KoreaScouter

A little story:

It's 1999, late spring with beautiful weather, at an Air Force Base in the U.S. The President is coming to visit and a "troop event" (what they call it when he appears with troops, weapon systems, hardware, etc., surrounding him) is scheduled. The word goes out through command channels that there will be only so many troops/family members permitted to go for space and security reasons, so "tickets" will be apportioned to units on a per capita basis -- hurry or you might miss out. Two days before, then one day before, there were wheelbarrows full of tickets that hadn't been snapped up by troops or family members. The arm twist was on, and under duress, troops showed up.

Fast forward to February 2002, at an air base in Korea. The Commander-In-Chief is going to visit, and a troop event is scheduled. Attendance in the hangar will be limited by space, but if anyone wants to brave the Korea February weather at 5:45 a.m. (it was in the mid-teens without wind chill) to start processing security and stand outside on the tarmac, watching the speech either through binoculars or simulcast on big-screen TVs, you're more than welcome. Needless to say, no arm twist necessary...there were too many thousands of soldiers, airmen, sailors, marines, family members, civilians, and contract workers to count, many of whom traveled for hours to get there. This sea of humanity was literally shoulder to shoulder in bitter cold for over three hours for the privilege to see and hear our President, the First Lady, the Secretary of State, and the National Security Advisor. We went to see him, to thank him, to honor him, to assure him we thought he was doing the right things, and to let him know that these Americans, halfway around the world in a different harm's way, supported him 100%. My kids were with me, and while my son is quite stoic, my daughter is known to complain if her bowl of Lucky Charms doesn't have enough marshmallows in it -- she didn't complain once about the wait, the cold, or the crowd.

...we're unbelievably happy that George W. Bush is our President...

We just started a Patrol of the Month competition, with the elements coming straight from the BSA Baden-Powell Patrol Award. Points are awarded, and Scouts get extra points for official BSA items. Time will tell if it works. I like the idea of a door prize with the full uniform and a handbook to get a ticket.

One man's opinion; I could be wrong.

Answers to FScouter's issues:

- Treasurer should report finances at each committee meeting (Troop committee guidebook)

- Apportioned fund raising? Determined by the troop committee when the money earning application is processed...no boilerplate policy really works here; too many different situations

- committee approval of expenditures? If you put trustworthy people in charge of the money, you shouldn't have to micromanage this, up to a certain dollar amount determined by your checkbook balance. Ours is $50.

- Can't require a full uniform...BSA doesn't.

- Dues are encouraged to teach value of money. We don't have them in our by-laws now, but I'm going to try to add...

- Financial assistance: The old TV ad comes to mind here: "not looking for a handout, just a hand". I think the troop committee should plan sufficient opportunities for Scouts to earn the money for their Scouting expenses (money earning projects), that there shouldn't be resource issues. If that's flat not possible, check into council "campership" programs, help from the chartered org, or the troop "sucks it up" (a Scout is helpful).

- committee business outside meetings? On emergent or emergency type issues that can't wait for the next meeting, we do "virtual meetings" to decide specific things by e-mail. Only as an exception. Most things that seem "on fire" can actually wait until the meeting. This assumes all members are honest brokers. If any are doing end-arounds outside of meetings, that's a whole 'nother ball game.

- revoked driver's license? Better not be doing it if the troop is listing the driver/vehicle on the back of the tour permit. If it's just a troop meeting drop-off/pick-up, he ain't yours until he gets out of the car. However, you could offer to arrange pick-up/drop offs by someone who is legal. Why's he revoked -- DUI? This could be a chocolate mess!

- Yes, a Scoutmaster can sign off the advancement requirements for any Scout in the troop, including his son's. A Scout is trustworthy, right? If either one is cheating, the rest of the troop will know it almost immediately. That's why most adult leaders are overly fussy on their own kids crossing the "T's" and dotting the "I's" -- gotta be above reproach. My son's Personal Fitness exercise period went from 12 to 18 weeks 'cuz he missed workouts on some cold days. Some people think being the Scoutmaster's son is great...my son would probably tell you it's not that great. He's the first one at meetings, the last one to leave, and gets away with absolutely nothing that even slightly resembles corner-cutting in the program. Moreover, I know whether he's showing Scout Spirit more than any of the other Scouts, since we live in the same house, go to the same church, have the same relatives, I see all his school progress reports, his little sister rats him out, etc. I feel sorry for him sometimes...but not too often.

- The only training required is Youth Protection. Everything else is optional, but encouraged.

- Boys' Life? Our troop funds it, but we can afford it. I think it's worth it, since it's another way to get the program into the home where the parents can see it.

- Two-deep? Required for trips and outings, according to the Guide to Safe Scouting. If a parent is driving a son to a troop meeting, not required. Personally, I like four-deep...

- Push-ups? I wouldn't permit them in Boy Scout troops...too close to corporal punishment or hazing, and too subject to abuse. Also, doesn't solve a problem and requires absolutely no application of brainpower on the part of a leader to fix a situation...treat the cause, not the symptom.

- Siblings? As a rule of thumb, I wouldn't allow it...I'm assuming the little guy's not old enough for membership. There's a reason why the minimum age is 11. Is he babysitting? Then, he can't concentrate on the meeting agenda, and it may be a distraction to the other Scouts. I don't know the exact situation; there may be extenuating circumstances...

We have by-laws and a new parents' guide, and I meet with every new family soon after they come on board so there's no misunderstandings...

-

We do monthly uniform inspections, and I recently realized that we were giving the same credit for a troop t-shirt as we were for the official BSA shirt with all insignia properly affixed; ditto for the pants...same points for a pair of jeans and the official pants/belt. My internal "foul buzzer" went off, and we've changed our inspection criteria so you get extra points for official shirt vs. t-shirt, official pants vs. jeans, and so on. So what? Well, we're starting a "patrol of the month" recognition system modeled after the B-P Patrol Award criteria, of which uniform wear is a part. My plan is, if we get the patrols vying for POM, they'll qualify for the B-P Patrol Award, too.

Why not just require full uniforming? I've said this on other threads, might as well get on the soap box again. If BSA isn't willing to make a full uniform a joining requirement, or EVER require a uniform for that matter, how much leverage do we have at the unit level to require full uniforms? None, that's how much.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy the "too expensive" argument, especially when the same parents complaining about the cost don't blink over the $150 Nikes they just bought for Junior. Granted, the items aren't cheap, and part of that is BSA's fault, but there are options other than "buy it new at the Scout store" like thrift shops, EBay auctions, etc. Uncomfortable? Sorry, don't buy that one either. My son plays football, and he'll be the first to tell you the pads, cup, and helmet are anything but comfortable. But, once he gets on the field, he's so focused on the game and how much fun he's having, he doesn't even notice the equipment. I'm not saying it's mind over matter, but what I am saying is that if the program's fun, the fit of the pants will become insignificant. One thing my son does say, and he's no whiner, is that the shorts are too short -- way too much leg sticking out of those things. I don't know what to do except let the hem out as far as we can and hope for the best.

The MB program may not have been conceived with a homeschool curriculum in mind as a theory, but it has certainly moved in that direction in the application, considerably so in some troops/areas.

Brad mentions having to supplement the pamphlets primarily in the math & science areas, and I agree. If a family homeschools, I see nothing wrong with using MB pamphlets to supplement the curriculum, but I'm not sure I'd use them as the foundation of the curriculum. First, as good and as comprehensive as they are, they aren't a complete curriculum and BSA hasn't designed them to be a holistic education curriculum. Second, the cognitive abilities of an 11 year old boy are significantly different than those of a 17 year old boy. Which pamphlets (badges) and therefore which subject matter is appropriate for the 11 year old? The 17 year old? Many parents are probably smart enough to figure that out themselves. However, there's only one set of MB requirements, and there aren't suggested ages for completing them. Third, and this may land me in the hottest water on this forum, I read the posts of homeschool families who complain of discrimination, mistreatment, misunderstandings, nasty looks, etc., from people who don't homeschool, in part because they think homeschoolers are somehow "pulling a fast one". I know many homeschoolers here, and almost all of them use the standardized curriculum/testing services, which, it seems to me, deflates the argument that homeschoolers aren't really teaching anything. Doesn't using the MB pamphlets as the curriculum invite that criticism?

Don't get me wrong, I use them to supplement and tie in with classroom lessons, too (especially Environmental Science with spring science projects coming up). I just don't understand why, with the supplementation you'd have to do to make them work as a stand-alone curriculum, a family doesn't just subscribe to one of the curriculum services...are they somehow deficient? I don't homeschool, so I don't know, but I do know that our homeschool families here use the services...

Brad;

Methinks you're in a bit of a defensive crouch here.

I never suggested you should put your kid in a bad school as a symbol of support for your local system. In fact, if you read my post again, you'll see it for yourself. Nor did I criticize yours or anyone else's decision to homeschool or not to homeschool -- I've repeatedly said it's a personal decision not subject to anyone else's criticism.

I'd recommend caution when asserting that the goal of a school system is to...what was it you said? "Produce meek and mild servants to the government state"? Sounds a little too heavy on the conspiracy-theory argument...Proletariat of the world, unite? All kidding aside, one person's "meek and mild servant to the government state" is another person's "good citizen"...guess it depends on your point of view and how many unmarked U.N. helicopters are following you around. Sorry for the wisecrack, I'm just enjoying this way too much. Bear in mind that the blind obedience to authority Brad thinks is fostered in schools is a mind set we're accused of fostering in BSA in general. Again, I see it as fostering responsible, thinking citizens, whereas I guess you see it as creating an army of zombies who do whatever big brother tells them...or am I incorrectly paraphrasing your comments?

BTW, you're not a Citizenship in the Community Merit Badge counselor, are 'ya? (Editor's note: I've got a big grin on my face here -- please don't suspend my forum privileges...please?)

I'll readily concede that many schools are in trouble, public and private -- I'm not arguing that point. Likewise, many other programs of our local, state and federal governments could benefit from some reform or at least open debates on public policy. My question from a macro level is simply this: if one of our three aims is to foster citizenship, how does disparaging and withdrawing from our school systems foster citizenship in our Scouts, when the expectation would seem to be that we take an opposite path? What are we teaching them by our words and deeds? As I've said before, each family's educational decisions are personal, and I'm not suggesting that we collectively "take one for the team" by putting our kids into bad schools so we'll be seen as "walking the walk". But, as Scouters, what sets a better example for our Scouts: trying to fix a broken (as perceived) system through active participation in reform efforts, or shrilly proclaiming the system is hopelessly broken and conspiring against us, and we therefore want nothing to do with it -- except to recruit their kids and meet on their property...

Slot, as a military guy, I got a chuckle when I read your post about supporting public schools "in general". We have a little saying about direct support versus general support -- general support is the same as no support...

I haven't jumped in here in a while, but I'm detecting a recurring sentiment here that is a little unsettling, at least to me. Here goes:

- What does our "duty to Country" mean in the Scout Oath; and our "rights and responsibilities as citizens" requirement #5 for First class mean? Could one meaning be that we improve the government if we can? If our public schools are government schools as many of you refer to them, what is your duty to those schools? Simply to recruit at them, but throw your hands up, not allow your kids to attend them, and not try to improve them either? Hmmm?

- Have you looked at the requirements for Scholarship and Citizenship in the Community (Eagle Required) Merit Badges lately? They not-at-all-subtly reinforce Duty to Country by requiring Scouts to learn locations of government entities and attending government functions such as school board meetings. Why is this? Do you think they want us, as Scouters, to start teaching our lads to care about AND GET INVOLVED IN our government at all levels? Might that be why Citizenship in the Community is Eagle-Required?

- Personal education decisions are just that, personal. If you want to homeschool, go ahead, If you want to private school, go ahead. If you want to send him to boarding school (?), go ahead. However, I would submit to you that disparaging public schools (our local governments), and at the same time, encouraging completion of Citizenship in the Community and repeating the Oath, probably warrants at least a look in the mirror...

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

sctmom;

Like most issues in this forum, there are a lot of different places to stand on this one. At one extreme are those who would put off merit badges until a Scout has a year in the program, and at the other are those who want their son to be the first to earn every MB that BSA offers, and before he's 12, by the way.

I happen to fall in the middle. I agree completely that Scouting shouldn't be a badge hunt, and that by being a Scout, many MB requirements will be met. That notwithstanding, there are many MBs, including many Eagle-required, that take considerable amounts of time to complete and can be started as soon as he's ready...such as Camping (requires 20 nights), Family Life (3 months of chores), or Personal Fitness (12 week exercise program). After all, he'll be camping, living with you, and taking PE at school anyway. And, those are just 3 examples.

And, you're right, many of the badges dovetail perfectly with school, sports, and other activities (probably by design).

A little free advice, just my opinion. I don't think I'd buy the 2002 requirements book (or any other year for that matter) as a parent. The advancement requirements are in the Handbook, and you can get the MB requirements from meritbadge.com, with the worksheets that really help a young man organize his work. What I WOULD do is purchase your own copies of some of the MB pamphlets, such as Camping, First Aid, Personal Fitness, Cooking, Hiking, Emergency Prep, and others. The information in those pamphlets is timeless even if the requirements change, and the amount of time it takes to finish the requirements makes it almost necessary to have your own copy...one man's opinion.

Finally, you asked how to encourage without being overbearing. I think there's a definite line between involvement and interference, and some parents constantly flirt with it. My personal recommendation to you is:

- volunteer to be on the troop committee or a MB counselor. Your involvement will be much less likely to be perceived as "interference" if you're a registered leader yourself -- plus, you'll see lots more examples of leader and parental behavior you can emulate (or not emulate).

- If you can't do that, be a cheerleader at home, spend time in the Handbook with your son (you'd be amazed at how many parents have never looked in it aside from the YP exercises), and encourage him in his advancement work. Go to troop meetings if you can -- if you can go to all or most of them, you should register as a leader. But, if you do go to meetings, don't do the SM or ASM or SPL or PL's jobs for them, and don't shadow your son every step he takes at the meetings -- you're being supportive by being there and helping everyone, not just him.

I enjoy Scouting in part because it's something I share with my son. But, if I ever saw the eye roll or heard the "air leak" when I'm around him at Scout activities, I'll know I'm hovering too closely and need to back away a little bit (hasn't happened yet).

Scoutmom (and the rest of you, too);

This is incredibly ironic. Twenty years ago, home schoolers were the ones defending themselves, as they felt the sting of accusations and insinuations from people who felt moral and parental superiority over them. In most parts of the country (not all, obviously), our society is way beyond that. Home schooling is regarded, at least by most people I know, as just another of several options to educate your children.

Unfortunately, it seems that some home schoolers have incredibly short memories. Rather than considering their shabby treatment and resolving not to let it happen to anyone again, it is now some of them who seem to assert moral and parental superiority over those who did not exercise their freedom of choice to make the same choice they did.

As I said in a previous post, nobody on this or any other thread really knows anybody, their kids, the school system where they live, or any other variables that affect their decisions. If, collectively, we've learned ANYTHING as Scouters, isn't it that every family is different, every child is different, and that there are no cookie-cutter solutions to problems? C'mon, people! Especially as Scouters, let's try trusting each other to make decisions regarding our kids that fit our situations, resources, and our kids (who, after all, we know best). None of us are going to deliberately make decisions that are detrimental to our kids' best interests.

Scoutmom, you have my unending admiration and respect! I think child-rearing today is incredibly difficult, and we have two adults in the house to do it. I don't know how you do it alone, but I can tell you this: you have nothing to apologize for; hang in there and don't let anyone else make you feel inadequate just because you're not doing what they're doing.

You're all absolutely right. And, if you've ever seen any professional athlete "behaving badly", you have to know that such behavior was ingrained in him/her from his first days in his sport as a little kid, when he was taught by example that rules don't matter if you're talented...

sctmom;

I don't know what part of the country you live in, but the situation you describe is VERY common in high schools in football-crazed areas. Parents will deliberately hold a son back a grade so he'll be bigger/stronger/more coordinated when he's a junior & senior and get more college scout attention. My son played football when we lived in Virginia (doesn't overseas -- no program here until they're 15), and the hold-back timing was a common topic on the sidelines and in the bleachers.

No reason to suspect it doesn't take place in other sports, too. After all, if he's a year older than the rest of the team, he's probably bigger, taller, has better motor skills, and gets more points/assists/rebounds too...right? Sounds like the family's getting started on his college scout video...do they tape the games? You may laugh, but I've seen it with 7-year old boys...

Values SHOULD be taught in the home; that's one of the main things I meant when I said we all home school, to some extent. If parents do their job as "the child's first teacher", then they'll be able to sort out the other stuff they'll hear, not just at school, but on the playground, at the pool, at sports, and yes, even at Scout activities (they ain't all angels!).

Any study that would attempt to compare home schooling with traditional schooling would by definition be inconclusive, because you can't achieve true test groups and control groups. Why not? Because, for one thing, you can't "not teach your kids" at home unless they spend their hours at home in an anechoic chamber with no exposure to family, no stimuli, etc. I'm aware of the stats on test scores, but they're always presented in the aggregate, which obscures the extremes. In other words, the 3-foot average depth of the river is meaningless to the non-swimmer immersed in a 9-foot section.

One thing we all need is mutual respect for our child-rearing/parenting decisions, especially since we don't even know each other. Language such as "I question those who trust even "good" public schools to spend more time with their children than they do..." undermines this mutual respect, suggests moral superiority, and is a flawed premise unless you're using a boarding school as an example. As I said in a previous post, no homeschool family should feel compelled to defend their decision to do so on any grounds. By the same token, nor should any traditional school family.

Public School. It's not really an accurate characterization for us though, because in our case, public school is a Department of Defense overseas School, with handpicked teachers, good facilities, no classroom crowding, no drugs, no weapons, lots of patriotic/traditional values, every family has a job, etc., etc. We're amazingly diverse -- class pictures look like a Benneton ad, and when it's time to celebrate any of the ethnic commemorative months or international holidays, we don't just talk about or pretend. Moms, dads, kids from the various groups flock in to cook, perform, demonstrate, read, show/tell, whatever.

Last home in the US was in an affluent suburban area -- same situation. We've never felt it necessary to home school because of values, quality, and/or safety issues. To those who do, good on 'ya. I think we oughta be way beyond the point where we equate homeschool families with cult members. By the same token, homeschool families should not equate traditional schooling with child neglect -- I've seen too much of both those sentiments, even on Scouting threads...

If we had issues with our public schools wherever we lived, I'd send my kids to private (probably Catholic parochial) school faster than you can say Bob's your uncle.

If there's anything that bothers me about a poll on this topic, it's the fact that it can, again, divide us into opinion-based camps over which of several methods is "better". I think it's a purely personal (read: family) decision, and should be made based on what's best for YOUR KIDS. And, that's with the stipulation that what's best for your kids may not be best for mine, or his, or hers. And, there really are more than three choices here. Many home school families send their kids to traditional schools for art, music, sports, other extracurriculars, honors courses. Many traditional school kids study at home with their parents, too, or take music, art, language, or other lessons outside of school.

When you stop and think about it, we ALL home school, to some degree. I spend ten hours a week with my kids on schoolwork, at home; sometimes using school books, sometimes using encyclopedias, MB pamphlets, the Internet, etc. Sometimes I don't know who's learning more, them or me...

I really enjoy these forums, but I hope this one doesn't balkanize us, with everybody in a defensive crouch defending their personal decision. Everybody's circumstances and reality is different. If your kids are okay, you're doing the right thing, no matter what it is.

You can tear yourself to shreds wondering what someone's motives are -- don't. If the troop does it because it's the right thing to do, great. If the troop does it in hopes of getting new Scouts, I'm reminded of an old piece of advice which has served me well. "When you do something for somebody, pretend you're doing it for yourself". What does that mean? If you keep the rewards for a good turn internal to you, and you define them, you'll never be disappointed.

Case in point: overseas military troop; all but one of our 2nd year Webelos are moving this summer. Even if they stay in Scouting, it'll be someplace else. Meanwhile, they need their Cub AOL requirements met. For quite a while we've been carting these critters to camporees, had 'em at troop meetings, teaching the skills, having the conferences, knowing full well they're bridging into another troop. And, it's all good.

"A Scout is Helpful..."

Bob White hit the nail on the head -- it's the CO's responsibility if no internal candidates are stepping up. Remember, the troop doesn't belong to the committee or its chairman, it belongs to the CO. Out of curiosity, is the Cub Pack you reference chartered to the same CO? If so, and the "no-two-position" rule is tying your hands, they can exert leverage to change it.

Here's another possible option, not knowing your demographics. We typically rely on certain "feeder packs", but that doesn't mean you can't get a CC from a bridging family from another pack. And, there's no requirement that any leader must have a son in the unit. You could always look at someone from the community who isn't currently involved but would like to be. Now, you wouldn't want to do that for a new SM, but for the CC, I submit that anyone with good organizational/people skills who gets fast start and a copy of the troop committee guidebook can do a good job -- better than letting the position go vacant (besides, I don't think you can -- old Scouters help me here, but BSA requires at least a CC on the committee...)

This topic has been addressed in other threads and in other forums, too. There is a big disparity between how one leader applies requirements and how another does. Plus, there is some outright "fudging" that goes way beyond a Scout simply forgetting after 8 months which way to twist the timber hitch and having to re-check the illustration in the handbook or pamphlet.

The bottom line as I see it is that the SM is ultimately responsible for the integrity of all this. A Scout has to get his blue card from his SM, right? If the SM has concerns about how a counselor will consider requirements "met", don't sign the blue card, and take the concerns to district/council leadership. Same thing with the "Cliff's Notes" First Class Trail events some of you have mentioned.

This gets really tricky at "time compressed" events such as summer camp or an MB roundup, where you can't be everywhere at once, you don't personally know all the counselors, and it may be very difficult to personally assess the quality of the instruction.

Scout spirit is indeed defined as living the Scout Oath and Scout Law in everyday life. That includes troop activities. Most troops depend on the older Scouts with more rank to help get new Scouts squared away, and to teach them the Scout skills they need to know on outings, campouts, etc. If your Life Scout is a continual no-show at troop meetings/outings, I'd say you have a legitimate issue with his Scout Spirit as it pertains to the Scout Oath "...to help other people at all times...", and the Scout Law "A Scout is helpful". The potential problem is, since there's some interpretation involved here, it may be very difficult to enforce this if it wasn't a part of Scoutmaster conferences in the past.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the joining requirements. Those items can't all be completed in a day, and most can't really be done until the boy is registered, has been in the Handbook for a while, and coming to troop meetings. So, there's a period of time, up to a month or so, between when a boy comes in with his parent, fills out a registration form, and starts participating in troop activities, and the time when he completes all the joining requirements. It's during that period that the new Scout can get his uniform.

I'm not implying that he'd have to have a full uniform to walk in the door the first time. Sorry if I gave that impression.

If'we're not willing to require a uniform, we really have no grounds for complaint if our Scouts aren't uniformed...

Crux of the issue is that BSA National does not, repeat not, require a Scout to possess or wear a uniform, period dot. But if he does possess or wear one, here's the standard. We can beat up on troop, district, and council level Scouters and Professionals all we want for not enforcing the uniform standards. However, since the uniform's not a requirement in the first place, aren't we trying to treat a symptom instead of a cause?

If BSA National made a complete uniform a joining requirement, any "enforcement" efforts would have teeth. Now, they only have "gums". We've been setting an example, recommending, suggesting, mentoring, running uniform exchanges, looking the other way at camo pants, etc., for years. Don't know who said it first, but here goes: "If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got".

I didn't start out in this several years ago as a full uniform guy. Why not? Because nobody else on the committee or district events where we lived at the time stressed it. I'm a full convert now, though, having seen what a difference it's made in my son and myself, and you know precisely what I'm talking about.

Bob, I'd invite you to take another look at the joining requirements and the 8 methods, particularly the "Ideals". The Scout Oath and Law are joining requirements, and are included in the "Ideals" method. They oughta be, and so should having a uniform to put the Scout badge on when you complete the joining requirements and earn it.

We all agree the uniform is an important Method of Scouting; why isn't owning one a joining requirement? Simple question that makes me scratch my head...

I forgot one more thing on what should be required and what shouldn't.

I saw a couple of interesting, seemingly unrelated items, in BSA fact sheets off the National web page. We registered our 100,000,000th Scout in 2000, and the Boy Scout Handbook has printed 40,000,000 copies since 1911. Wait a second. What this means is that 60,000,000 Scouts have done Scouting (for however long or short a period of time) without a Handbook. How could such a thing be possible, especially with recent editions that require documenting advancement requirements in the book itself?

Should a handbook be required? It obviously isn't now. And, unlike the uniforms, I don't think the handbook is overpriced. On the contrary, I think the handbook is the best deal going for all things outdoors related...and every Scout should own one.

Bob;

I think you and I are on the same page of the book here. But, to continue with the "book" analogy, I think you're turning to the page from one end of the book, and I from the other.

I think your point about good uniform/no character vs no uniform/good character is a false dilemma -- I don't think it has to be one or the other.

I don't think I agree with you that uniforms are strictly controlled by BSA policies. A strict BSA policy is what I'm suggesting, but we collectively seem too timid to enforce. There is no national policy regarding ownership and wear of the uniform, that's why we're discussing this. I'm all for a national uniform policy, expressed as a joining requirement. Right now, each Scout owning a uniform is NOT a policy, it's merely a suggestion.

Please correct me if I'm paraphrasing your argument incorrectly, but you seem to be asserting that if we correctly portray the importance of the uniform and set a good example, we'll get more uniformed Scouts and leaders, but if we don't, it's not a huge issue as long as they're otherwise dedicated to Scouting. I can't agree with your logic in the context of the 8 methods. For example, let's use the same argument as applied to adult involvement, or the ideals, two more of the eight methods. Can you imagine any Scouter saying "We'd like them to believe in the Oath and Law, and we'll continue to recite it and live it, but if they don't believe in them and are otherwise good Scouts, we'll settle for that." Or, "We think adult involvement is important, and we'll continue to try getting enough adult leaders, but if we don't have them, and the rest of the program's running okay, that's good enough." It would be unthinkable, and should be unthinkable. Yet, we on the whole do not require our Scouts to be uniformed to join. If the uniform is as much a method of Scouting as the Ideals, the patrol method, adult involvement, etc., why is the uniform not a hard, fast joining requirement, like being able to recite the Scout Oath/Law?

I understand the sports team analogy, and even use it myself, to put the uniform discussion in context. There are some important differences, though, in how these two things relate to each other. My son plays football, and the equipment and uniforms are sized to the boy, and much of it is provided by the team. Re-read your own post about how you stretch out the uniform dollar by buying oversize and using long hems for growing room. Rhetorically speaking, do you do this with any of his other clothing (and you're certainly not alone)? Why is this necessary, if a uniform that fits today is a good value?

One of my original points many posts ago was that National should have a policy requiring a full uniform; AND, it should be accompanied by another policy shift at National that stops using essential uniform items as a profit center (accessories and optional items no problem -- charge whatever you want). Yes, bring the prices down, and permit families to trade in serviceable uniforms at their District/Council Scout Store for larger sizes of the identical item as a boy grows. Added benefit: families who don't want new uniforms right off the bat can buy the used ones traded in; just like a car dealer!

If prices were more reasonable, and we could trade in outgrown items for new ones, and National required uniform wear, I maintain that we wouldn't have to go to some of the measures we do as parents and leaders to try to cajole our Scouts into uniforms, or stretch an extra six months out of an ill-fitting uniform.

Am I completely crazy here?

The terms Class A and Class B are in Scouting literature, but not as an endorsement; it's to say they don't exist, which is right in line with what you're saying. But, I think that's organizationally delusional, since the terms do in fact exist among Scouts and Scouters everywhere. Just look at a typical Troop's by-laws in their web site; references to Class A through Class D uniforms.

Fundamentally, we're right back where we started. I think we're all in agreement that the uniform as a method of Scouting is a good thing, and full uniforming is a good thing. Until BSA requires full uniforming as a joining requirement, as they do knowing the Scout Oath & Law (as part of the ideals, also one of the 8 methods), the discussion and teeth-gnashing will not go away.

Don't you see it as unusual that the uniform and what it stands for, as one of the 8 methods to achieve the 3 aims, is not an actual requirement, at joining or any other time?

Are you surprised that without this requirement, many troops "do their own thing" regarding uniforming?

Do you agree that there are legitmate cost, durability, and fit issues that, combined with no actual requirement to wear a complete uniform, result in many families not fully uniforming their Scouts?

Is it a chocolate mess? Sure, and it really hits home when you go to summer camp and see what many of the Scouts are wearing. If, collectively, we're (read: BSA) not interested in requiring a uniform and/or providing standard options for the various activity levels, we can't complain if our Scouts resemble a band of Contras when they're out and about.

DD:

You betcha! We get all the games live over here, but the times are funny. I saw it at 7 a.m., in a ballroom at our Officers' Club, with about 150 guys in the room...you coulda heard a a pin drop as Mariah Carey finished the National Anthem. I thought the whole thing was incredibly well done from a production standpoint, and the game was good, too. The only thing I miss about watching the Super Bowl over here is we don't get the commercials. Instead, AFN sticks in little self-produced commercials reminding us to secure our quarters, or to make sure we wear our bicycle helmets...I love being overseas -- keeps you from taking for granted our lifestyle in the USA...

Hope the patriotic fervor keeps up; this one's gonna take a long time...