HICO_Eagle

Congratulations.  Glad to hear the young men chose to recognize you.

On 2/11/2021 at 4:50 AM, scoutldr said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the time intervals for T-2-1 can all run concurrently, right?  (Meaning, you can be working on the First Class Fitness, while still a Tenderfood) Back in my day, you could not start work on a rank requirements until you had been awarded the previous rank.  The "First Class First Year" push changed all that...not in a good way, in my opinion.

You must be much older than me.  We were able to work on T-2-1 requirements simultaneously in 1978.  What you COULDN'T do was earn Second Class before achieving Tenderfoot or First Class before achieving Tenderfoot.

While I keep an open mind that SOME 12 year old might be mature enough with natural leadership abilities and work hard enough to get Eagle in 2 years, it would be extremely rare and I am rather skeptical about earning 71 merit badges in 2 years.

The troops I've been involved in have always been small and therefore always ran on the cash model for activities anyway. Our charter organizations provided a place to meet and (sometimes) to store equipment but that was about it so the new model would work for those troops (if they still exist). Liability insurance is the real kicker. I would not trust Council with my unit's money (if it had any worth speaking of) and I *like* my local Council. I've just seen too many broken promises and shenanigans as execs and directors change out.

I wonder if a trust arrangement could be made to sponsor a unit, "hold" its money, and provide a liability shield for the church or other organization agreeing to provide a place to meet and store equipment. Maybe paying a nominal fee to the church or organization for the meeting place and storage so it's clear they are separated from the trust and the unit.

Sadly, I don't think this will be the end of it. The powers that have been attacking Scouting as a pillar of society for decades have the upper hand in the entertainment and news industries right now and some of them will NOT stop until they have obliterated Scouting. Period.

Extremely disturbing and disappointing. I have been going through extended discussions with the wife of one of my cousins who accused BSA of having a "rape culture" and homophobia. Nothing but redirects when I pointed out the assaults over the years were almost exclusively man-on-boy. I just *love* discussing these things with people who think 2+2=9 because that's what they've been told in the newspaper, on TV, on Facebook, etc.

I understand your friend not wanting to donate the land unencumbered.  I've seen too many shenanigans at the council level trying to get around encumbrances in order to turn land donations into cash even when the land donation paid for itself in terms of cash flow (i.e. program fees to use the land were enough to pay taxes, utilities, fees, and improvements).  An enduring trust that gives your local unit first right of refusal to use the land for activities or something like that might be the way to go but it does require finding a trustee willing to do all of the work.

FWIW, Pikes Peak Council incorporated knife and axe throwing into its annual Shootaramas 4 years ago or so.

There have always been girls who have been interested in the same things as boys.  We used to call them tom-boys.  BSA's insistence on staying focused on single-sex operations was not to deny these girls outdoor experiences.  It was because there weren't enough of them to justify taking on the additional costs and logistical burdens of incorporating them into the program.  A lot of camps were built with little to no privacy in hygienic facilities.  I remember the back-to-back latrines at Black Mountain Camp down in Philmont -- being back-to-back was the only privacy you got.

The more variables you add (adult/youth, male/female, etc.) in terms of privacy/youth protection factors, the more complex the logistical planning.

I still maintain that instructing the boys, whether it was for safety briefings or must merit badges, was more effective without girls around.  This isn't the girls' fault, it's just a fact of life.  Teenage boys are easily distracted.  A lot of males, particularly in the teenage and 20-something years, are focused on one of two things and you know which of the two it is if they just ate.

I remember hiking through a Girl Scout camp on our way uphill to the Boy Scout camp.  We took them up on their offer of a tour of the camp.  They showed us the standard tent and then the one they called "roughing it".  We laughed a little since it had cots with mattresses and pillows and even electric outlets and lighting!  As I recall, one of the girls also laughed and said she would prefer camping like we did but that's what the GSA offered.  Later, as an adult Scouter, I dug into this more with some moms who volunteered in both programs and was told that GSA didn't really allow the youth-led program like BSA did so while modern girls were more into the outdoors, the troops offered the same handicrafts and other programs the mothers had grown up with and wouldn't consider incorporating the outdoor programs.  Water under the bridge but I felt this was a wasted opportunity for a number of reasons -- seems like the Girl Rangers are another example of a wasted opportunity.

As with many class action torts, the lawyers are incentivized to get (or create) as many presumed victims as possible.  Some of the abuse was real but how many of the supposed 90,000 cases are mixing things like teasing by other boys in group showers with pedophile cases?  How many of them are a result of the lawyers getting the now-men to attribute their current problems to "abuse"?  If the count vastly exceeds the so-called secret files (at least some of which were unproveable and maybe even innocent people), just what were BSA or the adukts involved supposed to do with cases they didn't even know about?

15 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

HICO, you are fighting physiology there...the point is, that part of the brain isn't done growing in yet...they do not have the physical structures needed for that kind of "adult" thinking.  But, what we can do, is train them in the processes and form the habits of planning, forecasting, and leading.

I'm going to disagree with the premise that the fact the brain is still growing means they don't have the physical structures necessary to start thinking like adults.  If we want youth to start thinking like adults, we have to start treating them like adults.  Yes, you make allowances for their age and inexperience but you don't coddle them.  They aren't infants.  Heck, the term "young adult" USED to refer to this particular age group (as opposed to 18-25 year olds) -- and I think still does in the book publishing world.

1 hour ago, ParkMan said:

This is in many ways the question that we are all struggling to answer.

And in this I think we see that even millennials are looking around for an answer.  I'm also reminded that we are not even really marketing to millennials any more - we're targeting Gen-Z and increasingly Gen-A youth.  

 

I think it would be a mistake for us to infer this.  The risk of death is certainly lower today.  However, the challenges to succeed are as great as they've been.  The skills kids have evolved for certain, but that doesn't mean that there are fewer skills needed.  If I look at my profession, we are as far from a hands on profession as you can get.  But, the skills needed by our young adults are high.  Further, the skills that are most needed are the same as they have always been - a sense of drive, confidence, resourcefulness, problem solving, team work, willingness to try, willingness to take risk.  There are the kind of skills that Scouting excels at helping a youth develop.  

The outdoors is our game and it's a good one.  Getting kids outdoors is a great way for them to adventure, have fun, and build skills.  Perhaps in BP's day those skills were part of the purpose as they could keep you from dying.  But today, those outdoor skils are less necessary.  However, the other skills that Scouting excels at developing are indeed needed.  

 

One of the reasons I said that the skills needed in years past were at least as great as today is that the challenges kids face today are ones of convenience or desire or entertainment, not literal survival like in the years I cited.  Having to do something in order to ensure you eat or live for tomorrow tends to force concentration in a way that deciding whether to use TikTok or Instagram or Snapchat don't.

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

My point is that going back to some "golden age" (Pick a date here. 1960?) and replicating that program won't work because that was a program for a different time.

You literally cannot (legally) do some of the things that were permitted in 1960.

In other words, if you simply took the Fifth Edition of the Scoutmaster's Handbook (1960) and the Sixth Edition of Boy Scout Handbook (also 1960) and said "do this" it wouldn't work.

We aren't the nation we were in 1960. Offering up that 1960 program today would not work.

I am NOT saying to resurrect the exact program of the 1950s and 1960s.  I don't want to teach Scouts to chop off living tree branches to build their wilderness beds.  However, teaching them self-reliance and skills for dealing with the outdoors and each other will go further than all the touchy-feely SJW emotionalism that they're being indoctrinated with today.  The wilderness skills aren't just to enjoy the outdoors, it's to teach them to plan and think without relying on a smartphone or tablet to tell them exactly what to do.  My experience has been that youth generally enjoy being able to do things themselves and realizing they are capable of doing more than they thought.  THAT is exactly what the Patrol Method is all about (IMO).

30 minutes ago, vol_scouter said:

4-H made a big push in STEM programming and grew by a couple of million.  It has been very successful and is meeting a large demand for STEM activities.  Both youth and their parents want more STEM programs.

11 hours ago, yknot said:

Those are exactly the kinds of questions BSA needs to be asking and researching. I would say 4H has survived because it hasn't been afraid to change and because it has remained relevant to an evolving youth market. It's much more elastic. You can say the same of youth sports and other youth organizations. BSA is pretty moribund.

13 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

4-H was in freefall for years, starting in 1974 when it peaked at 7.4 million. It dropped to around 5.5 million by the 1990s but is back up to 6 million or so now. Why did they come back (or at least remain stable) while BSA dropped like a stone?

BSA has had STEM merit badges for decades and has even updated the qualifications to keep up with technology.  I got the computer merit badge nearly 40 years ago.  I was a registered counselor for it until my retirement from Scouting 4 years ago.  One factor you all are missing is that Scouting has had a target on its back for decades from various factions of society.  4-H has never been targeted that way (to my knowledge).  This wasn't a factor in the first 2 crises the OP mentioned but it has been an ever-growing factor in the third crisis -- and it's been given a boost recently by the way social media, the entertainment industry, "journalism", "education", etc. have dealt more in influence (particularly in social trends) than in actually connecting, entertaining, or informing.

BSA can't fight all of that by itself but it doesn't need to.  My contention is that the older program of teaching youth self-reliance, enjoyment of the outdoors, planning, leadership, etc. will do more than kowtowing to the social activists.  At the very least, it could have stanched the loss of members from the politically correct changes made or led by Robert Gates and Randall Stephenson.  Why is it we can teach triage techniques like "stop the blood loss" in First Aid (well, we stopped being able to teach the use of tourniquets in the FA merit badge but we still taught the concept of dealing with the most dangerous conditions like blood loss first) but National takes policy steps to INCREASE the loss of critical resources in order to appease adult political activists?

I would really like a continuation of the OP's essay but IMO Scouting will not get past this latest crisis unless or until it is willing to ditch the top-level leadership that sacrifices membership and resources to political activism and prioritizes PhDs over real concrete field experience in shaping the program.

30 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

I understand the desire, but the science isn't there (pardon the phrase.)  I would advocate that we need to extend their youth.  We know that the brain is not fully formed, with the seat of executive function not being developed until about 25.

Historically, young men had to rise to the challenge earlier because of life expectancy.  That, and the needed skill set for a 15 year old to succeed was not as great or complex as it is today, imho.

As a commander in the military, guess which age cohort I dealt with incurred most judicial punishments, substances problems, domestic violence or assaults, and accidents???  18-25

Is this similar in the civilian world??  You bet...cannot even rent a car until you are 25!!

That is precisely WHY they need help forming that brain early as teens and the coddling needs to stop.  I would argue the skill set needed for a 15 year old to succeed in 1865, 1929, or 1941 was greater and more complex than today.  We've been dumbing everything down for the last 30 years.  Teens today don't even try to remember simple things, thinking they can just Google it if they need info.  Youth in the past needed to know a wide variety of details and tasks (examples:  how to handle and care for animals, grow crops, make their own clothes and footgear, fix a broken wagon wheel, etc.).

I would note that 35 years ago, I could rent a car at the age of 18 or 19 simply by showing a valid driver's license and credit card.  Why has the age pushed out to 25?  IMO, it's because the 18-24 year olds have become increasingly less mature.

Getting back to the OP, he mentioned how Scouting dealt with its second crisis by bringing back Greenbar Bill.  We talk about this in the Patrol Method channel but it's worth repeating:  proper use of the patrol method with its emphasis on giving the Scouts responsibility for their own program and actions helps them develop into mature adults.  Doing things FOR them, extending the childhood, just delays that maturation (sometimes permanently).

One of the benefits of growing up in a troop that at times was the size of a single patrol (seriously, by the time you appointed SPL, ASPL, 2 PLs, 2 APLs, we had 2 or 3 Scouts left to populate the patrols) and part-time SMs was that the core group of 5 or 6 Scouts did virtually everything except the items needing an adult signature or driver.  We had to or we wouldn't have had any activities.  Out of that core group, I think 4 (maybe 5) of us made Eagle.

Yeah, it was late last night when I wrote that and I held off posting but yknot's post brought it back to mind and I neglected to QC.  I do recall we had an issue once where we couldn't put a newly graduated 18-year-old in as ASM, I think we had to put him in as the Advancement Chair or something like that until he turned 21.

Regardless, the point I was trying to get to is that we as a society (not necessarily Scouting as an organization) need to stop prolonging childhood.  The youth often don't grow and mature until it's demanded of them.  I just read a news story about staffers at Penguin Random House Canada being distraught to the point of tears over the fact that PRHC was publishing a book by Jordan Peterson.  I had to doublecheck to make sure I wasn't reading The Onion.  These are the kinds of people that needed help maturing before they actually got to the "age of maturity".  Scouting can help but not if it keeps going down the touchy-feely DI&E path it seems to be following.

16 minutes ago, yknot said:

Just to try and circle this interesting discussion about scout membership age limits back to a historical context, I did find out that up until 1948 adults were able to earn Eagle Scout and up until 1972 Explorers could earn Eagle until they were 21. It is also interesting that in a handful of states the age of majority is not 18 but older. I wonder if anyone has any historical information on this. 

I can see the problems that  YPT today has created with having older youth interacting with younger youth even if that took place within some kind of new structure. However, if scouting wants to keep scouting in the lives of people post the age of 18, it might want to take on the challenge at looking at ways to keep older teens, young adults, and adults feel more connected to the organization. For starters, looking at a way to allow high school seniors active in the organization even if they turn 18 before graduating. Many youth organizations have this kind of mechanism. In a way BSA already allows it because it allows a 3 month window for the Eagle BOR.

I hate to detract from the OP's excellent historical review but I see no real reason to extend the membership age to 21.  One of the biggest problems I had was keeping promising older teens in the program after they got a taste of car fumes and perfumes.  At 18, a Scout who still wants to be a part of the program can become a Junior ASM -- and I've had a few of them (even was one when I got home from my first year in college).  As a JASM, s/he is a useful bridge between the generally older Scouters and the Scouts themselves without losing the respect of being an "adult".

Extending the membership age to 21 would just push another societal trend that has troubled me, pushing off the age of maturity.  I would see 16-18 year olds not taking responsibility for themselves, with both their parents and them acting as if they were still 12.  90 years ago, there would have been a halfway decent chance that those 15-year-olds (or younger!) would have been the "man of the house".

I had one Life Scout, 17 years old, who had transferred to our troop because of some issue with his older troop.  His parents were great volunteers but he just never showed any leadership or initiative.  He had the skills and physical capability so we took him along with us to Philmont.  I had a counseling session with each of the boys after we got back to base camp -- separated from the rest of the troop but in public and visible to everyone.  When I reviewed his performance on trail, he kept saying it would be different after he got Eagle and I just looked at him and asked why he thought he deserved Eagle if he wasn't going to live up to it until after he got the badge.  The Troop Committee Chair, COR, myself, and his parents ended up having another counseling session with him after getting back to the city and it was the same thing -- things would be different after he got Eagle.  I finally stopped him and told him that if the paperwork were in front of me at that moment, I wouldn't sign it.  That apparently got through to him because when I visited the troop later (I had to move to a new assignment that fall), I was told he shaped up immediately after that and ended up being a fine Eagle.  My point is that we need to stop extending their youth.  The whole point of Scouting is to grow citizens (we used to say something else that would be taken as sexist today).

1 hour ago, carebear3895 said:

RECENT Field Experience, if I may ad. Someone who hasn't been around a Cub Pack in 5 years doesn't ad much to the conversation.

I can't talk to Cubs but in Scouting, I'd actually rather have someone with pre-2010 field experience (and even better if pre-2000).  I don't think much of the changes imposed by National in the last 2 decades and would prefer field experience prior to those changes.  I know, that pool is getting thin rapidly but they really do need to get the program back to actually developing knowledge, skills, and attitude (or abilities) instead of the PC mush it's become.  There was a reason Scouting brought Greenbar Bill back in the 1970s and (IMO) it worked while they adhered to what he gave them.

In my experience as a Scout, we changed SMs pretty regularly, probably due to overwork although it was invisible to the Scouts.  We just kept on keeping on.

The SM who formed the first troop I hooked up with as an adult Scouter only left because of a job in another state.  Another father stepped in for him for a little over a year but had to resign because he was working an hour north and it was just too rough on him to get back down in time for meetings, much less everything else a SM has to do.  The third SM lasted about 4 or 5 months -- he took it personally when members of the committee criticized an outing he "led", quit quite loudly and stormed out of the meeting.  In desperation, the TCC turned to me to take over.  Being just 26 at the time, I told him I'd do it so someone could sign the paperwork but only until they found someone more suitable.  2.5 years later, I told the committee that I was serious, they needed to find a new SM because I had military orders to be elsewhere in 3 months.

In my second troop as an adult, the SM was there for a couple decades.  He only left (was forced out of) the position due to a debilitating injury.  IMO, he did a great job with training -- both Scouts and adults.

I do think it's helpful to get graduated Scouts who still want to be involved and use them as JASMs or ASMs.  They are a very useful bridge between age groups.

14 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

As for academic credentials, I have been told that a national training director had 0 field experience, but a PhD in educational leadership.

That right there should have disqualified her from any position of responsibility if National wasn't so disconnected from reality.  I know some excellent PhDs but no one I've met with a PhD in "education" has seemed to know a dang thing about teaching.  Field experience should be the first and foremost thing they look for at National.  When you look at who gets selected for the Board or President positions in the past 15 or 20 years, it's almost like the organization wanted to destroy itself.

8 minutes ago, David CO said:

You make some excellent points.  But I don't think this is an either/or situation.  We can pursue all groups that molest children.  

BSA as a group didn't molest children nor did it protect child molesters as a group.  Some individuals feared publicity would harm the organization but the organization in general tried to keep people with that predilection out.  You can certainly argue that it was too sweeping with the bans but just what guidelines would you propose absent criminal records (which WERE immediate disqualifiers depending on the crimes)?

Unfortunately, BSA is on a course toward settlement.  IMO, settlement will not end this because ultimately, it's not what the activists want.  This has been a decades-long fight for America's soul and we've been losing bit-by-bit in part because we haven't wanted to angry or mean and have been unwilling to point out the forces trying to tear down America in the name of <pick your agenda>.  Unfortunately, the only way to fight this would have been to take the offensive and I don't even know if that would have worked given the increasing stranglehold they've taken on the mainstream media, entertainment, education, and legal systems.

2 hours ago, ParkMan said:

I am just frustrated by the lack of constructive ideas to preserve the program itself.  I wrongly thought the Washington Post should have made a more constructive suggestion here.  I let my frustration at the situation get the better of me.

The problem is that many people/organizations -- including the Washington Post -- have been trying to destroy Scouting and other societal institutions for decades as part of their agenda for change.  Looking to WaPo for constructive ideas to preserve the program would be like looking to Karl Marx for ideas to preserve capitalism or Cortez for ideas to preserve the Incas.  Nothing we suggest to preserve the program will be sufficient for them because destruction of the program is their ultimate goal.

BSA would have been pilloried for publicly "outing" people it suspected but had no hard evidence against -- and rightly so.  When I first heard about the secret files, I expected they were an attempt to protect youth without risking defamation lawsuits, which is about all they could do in those days absent law enforcement making a case against the people in question.  And how many of the people in the files were in fact innocent of any pedophilia?

The lawyers in many cases are just after the money - especially money from a large class action suit.  The way tobacco settlement money was misused by state governments and tort lawyers should be a warning to all.

The assaults were real but if the activists were serious about protecting youth, they'd be pursuing NAMBLA and like organizations instead of BSA and various churches but of course it's politically incorrect to point out that while various organizations were wrong for concealing cases, the REAL damage came from the individual behaviors which ironically seem to be promoted by Hollywood and other forces.

On 11/10/2020 at 6:16 PM, RememberSchiff said:

Found it, well maybe , in Churchill Plan. https://www.dropbox.com/s/84zg3a6lccmza2p/BSA Churchill Plan-Proposed New Territory Structure and Council Standards presentation 10.6.20.pdf?dl=0

 

So does National expect councils to go DRAFTING "youth of color" and girls to get their percentages up?  These kinds of mandates are what drive phony registrations -- something that should be a warning sign.  I am so glad I've retired from Scouting because National gets dumber and dumber every year, just like the mainstream media, public education, and Hollywood.  Quotas are inherently unAmerican.

When I was in the National Capitol Region, one of the best-behaved, most disciplined troops I'd see at Goshen was an inner city troop from DC but we rarely saw "youth of color" express any interest in Scouting (or the outdoors in general for that matter) in the suburbs.  I saw the same general disinterest in Central Florida and the Rocky Mountains.  Scouting is already teetering but these kinds of mandates are organizational suicide.

19 hours ago, yknot said:

I absolutely agree. And if I'm wrong, please correct me, but it seems like the answers that keep being delivered up on this site are connected to returning to or at least harkening back to practices from decades ago. I've been on this forum for years and have yet to see many threads truly examine what modern families and scouters need or want. Every time the topics come up, people freak out.

I've read some of the long posts on this particular thread about training and traditional organizational structure and I feel like it is so disconnected from what modern day families are interested in or willing to spend their time on. I realize we're often weaving in two discussions -- how to deal with the bankruptcy with how to survive post bankruptcy -- and if I've confused that I apologize. 

Just what do you think they need?  Not want, NEED; these are not synonymous.  The answers being delivered up are observations that some of us think they need.

One of the reasons so many of us think traditional training and organizational structure are the answer is because they worked.  Do you honestly think families today are more broken than families in the 1920s and 30s?  Scouting got its reputation because it provided not just outdoor skills but genuine leadership training, the ability to plan and deal with the unexpected, etc.

The growth of companies like REI, EMS, etc. tells us the modern family is actually interested in the outdoors.  Don't you think it would behoove Scouting to really teach outdoor skills?  Employers want employees that can think, learn, plan, teach, improvise, etc.  All of these were skills that Scouting used to teach.  The Patrol Method was a proven method for developing leadership skills which is why a few here keep harping on returning to using it.

18 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Because there is a large and vocal contingent who want things "the way they were." Except, of course, that that program they remember with such fond memories was developed for a time that no longer exists and for a nation and society that simply will not embrace it.

Organisms and organizations have three choices: move, adapt, or die. Since Boy Scouts of America isn't going to move, that leaves adapt or die.

And I honestly thing some of the people where would rather see a dead but "pure" Boy Scouts of America vs. one that adapts.

No, it's not a matter of just wanting things the way they were.  It's a matter of realizing that the program did certain things that worked and that catering to contemporary trends has not.  This is very much like the difference between the Air Force and the Marine Corps in the 90s and 00s -- the Air Force keeps reinventing itself every decade or so and then wonders why it lost direction.  The Marines modernized but kept their identity and core principles (until relatively recently anyway).  People knew what Marines were, what they represented, and were shocked when a Marine wasn't what they thought (for good or bad).

There's adaptation (the Marines adopted and embraced IT superiority among other things) and being so flexible and adaptable that you have no structure.  All the "adaptation" that the BSA has done in the past 3 decades has only weakened it -- and done so at a time when it should have blossomed due to the increase in interest in camping, hiking, and general outdoor activities.

Now, I don't believe it's all BSA National's fault because at the same time there has been a concerted effort by various forces who despise American culture and heritage to tear down the pillars of American society.  IMO, a great deal of the lawsuit (as well as some of the internal change from National) is driven more by a desire to tear down Scouting as one such pillar than to protect youth today or right past wrongs.  As such, no settlement will ever satisfy those forces (IMO) and the bankruptcy will not (IMO) be the end of this.  The COs will be the next target no matter what because they represent another pillar of society.

The only way to respond to this kind of attack would have been to counter-attack it but Robert Gates and company rolled over and even abetted the attacks.

On 10/15/2020 at 7:49 AM, Eagledad said:

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. 

 

Agreed.  A lot of us predicted overall loss of membership due to parent burnout when Tigers were announced.  One of the points I tried to make at bridging ceremonies was that we were maturing the boys and while we wanted parent participation, they shouldn't feel they needed to be at every activity or every meeting.  I would close with a recollection that in my time as a Scout, some of the best campouts and hikes were ones where the parents were as far away as possible (usually got a laugh).

On 10/14/2020 at 11:50 AM, ParkMan said:

By bling, I simply meant that we're used to getting patches, t-shirts, and other similar items for attending events.  Go to camporee, get a patch - that kind of thing.  This is why I don't mind a few items for a specialty training like this.

On the topic of showing off I'm a bit more restrictive myself.  I believe our culture should be consistent and that we shouldn't ever show off.   5-10 minutes for a beading at any meeting - regardless of whether it's pack meeting or a roundtable.  I don't think it should ever be a big to-do.  That said, I don't think we should ignore adult accomplishments.  If anyone does something noteworthy, let's celebrate it.

Okay, I don't regard patches and t-shirts as "bling" -- they're simply recognition and souvenirs of certain events.  I did wear a Philmont or commemorative belt buckles on my uniform but I tried to avoid the "look at me" stuff.  You either have the skills or you don't and you don't need to put fancy stuff on to demonstrate the skills.

My general rule was to recognize adult awards during announcements at general meetings but the COH was all about the Scouts.

On 10/14/2020 at 4:05 PM, yknot said:

Hurt? I'm flat out annoyed. Our current situation establishes just how unreliable and arbitrary internal BSA research and data is, because it's usually self validating and self congratulating. Who cares what BSA thought in the 1970s?  Over decades, it has routinely manipulated data to reinforce already presumed positions and initiatives and that has resulted in one of the most poorly managed nonprofits in existence. Does anyone seriously think more girl dads are somehow bad for the future of scouting? Why would that even be relevant when you are looking at upcoming generational cohorts that, until Covid, almost never went outdoors in any substantive sense?  I can't see the logic -- it's not like the apparently less desirable girl dads will somehow be replacing more desirable boy dads because the reality is there just aren't a lot of dads of any progeny type out there who are interested in scouting for their kids. That's the problem that needs focus and has to be fixed. 

I'm annoyed, because attitudes like yours misdirect attention and try to scapegoat more rallying emotional targets, like girls and women in scouting, over more reality based ones. It prevents us from addressing root reasons why fewer kids and families choose scouting today. 

I care what BSA thought in the 1970s because the culture was different.  IMO they did NOT routinely manipulate data then the way they do now, they did NOT screw around with the program to feed some adult's ego at National.  I applaud the fact that you've learned and developed skills to match your peers but you do come off at times like you've got a chip on your shoulder about being "a girl."

The fact of the matter is that National changed the training programs -- including Wood Badge -- and made them replicate training that earlier generations of leaders would have gotten simply by virtue of having been a Scout (or a Marine or in the Army or ...).  The need for that kind of fundamental training came about as a result of demographics and a lot THAT came from increased involvement by mothers and others.  That itself was and is a good thing but IMO it should have been addressed with a fundamentals course, not watering down WB so that more people felt "included".  Of course, that "inclusion" factor itself seems to have arisen from the cliques that arose and that clique-ish attitude (when/where it arose) should have been beat down from the top.  It's somewhat natural human behavior but it just never made sense because there will always be people with advanced outdoor and Scoutcraft skills that haven't taken WB.  Wearing beads doesn't make you superior.

I don't recall ever encountering this clique-ish attitude myself but I tended to concentrate on activities at the unit level and I think it was pretty clear that I wasn't paying attention to "bling" when I dealt with other units or with district/council.

On 10/14/2020 at 10:59 PM, ParkMan said:

I do get the point you are making.  The way I took it was that for a long time continuity in the Scouting program occurred because kids in the program turned into leaders in the program.  With a high percentage of leaders having a youth BSA Scouting background, it led to a pretty consistent program.  As the percentage of leaders with a youth BSA background dropped, we saw less consistency in the program.  New leaders without a Scouting program began to "guess" and "interpret" what they were supposed to do.

Regardless of why this transition has occurred, I don't doubt that it has.  Myself, I believe that the BSA has relied too much upon leaders showing up with prior experience.  It made the BSA unprepared for the time when leader development really mattered.  When that occurred, the BSA wasn't (and still isn't) prepared for it.  That the BSA training program today is essentially a few online orientation courses and a one weekend overnighter speaks to how little this is understood.  Scouting needs more in-person training, more in-person roundtables, more commissioners who understand how to mentor newer scouters.  Scouting need COs to develop stronger units so that those units have enough continuity and senior leadership to effectively run an unit.  Scouting needs a stronger development program for senior Scouters like we were discussing. 

If I had my way, I think there's a whole shift in mindset that needs to occur.  Encourage experienced leaders to share their knowledge.  Make roundtables work again by having them be hands on, Scouter workshops.  Make roundtable a series of four 15 minute talks by experienced Scouters where they teach and share knowledge.  Bring back Scouting magazine - but have it be filled with article after article with "how to" stuff.  Make the BSA the role model in outdoor adventure for kids.  Create such an adult learning environment in the BSA that adults want to attend roundtable just to talk about gear and adventure.  Stuff like that...

I would disagree that BSA has relied too much on leaders showing up with prior experience.  The development of courses like Scoutmaster Fundamentals in the 90s and devolution of Wood Badge are symptoms of this.  Also, I don't know what has happened since I retired from the program 4 years ago but we never used to have to encourage experienced Scouters to share knowledge.  It was usually more of a problem letting them know when you had to move on.  I got a lot simply by talking with other Scoutmasters over morning coffee before flags at summer camp.  The older Scouters were usually eager to share their experience and knowledge.  The move to online orientation was a response to contemporary culture where parents and other volunteers wanted to be able to get the rote stuff on their own time at home.  I for one appreciated that but perhaps they took it too far?

Getting adults to like Roundtable has always been a challenge.  I think the problem is that simply going through announcements, providing program information, etc. takes up a good portion of the time and a lot of the adults want to get home, have dinner, etc.  I liked the introduction of University of Scouting even though the title was a little pretentious because it was a way to pass on beginning, intermediate, and advanced knowledge.  It's really hard to do a worthwhile class on anything in 15 minutes -- having 45 minutes gives you enough time to really get into things.  I didn't have to be part of the WB clique for UOS, I was simply asked by the organizers to conduct or supplement various classes based on what they knew I knew (to be fair, our council's WB crew wasn't really cliqueish -- I think they wanted me to join them but of course I'd have had to go through the program and earn beads to be an instructor and I just didn't see a lot of value in that).

I think if BSA looked at training as a big picture, you'd break out overall training into beginning, intermediate, and advanced levels with clear tests to let some graduate (or immediately move) to the appropriate level.  Beginning level would basically give the adult First Class skills (or what used to be First Class skills) plus the necessary adult adds of youth protection, how the troop works with district and council, etc. Intermediate would build on those skills, and advanced would build even further.  Put WB in the intermediate level and have an advanced outdoors course so you can do the bead thing and unit improvement or just have intermediate courses focusing on unit improvement and make WB the advanced course.  Filling Scouting magazine with "how to" articles is an excellent idea.

On 10/13/2020 at 10:38 AM, ParkMan said:

Except that it's uh... Scouting.  Scouting has all kinds of bling for stuff.  It's just part of the culture of Scouting.  You plop down $250, spend a couple of weekends at camp, and spend a ton of hours working on some projects for your unit.  You get a neckerchief and some beads.  That doesn't seem crazy to me that you get a little bling.

I am neither an OA member nor an Eagle Scout.  I cannot tell you how much I've heard about both.  OA chapters, OA lodges, the OA running campfires, OA tapouts, OA ordeals, OA sashes, OA patches, conclaves, etc.  The requirements to be an OA member as an adult are more exclusive than Wood Badge.  OA is much more of a fraternity than Wood Badge will ever be. 

The Eagles stuff isn't as strong - but there clearly is an assumption that just because someone is an Eagle Scout that they are a superior leader.  I think you described this well.

I suspect that the real issue here is that it's simply become an accepted part of Scouter culture that's a good target.  It makes us all feel better to pick on Wood Badge and the people who take it.  In the process, we end up openly discouraging people from getting some training that could help them along their journey as a volunteer.

Again, it's just a course.

Um, no.  Yes, Scouting has a lot of bling but no, it's NOT part of "the culture" -- or wasn't IMO.  There are always people who want to show off but elements like knots instead of letting adults wear the Eagle badge itself were an effort to tone down the bling.  Skill award belt loops weren't so much bling as a display of credentials.

For the most part, the only things I put on my uniform as an adult were the Eagle and AOL knots and the Trained badge -- and those were just to show my experience and credentials.  Anyone who knew me already knew my background and experience and those who didn't know me were free to make up their own minds about me based on my demonstrated behaviors.

As far as the case cited about a beading ceremony at a COH putting off Scouts and parents, I quite understand.  IMO that's just showing off for the adults in question.  It's a youth program.  The adults can show off for their peers at Roundtable or something else.  One of the reasons I spent most of my time at the unit level was that I had little patience for the games and politics played by adults at the district and council level.  I only got involved at those levels when requested and only when it appeared I could have an impact for even more youth (e.g., organizing district camporees or assisting with the shooting sports committee).

I used to have the opposite issue with medications roughly 25 years ago.  This was a period when it seemed boys who didn't act like docile little lambs were diagnosed with ADHD and Ritalin was handed out like M&Ms (from what I could see).  In the 2 or 3 cases I can recall, I think the parents tried to be "buddies" with their sons rather than invoke any kind of discipline.   In contrast, I made it pretty clear with the boys as both ASM and SM that having fun was great, jokes were fine as long as they didn't result in injuries or property damage, but that I wasn't going to put up with misbehaviors including safety hazards, distractions during summer camp classes, etc.

In the cases I'm thinking of, the boys did have some degree of autism but they'd go to summer camp or a weekend camp and return home without having taken their medications or having only taken 1 or 2 doses.  The parents inquired about their sons' behavior and I would tell them we didn't have any problems.  Never heard about it again.

In another case, we had a boy who definitely had some autism issues and would frequently wander off on his own, to the point that it was becoming a safety issue.  His youngest brother also had issues early on with lashing out blindly, including cases that were safety issues.  The SM and I had talks with the Troop Committee and then their parents about the situations, generally saying that it was just a warning that if things didn't change, the parents would need to accompany the boy(s) on outings or provide another chaperone because it just wasn't fair to the other boys if 1 of the 2 of us was having to spend the entire time 1-on-1 with a single boy to watch for these incidents.  The parents were very understanding -- to some extent, I think they viewed the outings as a bit of a break for them because watching their boys could be very tiring -- but both boys eventually grew out of these behaviors and made it to Eagle.

My point is that there are cases where medications and counseling are definitely needed but we should also be very careful about contemporary society's desire for docile sheep and tendency to treat everything with pharmaceuticals.  I had a number of Scouts make Eagle (or not!) who had much better Scout skills, ability to plan and lead, etc. than the latter two examples I cited but I can't think of any Scouts I led or encountered who had more personal growth on their journey through Scouting.

TL;DR The value of Wood Badge varies based on your background and experience, primarily with leadership/management skills and techniques but also with Scoutcraft and the Patrol Method

Before I retired from Scouting, I saw a vast change in the adults involved in the program. When I first became a Scouter (after graduation from college, commissioning in the USAF, and completing initial job training), most of the adults I saw had prior experience with Scouting (in many cases, LONG prior experience as Scouts and Scouters).  By the time I left, I would say over half the adults involved had little (only as Cubs) to no experience with Scouting.  Many had no real experience with leadership or management although many had good organizational skills.

When I first jumped in as a new Scouter as the troop's Advancement Chair, I had very little information on the function.  I ran it as I perceived advancement worked as a Scout (about 5.5 years, Scout to Eagle) but I functioned more as an ASM because of my background and the troop's needs.  When we got another adult with no Scouting background, I transitioned to ASM and then to SM at the TC's request when the SM left abruptly.  I continued as SM until I orders compelled me to move, at which point I found another troop and resumed as ASM again. I continued as an ASM at 2 other troops on other military moves until I returned to the city and council where I had started my adult Scouting.  At this point, I actually chose my home based on proximity to my old troop and got involved with it again as an ASM.

I took Scoutmaster Fundamentals midway through the moves after roughly 8 years as an ASM or SM and found it to be essentially a quick run through a Scout's journey to First Class with some additional information on resources available to the SM/ASM.

By the time I was induced to go to Wood Badge, I had 3 years as a Cub, 5.5 as a Scout, about 15 as a Scouter, not to mention my active duty service.  I had been actively involved with Roundtables and even worked with Council as a member of the Shooting Sports Committee and helping with Camporees/University of Scouting courses (as an instructor) so I already had a good understanding of the Council's structure and personalities as well as the leaders at other troops.  I asked for a syllabus and discussed it with instructors but could never find any additional value added.  A number of the instructors already knew me from Wood Badge and other activities and knew my background.  When I asked what they thought I would get from it, the only things I could get from them were 1) the right to wear "beads" and 2) my contribution to help others in their classes.  Not one of them could come up with any personal growth or extended contacts I might get from the classes.

In my opinion, demanding that someone with my background take Wood Badge was as silly as National demanding an Eagle Scout with 3 years working as an ASM to take IOLS.  On the other hand, much of the training would be valuable for the many parents who had little to no experience with Scouting.  I would have preferred it have the structure of decades past where SMF taught fundamentals of leadership, Scoutcraft, and Patrol Method and WB was more of an advanced course -- but very very few Scouters had my kind of background.  In today's parlance, "it wasn't meant for you."

FWIW, I fully supported and encouraged troop shopping when I was still Scouting.  I told prospective new parents that each unit had its own persona and style and that different boys would fit in with different units.  IMO, it shouldn't set up an "Us vs. Them" mentality if the troops are participating in Roundtables -- the goal is to get the boys (and now girls) situated in an environment that best develops their skills and meets their needs to be productive members of society with a healthy appreciation for the values and heritage that Scouting brings (or used to).

In addition, I very much disagree with the idea that there are no "bad kids".  I've seen far too many of them.  In some cases, you could lay the behavior down to bad parenting but in other cases it seemed the parents were exemplary and the boys just flat out had personality problems.  One I'm ashamed to say made it to Eagle, I suspect mainly because his parents had given SO much to the program (and I think they did so because they were hoping the program would help iron out his problems, not because they expected any quid pro quo).

To some extent, I think a lot of this has been part of a long game to destroy the pillars of Western society and that while the aim of individual lawyers may have been money (for them or for the victims), the ultimate and primary aim of a growing segment of activists for decades has been to tear down "the Church", the BSA, the military, the police, etc. Tearing down the organizations does nothing positive for the current and future generations who could have benefited from the programs and teaching. All it does is leave a vacuum that various nefarious powers are just drooling to fill (and already has been filling in the mainstream media, public education, academia, etc.).