HICO_Eagle

Ridiculous. Does anyone in Irving actually think or get unit-level feedback before issuing these changes?

I was going to say get a new patch and send me your old beaten-up one

I have the Barnes & Noble Nook Color myself. It's great to have an entire reference library (G2SS, camp leader's guide, merit badge info, etc.) at hand and the whole thing slips into my thigh pocket. I like the Nook because it reads both PDF and EPUB and the color version means I can open up color pictures as visual aids.

I'd love to get Boy's Life and Scouting magazines in PDF or EPUB format and save a few trees ...

I have a big issue with the general comments about being no reason to not take a well-prepared troop winter camping. I hope smug comments like that boosted your epeen but the reality is that we have a wide variety of troops and the experience level within the troop can vary over time.

A good SM knows his or her boys and their capabilities. There is a big difference between taking them into general winter camping with snow shelters and such versus a full out winter storm with high winds or icy rain. I think Engineer61 got it right -- the SM deserves kudos for realizing the Scouts' abilities and the developing conditions were incompatible and making a difficult last minute call.

"If you are goig the embroidered route, red on tan IMHO"

I agree completely but shouldn't that be green on tan for the new Visine uniform?

I still think the new new new form stinks. The Talent Release doesn't belong on Side B and I dispute the use of BMI tables that were drafted as a guideline to healthy living rather than as any kind of guideline for outdoor activity. I prefer the old approach where the physician certifies the individual is cleared for specific types of activities -- or indicates which ones s/he won't certify.

"So, you have no interest in learning about troop meetings, PLC meetings, patrol meetings, team formation, team development, team leadership, communication, diversity, project planning, chaplain aides, Leave No Trace, problem solving, managing conflict, coaching and mentoring, self-assessment and overall Scouting vision and enthusiasm nor see much use for above?"

I have already learned plenty about troop meetings, PLC meetings, patrol meetings, team leadership, etc. in the past 30+ years. There's always more to learn but I don't believe the "Everybody Wins" game is going to provide much of it. I've already had more than I want of the pap that passes for management training in recurring fads. You can ask my Scouts whether I gave them Scouting vision and enthusiasm or helped them with coaching, mentoring and problem solving.

This is precisely the problem I have with the WB21C attitude: so many people think it's the only (or best) source for learning about these subjects. I learned far more about being a SM by talking with other SMs over coffee than I ever did from SMF or UoS. It reminds me of when the military went nuts over TQM/TQL.

I think 5 to a tall can is about right.

Side story: I challenged the boys in our troop to pass a uniform inspection at summer camp (we were having issues getting complete uniforms). The Polish exchange Scout on staff who conducted the inspection gave them a pass so I took it like a Scout -- we scheduled the pie toss for flag ceremony on the last morning of camp and I wore my spare set of class As for the toss. Well, the camp didn't have whipped cream so they substituted a huge can of chocolate pudding.

A few observations:

1) The increased weight of the pudding made it much easier for the boys to throw.

2) Chocolate pudding is a pain to get out of your uniform.

3) Everyone concerned enjoyed themselves -- the boys passed their inspection, boys from other units learned a thing or two about sportsmanship and other adults learned another technique for motivating their boys.

Pudding is a good cheap alternative but get vanilla.

"Our knowledge of leadership, what works, how it works is always being worked on. B-P never knew about concepts like situational leadership, tead development, servant leadership, etc. Its nothing about the old being 'bad', but that we have learned so much about what works & doesn't work."

I think Green Bar Bill and B-P both knew about situational leadership and the like, they just didn't bother creating fancy terms for it. I have been singularly unimpressed by most "leadership training" I've taken in the military or Boy Scouts -- much of it seems to have been put together by academics needing to publish something. The situational leadership lessons using "Twelve O'Clock High" are interesting but too my mind more formalism than is really needed and Maslow's Hierarchy and the like are just so much bovine excrement to me.

So far, I have seen nothing in any of the descriptions of WB21C that interests me much less suggests it's a good use of 8 hours (and yes, I know the course is much more than 8 hours). On the other hand, I've seen smatterings of GBB's original course that I would gladly spend a week or so on.

I think the BEST hot chocolate is homemade with real milk and cocoa powder but as far as instant mixes go, I like either Ghiradelli or Land o' Lakes. Can't use it on Scout outings but a little Bailey's or Kahlua help make the hot chocolate so smoooooth.

Luckily, the Colorado Scout Camps form is based off the 2007 edition and is still being used in Colorado. I e-mailed the committee with a general complaint about the form. This thing is ridiculous!

Why doesn't National do what the Internet or government staffs do and put major revisions out for comment before implementation? I'd have given them all kinds of (constructive) feedback on the 11th edition of the Scout Handbook, the current edition of the Scoutmaster Handbook and this form.

"Why did I know that Kudu would think the idea of what is considered by National as having the patrol method incorporated in the training is lame??.."

Maybe because it is? I'm with TNScoutTroop on this issue.

This whole thread astounds me. First, I think the proposed test-out is way above and beyond the course requirement but that just points out the idiocy of making this course mandatory rather than highly encouraged. What exactly is the point of requiring qualified people waste time taking or teaching a redundant course?

Second, I'm amazed at the number of posts saying "we couldn't find Scouters qualified to administer the test." In my troop, any Scout past the rank of First Class darn well better be able to administer much less test out the requirements listed. If we get ASMs who CAN'T pass a course like that we would darn well instruct him or her ourselves or recommend this course so I again don't see the point of making this mandatory and thereby dissuade adults from volunteering.

As an aside, I grew up with SMs who couldn't have passed these tests -- we had two ASMs who were Eagles that saw to our instruction in traditional Scout skills -- but somehow the dozen or so Eagles from our small troop managed. What was important to us was that someone was willing to put in the time to organize a program, work with the committee and see to the paperwork. We got the skills instruction we needed from camp, older Scouts and the ASMs who had been Scouts. I wonder a bit about the deleterious effect this "Every Scout deserves a trained leader" movement will have on our corps of adult volunteers.

Chazz --

I'd be interested in the old ORIGINAL course specifically because a lot of the outdoor material was shelved in the 70s. I've obviously done quite a bit in the outdoors since earning Eagle (in fact, more than I did as a Scout) -- learned a lot more as ASM to an old school SM and talking with other SMs at summer camp (again, old schoolers who likely took WB while it followed GBB's teachings) -- but I can see there's still much more to learn.

I'm already excited about Scouting -- Scouting the way it was, the way it should be. National's direction on 21st Century Scouting excites me less and less every year as it falls prey to faddism and New Age psychobabble. The descriptions I've read of the "Everyone Wins" game just make me want to retch (as did my district's centennial camporee show that spoke of Scouting as a "world peace movement" -- there were certainly elements of BP's world brotherhood program directed toward peace but it wasn't a "world peace movement" in the modern context). I got back into Scouting after college to pay back what I'd gotten as a youth and to assist the boys, not to add junk to my uniform, boost my ego in front of other adults, etc.

I'm specifically NOT interested in more management school garbage. I've taken too much of it already and think most of it isn't worth lining my pet cages with. My observation of today's Scouters is that we have far more adults with management or leadership experience than outdoor skills experience -- which is all the more reason to return Wood Badge to its original focus. I actually like elements of the White Stag program -- I just don't think it should be Wood Badge. I'd go back to GBB's 20 Tools as Kudu proposed. We have a lot of men and women now who want to be active as Scouters but weren't Scouts as youth so don't have any idea what GBB meant by the patrol method, don't know how to build a proper campfire or cook over coals. Shoot, many of the activity staff I encounter ASSUME everyone will be using propane rather than coals or white gas -- and those are staffers!

Personally, I'd be okay with a "test out" option but I'm still afraid that the "mandatory" label will still turn off the additional adults we'd like to get involved in the program. Bear in mind, I've already committed to Scouting for decades -- what I'm afraid we'll lose are the new parents and young adults that want to get involved again but don't have multiple weekends to commit to mandatory training. I still think the best route is to make these courses "highly encouraged" and have the DEs make the rounds to troop committees to explain the benefits of the courses. I don't think much of training for training's sake and despise the professional educators who push it. Training should be there to educate the participant -- and a lot of BSA's current training is for box-checking, not education, IMHO.

I can well believe leaders are against the new training requirement. I'm one of them -- it's hard enough getting some of the adults involved without adding more mandatory time wasters. Yes, time wasters. It's not that it's too hard -- it's that it's a waste of time that would be spent better with the boys or even reading a good book. The OP seems offended that district training numbers haven't gone up in the past two years, that adults should take these courses because the council or district has asked, pleaded and begged. Perhaps the adults didn't take the courses because they didn't see value in them?

In the last 20+ years, I've seen plenty of Scouts stick around regardless of whether their parents or other volunteers got "official training". They stay (or go) because of the program you offer them, the fun they will have. I'd rather have an adult help out with the occasional activity despite lack of "training" than have them stay home because they're "unapproved".

I bow to the regular YPT because of today's litigious society -- not because it helps me in any way. I took the Trainer Development Course because it was required for yet another course that I needed to take in order to continue counseling a merit badge I qualified to instruct 20 years ago. I learned very little from SMF 15 years ago and expect I would learn even less from SMST or IOLS if I wasn't grandfathered due to my past SMF course. I have had plenty of useless time-wasting training in the military but at least it was made an official part of my duties when I took it instead of sucking up yet another precious weekend.

Having said all that, I have one reason to encourage the other leaders to take this training: National's iron fist regarding unit charters and advancement. (Of course, the fact they are resorting to that iron fist is yet another indicator of how little value the new training requirement provides.)

By the way, I would encourage adults who I felt needed the training to take it -- what I object to is the mandatory nature.

AvidSM said "To me, the Wood Badge beads are a symbol of commitment to scouting."

I'll let my 23 years of adult Scouting, 5 years of Boy Scouting and 3 years of Cub Scouting speak to my commitment to Scouting thank you very much. I don't need beads and I certainly don't need another overblown management course to demonstrate that.

The bottom line for me is that I would take the old original Wood Badge course in a heartbeat. I'm not wasting 2 hours much less 2 weekends on the kind of garbage I've seen posted on the WB21C program. Taking SMF was bad enough but at least it didn't proclaim itself to be a graduate level course while teaching grade school pablum.

Have been away from these forums for a while but just saw this thread. I disagree with a couple of Scout24's ideas:

1. BSA's policy regarding homosexuals or atheists isn't even in the top ten reasons I hear for boys who drop out or never get involved in Scouting. Most boys in my experience drop out or don't join because 1) it's work, 2) they're more interested in soccer or football or ..., 3) they've been culturally brainwashed into thinking Scouting is just for geeks. Most don't have any idea what's in the program. For that matter, the DoD survey not only got an insignificant minority of surveys returned but the majority were NOT in favor of repealing DADT, the majority of returns said it wouldn't matter if DADT was repealed.

2. Changing the uniform to BDUs just feeds the propaganda mill and really isn't necessary. We didn't wear our uniforms to school 30 years ago either (see aforementioned point about cultural brainwashing). I don't like the Centennial uniform but at least it's comfortable and functional.

On the other hand, I agree wholeheartedly that National just doesn't get it. Most of the changes I've seen in the program over the past 20+ years have not (IMNSHO) been positive. Put the outing back in Scouting and make people aware of that -- Scouting should be in the midst of a Renaissance with today's emphasis on the outdoors but we're letting political activists define us in the public perception.

"Seven pillars, 26 objectives and 104 specific goals" smacks of people who have been attending too many management seminars from professional educators and consultants instead of actually leading people (including boys) or working with the program.

I like your drill JoeBob. I guess your experience runs counter to my own experience with competitive shooters but I haven't been around younger competitive shooters (except at USPSA matches) in years so perhaps it has to do with video games or movies or some such nonsense. In any event, I firmly believe children are generally safer when they grow up with safety rules rather than have something locked away as some big mystery, whether it's power tools, wine/beer or firearms.

Adult antics are precisely why I generally work at the unit level. Too many ego trips and political games when you pull a bunch of adults in the room to plan and execute district or council level activities. Congratulations to those of you who took WB and got something from it; I still haven't heard anything that sounds like it would be a productive use of my time.

"Teaching kids not related to yeh is different than teaching your own son. Yeh don't know 'em as well, can't anticipate them as easily, they don't know, trust, and obey you as well, don't understand what you're saying as easily. Other boys will do things your son never would, and your son can surprise you when he's around other boys."

Sorry but I disagree here. This is a function of the instructor, not the father/son relationship. I've seen plenty of fathers who seem to do better teaching other boys than their sons.

I was a registered rifle merit badge counselor long before I was NRA-certified and the NRA certification honestly didn't help me with my teaching or knowledge. I took the course precisely because Council requires it now, just as I follow the G2SS to avoid problems with Council (not the insurance). Personally, I'm not a big fan of the G2SS but they don't ask me to like it, just follow it.

Suppose for a moment a troop wished to schedule a dance for next Friday night. (I'll wait for the air to return to the room, that was quite a gasp!)

So what if the boys decide to invite the neighborhood Girl Scout troop over for an evening of sharing scouting and having some music play in the background?

Just for the record, my troop, another troop and a couple Girl Scout units scheduled an interScout dance back in ... 1980? 1981? It wasn't the end of the world. Some of us even made Eagle a year or two later.

Oh, we DO read the Good Book. The passage you cite talks about how the believers lived and supported the apostles, a history of their life together just as Acts also records how Saul approved of Stephen's death, began to destroy the church and threw men and women in prison. On the other hand, Jesus' own parable of the Ten Virgins tells us to make ready ourselves rather than depend on others and of course the parable of the Talents is frequently cited as an injunction to be productive with what you have (Matthew 25). 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12 says

Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.

and 2 Thessalonians 3:6-10 says

In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

As I said before, I don't think "a Scout pays his own way" needs to mean a Scout doesn't receive or accept help. To me it means the Scout does what he can to take care of himself. Similarly, Christian love and generousity do not equate to Marxist redistribution or dependency.

As far as the Jamboree trip went, there were a number of factors why it was a TC decision rather than PLC, primarily because the Scouts had not raised the funds they needed to make it their decision. About half worked hard and earned the funds to go to summer camp (and then some -- but not enough to do the Jamboree), the others didn't or decided to put their money toward tuition (we graduated 4 Eagles this spring). It was hardly unfortunate, it was a lesson in responsibility.

"Da Christian notion is that each should give according to his ability and take according to his need, eh?"

Sorry, that's the Marxist notion, not the Christian notion.

"If they can't afford it and they don't have the time to work towards it, why would they sign up for it in the first place?"

Exactly what our troop did -- or rather, didn't do. We had plans and aspirations to visit the Jamboree and tour the historical sites in DC and Philadelphia but the Troop Committee decided to go to standard summer camp instead due to the economic crunch and problems many parents had. Did we miss a historic and memorable occasion? I'm sure we did but the TC and parents chose to face economic realities.

"Offers to trade garrison caps were almost as prevalent as offers to trade patches at Jambo. The number of times I heard: "I sure wish they'd bring back that old green uniform!" was too numerous to count. (And most of those comments were NOT from adults!) "

But, but ... National told us the BOYS wanted these new fancy expensive baggy looking uniforms including the change from traditional white-on-red to green-on-khaki numerals and new shoulder loops! (Guess I've just been around the wrong boys since changing the troop numerals colors is something I've NEVER heard in over 25 years of Scouting.)

"National will be getting a new module for ScoutNet in 2011 called the Membership and Training Module from an outside vendor that promises to simplify everything for everybody. This will need to be in place and working prior to implementing required training."

Does anyone else find it the least bit ironic (and aggravating) that an organization with a mission (and proven ability) to train leaders needs to go to an outside vendor to implement "required training"? How much of this stuff is a self-licking ice cream cone?