real Scouting). How insulting! Scouting opportunities for girls in the US go back more than a century.
I do agree with you that the analogy of US being like Saudi Arabia is way over played and out of context.
-
2 hours ago, walk in the woods said:
I generally have to agree with @qwazse on this one. I generally dislike the idea of SM conferences at meetings as it requires the scout be pulled out of patrol time or something else going on at the meeting. In short it elevates the Advancement method over the Patrol method. ...
I partially agree. I agree that I prefer NOT during the meetings as it takes away from the meetings. But flexibility is the key. We can state preferences, but it's only a preference.
-
My apologies if this gets off topic ...
I recently have had conversations with my eldest son. In the end though he completed his Eagle rank, he soured on scouting. For him, it was the adults. Every time he was upset, it was because of something the adults did. IMHO, the best troops have adults that diminish their own visibility and involvement. I know others would argue this, but you just don't need that many adults to run a good scout program. And too many adults or too much involvement by those adults will damage the program.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Welcome. Congrats. Focus on the fun and doing interesting things. The rest will come.
-
11 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:
I have to quibble a little bit. The Pack the Den Chief serves does not have to be in any way connected to the Pack (or vice versa). A Den Chief could chose to serve a pack that ends up sending all of their scouts to a different troop. In our area, Packs and troops are not so connected. It is not uncommon for scouts in the same den to choose different troops.
Yep. That happens. He's still representing your troop and doing service for your troop. Your troop can't survive if cub scouts do not join your troop. As such, his job is critical. But he can't be held accountable for the final choice of the parents. Even if the pack is on the far side of town or next town over, it still counts.
-
16 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:
Den Chief is service to a Pack, not a troop .... As a SM, what would you require of the scout in order to demonstrate that the scout has "serve[d] actively" enough to sign off on their Conference?
Den Chief is a service to the troop. It promotes a healthy connection between the pack and the troop. It is rightly a troop leadership position and it is a key one.
I would require nothing of the scout. But I might regularly email the cub master or the den leader to see how the scout is doing.
-
2
-
-
Hard, but all too common situation. Troops deal with this all the time. Rules are rules, but I also can sympathize with the scout and the leaders. Kids are young and still learning how to think and prioritize decisions.
I'm sad when a clean cut kid wanting to earn Eagle runs into an issue like this. I do wish we had more flexibility.
A wise leader once told me she measured things by asking "What does it serve?" I ask that in situations like this. Here's a chance pull a clean-cut well spoken kid into the ranks of Eagle where he can give back to scouting for years to come. I say this as most that become Eagle would give back at one or more times in their life. To turn them away during the appeal will probably result in his giving back to other organizations over his lifetime as his scouting career now ended with a denied appeal.
If I was reviewing the appeal, I'd be asking "What happened?" If he had been participating and the date was missed, I probably would approve. If he just came back at the end to get the rank, I'm not sure. Maybe. Maybe not. It really depends.
-
23 minutes ago, TMSM said:
I thought you needed to be life Scout to even start an Eagle Project - Who approved this project?
Article said he became life in Feb and turned 18 in June.
Article said he started his project in March and finished in May.
Project dates are good.
-
On 7/6/2018 at 12:25 PM, Redman said:
... Our committee chair is refusing to let us have a committee/leader meeting without her and says that we cannot have a committee meeting per policy. ...
Then don't call it a committee meeting. If you coordinate camping, email all the other parents that are part of the committee (or broader if you need fresh help) and say "Hello Troop Committee members, we have a campout coming up next month. I need to make camp commitments and put an agenda in place. Your help and suggestions are very welcome. If you want to help .... Let's meet." It's not a committee meeting as an immediate coming events planning. Share the <time>, <date>, <place ... some coffee places work well ... or libraries or ....>
Then invite them to bring their topics if they have anything to discuss or share.
Key point ... Avoid the politics and just get the work done you need to get done.
-
15 hours ago, Longhaired_Mac said:
... That said, the simplest way to deal with the problem is to call a committee/parent meeting and vote for a new Chair person ...
CC is not elected. He's appointed by the COR. Your vote would only be a statement of who you support and could be very divisive.
-
9 minutes ago, ScoutTrainer said:
Point taken. Poor choice of words on my part. Thank you.
Easily understood. Your words were very understandable. I'm just sensitive to the point.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, shortridge said:
A violation of GSUSA policies on several levels: http://www.gssc.us/content/dam/girlscouts-gssc/documents/GSUSA_safety_activity_checkpoints.pdf
Interesting ... Alcohol ... Just says not in presence of the scouts. So adult leaders could have beer or heavy liquor in their tent or away from the scouts. So "slightly inebriated" may be valid.
-
36 minutes ago, ScoutTrainer said:
I'm personally very against the "everyone gets a trophy" syndrome that seems prevalent today. ...
I'm still contemplating whether this is worth the fight or not - I certainly do not want the SM "defrocked" nor do I want the Troop Charter revoked.
Your job is to focus on your scouts in your unit(s). It is not your place to fix another troop. Even the district advancement committee doesn't have much power in these situations. The only power is really approving MB instructors and training. If you wanted to influence change, get to know and build a friendship with the scoutmaster.
Also, feel free to chat hear in these forums about it, but be careful to not express or infer too much when in or among other scouters. Unit leaders making comments about each other's troops happens way too much and does not reflect good scout spirit.
36 minutes ago, ScoutTrainer said:... to master a skill ...
BSA advancement is not about mastery and we need to be careful using the term mastery. BSA advancement is about demonstrating and discussing, but "mastery" infers a higher level than found in BSA requirements. Swimming is the closest to mastery when it says demonstrate swimming in a "strong" manner. Cooking is a good example on the other end of the spectrum. Lots of cooking, but little requirement that the food tastes good.
72 hour rule
in Open Discussion - Program
Posted
Hugely agreed. I think for years people have been criticizing un-involved and distant parenting. Teachers praise parents that shows up for each and every conference and meet with each and every teacher. Parents have to initial packets sent home with their kids each day.
It's not that parenting has changed. It's that how society teaches parents to parent has changed and it's bad.
I hugely disagree with this. My opinion is national is trying to heard cats. We have strong willed and strong opinion-ed scout leaders who have been leaders for dozens and dozens of years. BSA has an extremely hard job publishing any direction that will be followed and followed consistently.
The 72 hour rule seems as well written as I've seen. But it's being interpreted differently than the clear words state.