fred johnson

In your opinion. Taking back recognition is a big action. Bigger than being short for two months. It sounds like the issue was blown out of proportion.

First it's the adult, then the kid ... It's two very different things. If the kid is cheating, that's a different issue and a stronger lesson is needed. But if it's the adult and the kid was not aware of the issue just like the rest of the troop at the time, I do strongly disagree with pulling the rank back. There are many other ways to teach a lesson and others in the troop will catch on quick when they notice the correction as much as they noticed the mistake.

Yeah, no. This is not an "agree to disagree" opportunity. This is about right and wrong. It's about following a program instead of going rogue.

How about this? If it's such a good idea, first put the practice in use at the adult committee level? Arrive late for the committee meeting by ten minutes, do ten push ups. Don't have your committee report ready, you sing a song. New scout leaders on a camp out should be asked to go get ice from the camp ranger's ice machine. If it's an appropriate way to treat others, than prove it by treating your fellow leaders that way. If you don't have the guts to treat your fellow leaders this way, why would do it with someone entrusted to your care.

Yeah, that selective interpretation ignores key BSA instructions in the Guide To Advancement WITHOUT reading the instructions on how to handle when expectations are not met. =================================== But more importantly ... a BOR IS NOT A TEST. A direct-contact leader (SM, ASM, youth leader or other) signs off on the requirements BEFORE the scout goes to the BOR. The BOR can check the number of months in rank or in POR. The BOR can check that a designated leader signed off on a requirement. No signoff means go back and and get it approved. No judgement. Just get it done. The BOR is not supposed to be "direct contact" leaders who are observing and testing the scouts. BOR is administrative.

Wow. Very sad. I "might" have handled it differently. If the scout did not know or not realize the issue, I'd let it stand. I might ask the scoutmaster to talk to the scout about it and see if the scout could kick in a bit more effort for the next rank as a matter of good will. ... BUT ... when leaders make mistakes (intentional or not), we do NOT penalize the scout. Period. Now if the scout was complicit or knowingly let it happen, IMHO, it would definitely have it affect his next rank. But it is EXTREMELY SEVERE to revoke recognition. IMHO, it's akin to kicking the scout out ... same as kicking out the previous advancement chair.

Do not ever justify boorish abuse by saying the victim agreed. It's not about the first victim. It's about breaking the chain of victims. That first victim will want to understand and justify their experience by repeating it. Maybe to a greater degree. Maybe differently. Maybe on someone who does not submit. Maybe on someone who can't survive it. A great example is Florida A&M. The dead student submitted to the hazing because he really wanted to be a full member of the band. He knew he'd be beaten before it happened. He agreed and submitted to improve his standing. Peer pressure. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/01/us/florida-am-band-member-is-convicted-in-hazing-death.html?_r=0 Singing may not seem similar, but it is. It's about changing behavior using humiliation. Sadly, I've seen it happen and I've seen the ugliest part ... the victim then starting watching for others to make the same mistake so they could repeat what happened to them. The victim became the abuser ... and a mean one at that. IMHO, that's what happens when you humiliate someone. I joined a fraternity. Some of the pledges were sad because the anti-hazing rules were kicked in and they would not have their naked butts beaten with paddles. They wanted bragging rights ... for having been beaten.

I just re-read a few pages. The words seemed well chosen. Can you give examples where the words are chosen poorly ?

IMHO, many of these changes (merit badge, no online scoutmaster conferences, ...) are meant to get back to the fundamentals. Scouting is meant to be a face-to-face personalized experience outdoors and moving INTERACTIVE fun Group school-like merit badges for the sake of earning the merit badge is not what scouting is about. Advancement for the sake of advancement is wrong. Advancement exists as an incentive to and recognition of exploring new topics ... interacting with new people ... moving and doing ... stretching beyond their comfort zone. Anyway, that's why I like the changes. I've seen some group merit badges that I think were good. Chess. Finger printing. Just as long as we don't lose the personal one-to-one experience. Sadly, I've also seen many group settings where my sons have left with a badge feeling like they've wasted the day.

Glad you ask. BSA did a good job with this document. Not perfect, but extremely good. BSA explicitly stated it in the GTA ... at the front ... on GTA page two ... aka pdf file page four ... before the table of contents. ... http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf

It's not a prohibition. It's a "should". BSA states in GTA that should is the preferred way. Only Must and Shall are mandatory. So if special circumstances dictate, you can do an online SMC. See the GTA page just before the table of contents. It has a bubble call out about "must", "shall", "should", "may" and "can". BSA advancement committee choose the GTA verbs carefully.

Rick_in_CA ... I totally agree with you. You are dead on right.

Yep. And we don't even agree on the interpretation or the implementation.

That was already taken care of in GTA 8.0.0.3 "Composition of the Board of Review". "A board of review must consist of no fewer than three members and no more than six, all of whom must be at least 21 years of age." It's pretty clear now. No youth at BORs. period. You're not the only troop. Many troops still have the practice and they know the rules. It's their troop and do as they believe is right ... because they believe BSA is wrong. I believe BSA is right and has good reasons for this rule. IMHO, it's common sense. No scoutmasters on the BOR because the BOR is trying to learn how the troop is doing. Are the direct contact leaders effective, fair, and supportive? Is the troop a safe environment? Does the scout feel part of the troop? As he should be interacting with the youth even more, it's even more of an issue. Are the scouts treating each other with Respect. Courtesy. Fairness. No bullying. etc etc. It's about letting the scout be candidate about those he works with. It may be a different vision of the BOR. Some use BORs to make sure the scout is ready for the rank. THAT'S WRONG. If the requirements are done, they are done. BORs are about #1 making sure the check boxes are checked. #2 encouraging participation and advancement. #3 learning how the troop is doing: good and bad and getting suggestions for change.

Difference is Scoutmaster can have a SMC anytime with a scout over the rank tenure. For Star, that's six months. So long as a scoutmaster see the scout once during six months, he has a chance for the SMC. If the scout is traveling or moving or other, it can be handled because of the long time frame. BORs have to be at the end and are time critical. So, the flexibility there is reasonable. Also, it's a "SHOULD". GTA 4.2.3.5 Unit Leader (Scoutmaster) Conference: "For this reason, the conferences should not be held in an online setting." Also, GTA explicit says on page two before the table of contents .... "Mandated Procedures and Recommended Practices This publication clearly identifies mandated procedures with words such as “must†and “shall.†Where such language is used, no council, committee, district, unit, or individual has the authority to deviate from the procedures covered, without the written permission of the National Advancement Committee. Recommended best practices are offered using words like “should,†while other options and guidelines are indicated with terms such as “may†or “can.†Refer questions on these to your local district or council advancement chairs or staff advisors. They, in turn, may request interpretations and assistance from the National Advancement Committee." . . So the ideal is face-to-face ... but there is flexibility.

We have no choice. Council publishes fliers and advertising. BSA does online registration. Lately the council started taking over getting fliers into schools too, but I'd say our pack leaders had more success with that then the professional scouters. Waste of their time IMHO. I'm going to take the suggestion offered here ... we won't have a live person. But we'll have a city appropriate schedule for the Lions ... all laid out with go-see-its and a location to meet. We'll encourage them to be separate but attend fun things.

EagleDad - We'll try it your way. We have no choice. Council pushes the recruitment info out and we're going to get some kindergarten scouts no matter what. And it sort of gets to the heart of this thread, splitting the larger pack into two groups by age. I'd almost like to do it with Tigers too. And maybe we'll create a dummy schedule for them to start with some go-see-its, etc.

Yeah ... well ... maybe we are lazy and/or misinformed. I don't have much time to get pissed about cheap comments. A good share of our den programming comes from the pack level. Each month with a pack meeting. Most months have a big event too. Dens don't have to attend. They can, but not required. But most do because there are more volunteers to put a good event on. Most dens have one or two volunteers keeping the den together. So if there is something their den can tag onto, it helps them succeed. It's unrealistic to expect Lions to stay separate from the pack. They will only see a shadow of the program and it will hurt their retention. Then the next year you expect more out of the den? More volunteers? More involvement. I just don't see it. That first year sets a tone for becoming part of the pack.

1) How is Lions working out for you? Hit and miss AND MISS. And my bias is I'd really like the Lion year to just go away. IMHO, it does more damage than good. It's too early. Based on our three or four years ... ----- SPLITTING THE CRITICAL MASS. For a group of kids, you really only have one attempt to recruit a BIG NUMBER of them. Once they've heard the pitch or they are past the first year of joining, you recruit few on the 2nd year. Example --> Before Lions, what was the distribution of recruiting Tigers, Wolves, Bears and Webelos. We'd get 10+ Tigers, 2 Wolves, 1 Bear and 1 or 2 Webelos on average. Huge skew toward the 1st year. That 1st year is KEY to getting critical mass and momentum and volunteers. ----- READY TO JOIN ... Some Kindergarten boys are just not ready to join ... or the parents may think that. It's a maturity thing. ----- TOO MUCH AT THE SAME TIME ... Parents are putting their son in school for the FIRST TIME. Everything about school is new. Some parents may just not want to pile yet one more NEW thing on their son ... within the 1st TEN DAYS of a brand new major experience. So if the age group has 12 interested boys, Lions only gets 4 or 5. Families are busy, so 2 or 3 show up at den meetings or events. Low participation --> high drop out rate ---> bad word-of-mouth reputation. Then, first grade year ... Tigers. The ones you've lost are gone. Some hear bad word of mouth. Some join, but now instead of 10 to 12, there are just another 5 to 6 scouts. Again, families are busy. Low participation --> high drop out --> you can lose the whole grade. Our pack has had it for 3 or 4 years, this last year is good. 8 Lions. Previous years, I think we lost near 70% of those scouts. ... Previous to Lions, we'd pull 10+ scouts in 1st grade. Usually, we've recruited 3 to 4 Lions and 1 or 2 Tigers. I think the previous year's poor Lion experience cost us big time in tiger recruitment. IMHO, you really only have one chance to recruit big numbers from a pool of boys. After that, you may get a trickle, but not enough to make a difference. ----- MATURITY. There is a huge maturity difference between Kindergarten and 4th / 5th grades. So you have to adjust the program DOWNWARD. And, then the older boys start seeing Cub Scouts as a little kid thing instead of things cool thing with fire, knives, archery, bb-guns, etc. ----- BURN OUT. Ya know ...Cub Scouts just does NOT have that much in it. Very repetitive. You can wash and style and dress a pig, but it's still a pig. There is only so much new fresh content for those years. And, Cub scouts depends very heavily on adult volunteers. You want them to volunteer for FIVE AND A HALF YEARS? Yeah right. ----- GETS STALE - Packs tend to repeat successful events. It works if you have relatively new or young scouts (K, 1st & 2nd). Then by 3rd & 4th grades, the boys have been there and done that. By 4th & 5th grades, it's just bad. ----- BOY SCOUTS - My big fear is between lower recruitment, lower maturity level and higher burn-out, we will result in fewer Boy Scouts. It's during those critical years that boys need the character influence and the safety home of scouting. ============================================================ 2) What is the program like? Relatively loose. Ours was a trial program and what they were supposed to do was poorly defined. We told our scouts to basically get the boys together, have fun and do outings. ... Hard to recruit parents at that age of boy. They are just busy enough herding their sons. ============================================================ 3) What are they allowed to do? Not Do? IMHO, think of Tiger year #2. But I really don't know much about boundaries of the program. ============================================================ 4) How is retention? Our experience is poor. We've lost alot. Small scouting den versus BIG soccer numbers. Makes scouting look like the loser. ========================================================================================== IMHO, scouting should make the really hard choice and put Cub Scouts back to 2nd grade. The selling pitch is scouts teach character and skills using the outdoors and knives and fire and archery and ... Unsaid --> Let soccer be known as the little kid program. *********************************************** *********************************************** There is also a more important issue. AT WHAT AGE DOES SCOUTING HAVE THE BIGGEST EFFECT? It's 11 to 15 ... setting a tone for becoming a man. After that 16-17. Then 9-10. So we recruit 5 & 6 year olds? Do you really expect parents to keep their kids in the same program for 12 years ???? Plus, Lions and Tigers are exposed to so much that fire, knives and camping is not fresh and new when they are Boy Scouts.

Have any packs experimented with splitting pack meetings by rank ? I ask because some pack meetings do fine as big events. But our pack might grow where we would have 25+ Lions and Tigers and then another 25+ Wolves, Bears and Webelos. I am wondering if we have an opportunity because the maturity of Lions and Tigers is very different than that of Webelos. As such, we might be able to do more as Webelos and have a more targetted presentation as Lions. Thoughts? Has anyone experimented with this?

Agreed. That is the very common example. Very common. But then again, attending church is not required either. So ... IMHO ... all these elaborated requirements are doing is pushing people away from scouting and removing a foundation that helps people find their faith in the future. BSA is being self-destructive with these new requirements.

Yeah, that's a delusion. Rank skills requirements are about producing a member of a group and a reasonably proficient camper. It's very very different than producing an rugged outdoors-man or a survivalist. Merit badges selection is not the answer either as merit badges are "introductory" and much less than "certifications" of ability. Very few are advanced beyond introductory, maybe backpacking. Even then, if I wanted my sons to become good swimmers or life guards, I'd send them to the YMCA or the Red Cross Life Guard program. Same for first aid. You want your son proficient, I'd be looking elsewhere. The BSA Eagle scout is not about survivalist skills. It's about being a well rounded individual who can lead and serve his society. It's about exposing scouts to interests they might develop further.

Rant warning .... The more I think about this ... I think it's BSA that is failing to due it's duty to God. Seriously. I'm not trying to pick a fight or do an intellectual exercise. No matter the membership rules ... ---- We're still going to have God in the Oath ---- We're still going to have reverent in the Law ---- We're still going to pray before meals, COHs and such ---- We're still going to serve the community and volunteer as we can. Scouting has always had a faith component. Period. Fine. But I can't see where until the last 15 years that it was a membership criteria. So some young men did not develop faith at home. Isn't it best to keep those young men in a program that regularily exposes them to service, prayer and getting out into nature where it's easiest to conceive of God. Forcing faith has never worked. Making rules about reverence and duty to God alienate and subvert. Duty To God means to serve and have a fellowship with all. IMHO, BSA is failing Duty To God. I'm Catholic and I've always believed Catholicism was the original evangelical church. ... Nuns recently shamed church leaders by pointing out they are to help those in need. Luckily, our new Pope Francis agrees and it has been refreshing. When will BSA learn this same lesson? If BSA wants to serve youth and help develop character, citizenship, physical fitness AND faith ... then you serve those who come to you. You serve. You don't reject youth because they don't match your Norman Rockwell image of the perfect scout. You serve. ..... Sorry for the rant. ... simply stated ... BSA is being boneheaded.

Eagledad .... I do many boards of review. I can guarantee you I'll leave to the scout's church and/or his family. I'm sure out scoutmaster will too as we've talked about it. And when I train others, I'll recommend it too. Most leaders are not pastors or counselors or prepared for the nuances of the discussion.

... hit send too soon ... Scouting has always been "faith friendly" and should never be "faith based". Scouting does it's Duty To God by serving everyone, not just those already in the flock.