Lisabob

scoutldr, if you do that I hope it isn''t based on my comments. I spoke with our adult leaders who went with our boys to Pamlico the other night and they all enthusiastically recommended it. From the sound of things, there were some glitches that resulted in the two issues I mentioned previously, but all of our adults were of the opinion that those were unusual circumstances and not the norm. It really is a superb program. (That said, I don''t know Bayport so I can''t compare the two)

fgoodwin, I understand what you''re saying and if a teacher is up there brainwashing kids or railing on against (or for) a particular political party and treating all other views in a denegrating fashion, then yes I would agree with you - this is abuse of power and a poor method of teaching. On the other hand, I believe (and you don''t have to agree) that there are some topics that cannot be taught without involving opinion, and politics, and political history, are among those. An antiseptic version misses the point of the material and its relevance. The trick there, in my view, is to present many different sides. Advocate for and critically examine ALL of them. Help students identify strengths and weaknesses in each ideological position so that they can better weigh their own choices for themselves. In the case of the issue of detainees and torture, for example, I feel I''ve done a good job with that discussion when the students who started out as unequivocal supporters or opponents of our current policy, end up perhaps a little less certain, but with a better understanding of WHY they support or oppose the policy, and WHY the other side takes the view it does. I can''t do that without exposing the strengths and weaknesses of both sides of the argument, and injecting analytic viewpoints (some would call this opinion) and playing devil''s advocate. If you hamper me from doing that, you are keeping me from teaching the material in a serious manner. And I don''t think 8th graders are incapable or too immature to handle that sort of discussion - if it is set up effectively. 14 year olds are often budding philosophers, and while they may still tend toward concrete right/wrong thinking, most are beginning to develop a more nuanced world view at that age. So, done well, not telling them "you have to believe what I believe or else!," I think discussion of controversial topics can work quite well with that age group and really help stimulate their thought process. However, of course you''re welcome to disagree.

"Many districts are offering $$ to homeschoolers to keep them in the public system, yet have the parents educate them. Up to $2000 per child. But there''''s no such thing as a free lunch, and government money always comes with strings. " How does that work? I''ve not heard of this before. How do they stay "in the system" and yet be homeschooled? Beavah - yes, Detroit''s school population has declined precipitously over the last decade. Some of those students are school-of-choicing their way out (though I am skeptical about this because a lot of the inner ring suburban schools may not be a heck of a lot better, and we continue to see middle class flight out-out-out away from those areas too). However, the biggest loss of students probably comes from Detroit''s and Michigan''s overall declining population. The car-based economy here hasn''t been strong in about 15 years. People are leaving the state in droves for places that have jobs and that''s especially true of our old automotive industrial cities like Detroit and Flint. In the process, I pray that those kids are ending up somewhere with better schools, but if they do it isn''t because school of choice is working for them!

Pack says: "If we are paying customers and don''''t demand the best product for our money, then we risk not getting the best product. " Pack, that sounds like a pretty market-based critique there. But that''s basically what happened in Michigan, prior to the change in education funding laws that occurred here in the mid-90s. Not only did people "get what they paid for" (perhaps) but also, those with the means to pay more, got more. Schools in wealthier areas simply raised property/school taxes and passed bonds to pay for extra programs, more teachers/smaller classes, new equipment, you name it. Schools in poorer areas could not compete. And lower income parents were more or less stuck, because to get into the "good" public school districts, you had to be a resident - which was beyond their means. Enacting a more equal system of school funding where every school gets a base payment per pupil from the state, and enacting "school of choice" laws where parents no longer have to prove residency in a district to enroll their children in public schools, was supposed to reduce the discrepancy. At the end of the day this was supposed to benefit the whole society. Did it work? Well the funding plan didn''t exactly work for well-off areas because it prohibited people from investing in their own school districts and programs. And it didn''t exactly help rapidly growing areas (most are ex-urbs, formerly rural), because the formula fails to provide sufficient money to cover that rapid expansion. And it didn''t really do much to help the poorest/most messed up school districts because those schools get penalized for their shortcomings more than they get help to fix them through additional funds to improve programs. This was a short-term strategy when what we need is a long-term vision. Did "school of choice" work? Yes, for some people who could manage to leave their neighborhood schools. But it utterly ignores (as does the voucher system) the fact that those lousy school districts still exist, still must serve an ever-more-difficult population (selection bias), and that now, due to declining enrollment and penalties for failing to meet targets, those schools have to serve this extremely tough population with EVEN FEWER resources. Beavah, if that''s what the critics and supporters of vouchers agree is "supposed" to happen, then the supporters have missed a key point. These schools are not going to go away! Not unless we totally re-design our public education system, and you strike me as enough of a realist to know that isn''t going to happen. So we''re left in limbo. Rather than a little short term pain for a serious long term gain, vouchers and similar programs seem to me to just perpetuate the agony for most people and for society at large, even if they help a few kids out in the interim. I wish I could believe differently but I don''t see much evidence to support an alternate viewpoint where deep and radical change takes place. By the way - the city of Cleveland has been closely watched in the last 6 years or so because it has one of the larger voucher programs in the country. What I hear about that system is that it works really well...for the kids who get in, and stay in, the private schools. But, this is a small percentage (I believe it has been done on a lottery basis - not sure if it still is now), and private schools are/were (?) not obligated to accept the weakest or most difficult-to-educate students, or keep them enrolled if they do get in. So the city public schools become warehouses for the less desirable students. Those students deserve an education too, even though a market approach might suggest that they''re not the most lucrative ones to teach. If there are others who have more current knowledge of how Cleveland''s voucher program has evolved, I''d really love to hear about it.

At the end of the day I honestly don''t care whether my students are Democrats, Republicans, or Martians. I care a whole lot that they think through their opinions; that they understand the underlying issues, problems, and implications; that they base their analysis on some kind of evidence; and that they thoroughly understand (though not necessarily accept) the "other side." What I''ve found when discussing certain controversial issues is that some people view any discussion at all as "advocacy" for whatever side they don''t agree with. Opinions without facts are sad and ugly things. For example, on occasion I''ve had students hotly deny...yes, deny....that we could ever possibly be holding any people in Guantanamo who just maybe, theoretically, could be anything other than terrorists. Further, I''ve had students categorically deny that the United States would ever use such interrogation tactics as stress positions, cold cells, and water boarding on such detainees (though usually, this is followed with "but so what, they deserve it because they''re all terrorists anyway.") Now whether or not the current detention policy is a good one, or even the least-bad of a bunch of lousy options, or what potential trade-offs there are between freedom and security, or whether it is working to make us safer, etc., cannot be discussed without a certain grounding in fact. Yet when the facts themselves are ignored or met as mere "opinion" by people with entrenched viewpoints, no deeper analytical conversation is possible. And yes, the United States government freely and openly admits that some of the people in Guantanamo COULD be something other than terrorists. And yes, the United States government freely and openly admits that we have used and maybe still do use the interrogation tactics I mention above. You can look all this up fairly easily. I don''t need to make this up. Here are a few of the questions I ask students to consider, after a discussion of the facts. Obviously this is not in context, but I think you''ll agree these are really hard questions to answer, and require analysis of multiple perspectives to grapple with in any meaningful way. 1) How do we strike an appropriate balance between freedom and security, when faced with enemies who are non-traditional in nature (ie, not countries, but merely individuals or small groups, much harder to identify and much harder to retaliate against)? 2) How much power should we grant to our government to take "whatever steps are necessary" to keep us safe? Put in context of the Founders'' fears of a too-powerful government that might become abusive of its citizens, is this still a concern today or not? And why or why not? 3) What are the limits or boundaries on executive branch power? For example, can the president rightly assert that, since Congress failed to define "torture," that these rather harsh interrogation tactics, are "not torture?" Are we comfortable with letting a president, by himself, make such a determination? Why or why not? 4) What is "torture" anyway, and why do most countries (ours included) ban its use in interrogation? 5) Are there times when the "imperial presidency" is necessary? If so, what happens when the crisis passes? Can the presidency be reined in again, or once we give the president more leeway, is it unlikely that the office (not merely the man) will revert to its prior, less-powerful state? In the latter case, what are the implications for the other branches of government and the notion of "checks and balances?" Now look, if we start from the premise that presenting unsettling facts is a matter of bias in the classroom, then forget it because we''ll never be able to discuss any of these (in my view) really crucial questions. And the quality of our citizenship and democracy will suffer for it. I guess you can probably tell, I feel strongly about all of this.

A couple of people smarter than me have pointed out from time to time that "feedback is a gift" and I hope you''ll take people''s responses in that manner. "Mom," I understand your turmoil about this issue. And of course you are more than welcome to agree, or disagree, with whatever people here may think. Given that none of us really know you or the specifics of your pack, den, and situation, the best we can do is give you advice based on limited knowledge. And people often "fill in the details" based on their own personal experiences, so you''re going to get a range of different perspectives. Or maybe some people here are misunderstanding the gravity of your situation, but there''s only so much you can ask for in terms of in-depth analysis from a discussion board, even when the people on that board are as earnest and caring as many of the folks here seem to be. But, ah, I think you are misrepresenting what has been said here. Quite a few people have suggested to you that if you have serious concerns, the people to talk with are the Charter Organization folks, the Committee Chair, and the Scout Exec.. That''s solid advice. I hope you''ll follow it. You, by yourself, do not have the authority to tell a family they can''t be in the pack. You, in combination with these other people, do have that authority if that''s what it comes down to. Whether or not everyone here (or in your pack, or where ever) agrees, is ultimately irrelevant. And as for your "choice" about whether you want to be part of an organization that doesn''t have specific policies on situations like the one you describe - well, I can see where you might decide that a pack that includes people whom you feel to be dangerous is not the right pack for your family. OK, understood, so then find another pack if you need to. But don''t blame the BSA for this. Someone else mentioned that the BSA doesn''t and can''t have written policies for every scenario imaginable, and common sense needs to apply. What the BSA DOES do, is it gives Chartered Organizations the right to set membership criteria that are acceptable to the CO. So - again - you need to talk with your CO about this situation. And if you don''t like the outcome, blame the CO for failing to live up to its charter obligations, rather than the BSA. The CO and the BSA are partners in this endeavor, and the CO needs to pull its own weight too if the partnership is to succeed. THis is their job to hash out.

"Who''''s a good person to talk to?" The previous Scoutmaster? (unless this is a coup to overthrow him) SMs of some other troops that you think do a great job? A Unit Commissioner whose perspective you appreciate and trust? Your WB patrol mates, if any of them have experience with troops? Members of other WB patrols, if your own patrol lacks that background? Your WB TG or other WB staffers?

Scoutldr, if you PM me with an email address, I will put you in touch with the guy who organized our troop''s Sea Base expedition this summer. He kayaked, I didn''t, and so he can probably give you more detailed pointers than I can. If you''re doing the US Sailing School, we had some boys and an adult who did that program too. As for lack of adults - for kayaking your boys will be in a trek crew and that may include adults & scouts from other troops (if you have a small contingent) and adult guides from the Sea Base. I suspect they could be the two-deep leaders, but based on the feedback I''ve heard from our group, I don''t know how well that would work out in reality. Our group had many very positive things to say about Pamlico, but the two main negatives were that the food was inadequate in quantity and quality, and the Sea Base staff/trek leaders hardly interacted at all with the youth once they got off the water each night. Not to scare you off though - they all (adults and boys) said they''d go back in a heartbeat, if the chance presented itself.

Thanks everyone, for your suggestions. I''m sharing them with my son, and hopefully he''ll make some suggestions to a few of our younger scouts too. Eamonn, you nailed it - for whatever reason, most of the scouts who are signed up are first years and backpack stove cooking (really, any kind of cooking!) is still fairly new to them. It is really all about the canoe trip for most of these guys, with eating just being a required maintenance activity. I''ll look forward to "hearing" any additional suggestions and will file away for future knowledge, too.

"A dinner plan might have patrol #1 Prepare a sald, Patrol 2 prepares Peppers and onions in Marinara, patrol 3 prepares Pasta and Garlic Bread While patrol 4 makes a dutch oven dessert. It works as a nice blend of patrol and troop cooking, each patrol cooked as a patrol contributing to the troop dinner they all sit down to. " highcountry, I''m not saying you can''t do this or something like that, but please be aware that this approach to meals, if taken regularly, does not allow a boy to fulfill the cooking requirements for 2nd/1st class ranks. My son''s troop has done this in the past. It irks me because the less conscientious folks will sign off on the cooking requirements anyway, but it cheats the boys of really learning and demonstrating the skills in question (cooking a part of a meal is quite different from planning, prepping, and cooking an entire meal, let alone serving as chief cook for the patrol for the whole weekend). Additionally, if one is not careful, it can promote the "advancement as mere check-offs" mentality that mistakes the means for the end.

"I ften wonder if this laziness, selfishness and lack of civility is a reason why volunteering, memberships and community involvement is suffereing everywhere, people are fed up with dealing with jerks.... " Interesting comment. I suspect the problem is circular. BECAUSE fewer people engage in civic behavior, volunteering, etc., when they interact with such organizations they are not properly socialized in how to behave and they lack skills necessary for the group''s longevity and success. I suspect that some of what the BSA includes (or needs to add) in its leader training nowadays is really all about how to work in groups, as much as it is about specific program issues. At least, I''ve noticed that these are the kinds of questions that come up when I attend or have helped run pack and troop committee training!

Oh dear. Sounds a lot more complicated now! Thanks, as well, for clarifying for me the role of an "off-duty" officer. This one: " She wanted the Den to act as his supervisor for his supervised visitation ..." suggests to me that this person is really out in left field, even if it weren''t for the drug issues. What volunteer scouter in their right mind would agree to this? (answer, I hope: NONE) In the situation you further describe, I continue to think you don''t have an obligation to allow these parents to attend, whether the boy does or not. I think the most effective manner to handle it is to involve your chartered organization and your SE (Eamonn is correct, the SE is the person you are supposed to contact when it comes to reporting child abuse/endangerment issues.). Your CC for the pack, the CO rep and/or institutional head (CO leader), and the SE or his/her designate meet with these adults and tell them that they cannot attend the meetings. Formally. As for the boy - maybe you leave it open to the family to send him with another (approved) adult family member, or maybe another family in the den/pack is willing to pick him up and drop him off, though this raises a host of other issues. At the end of the day though, based on additional info you seem to have pretty well documented, I''d guess both your SE and CO would back you up on declining membership to the boy if that''s what it comes down to (unfortunate though that is). And I''m pretty sure the CO does have that power.

Getting kids to really THINK - isn''t that what great teachers do? The teacher may not have developed that discussion in a skillful manner, but I disagree that the basic topic of discussion should be off-limits in an 8th grade classroom. As for "just the facts, ma''am" approaches to political history: 1) It doesn''t work that way. Our own founders disagreed on how to interpret and apply the "facts" of the day, and that debate was crucial to shaping our experience as a country (and indeed, is one reason why Jefferson wrote the Declaration to begin with - as a PR piece, to convince more people of the justification for revolution.) You cannot discuss, let alone appreciate, the debates surrounding our founding and the outcomes of those debates, without also discussing people''s differing perceptions of "the facts." 2) While often a hairy topic, the "facts" that we do hold suspected terrorists at Gitmo and that we do have a FISA surveillance program are not in dispute. Further, this summer the Justice Dept. publicly acknowledged in testimony before Congress that they had both illegally and routinely overstepped the boundaries of that wiretapping authority, and that they also mis-reported the use of that program to Congress for a period of years. Oops. What you make of those facts, is of course, a matter of political interpretation and emphasis. But they are actually pretty non-controversial as far as facts go. If you look at the "He has..." statements in the 2nd half of the Declaration, you will find Jefferson''s justification for revolution. This laundry list of abuses perpetrated by the British government ("He" is the King) was enough, in the revolutionaries'' eyes, to justify their actions. Some of these have interesting parallels to more modern examples, yet few Americans today would advocate violent overthrow of our own gov''t. The question of why revolution is not a serious option today is an important one for understanding our political history, our political culture, and our political socialization today. It also gets at the very tricky business of balancing security vs. freedom, and these are key concepts to understanding and appreciating our government today. In fact, I''d say that these concepts are crucial to good citizenship. So I say, let''s teach them. (And by the way, if you look at the 3 citizenship MBs, you''ll find a lot of opportunity to discuss viewpoints and interpretations, not "just facts," there too - are you saying an 8th grade 14 year old boy scout isn''t ready for those MBs either?)

I''m looking for a couple of simple ideas here. We have a group of mainly young scouts who are going on a weekend canoe trip where they''ll be packing in all their gear in the canoes, including food. No big patrol boxes, etc. Most of these guys are not real accomplished cooks at this point and they need to plan a menu (for themselves and their tent-mate) that is simple and can be done easily over backpack stoves or other lightweight methods. Open cooking fires may not be an option where they''ll be camping. I''ve seen a few suggestions and they all include gross, gloppy, processed stuff that just sound disgusting. Mostly packaged "just add water" or "just add canned soup" type items. Recognizing that keeping food cold while canoeing all day is an issue that limits options, I''m still thinking there has to be better stuff out there! Any thoughts? This is partly for my own curiosity, as I don''t want to undermine the choices the boys have made, but in future it would be good to have a broader array of options. The troop is slowly moving toward more backpacking activities so I expect this will come up again.

I think this could be a fun idea to do once in a while. OGO, keeping in mind that "feedback is a gift," it sounds like you''ve gotten some good ideas here, and to summarize: 1) Nothing wrong with doing this on rare occasion, as long as it doesn''t become standard. 2) Make sure you aren''t robbing a boy of his chance to fulfill his rank requirements for advancement, and that the PLC has considered this point. (As an aside, this has happened in my son''s troop frequently and I''m really irritated about it too - especially because despite the top-down intervention, boys seem to get their cooking sign offs anyway, which I do NOT like. But, I''m also not in a position to fight that fight right now and I''m hopeful our new SM will fix this going forward.) 3) PLCs aren''t always thinking about the "patrol method" and might need reminders of why this is so important. 4) Some skill instruction on cooking technique and menu planning sounds like it might be in order, too. Hard to think "outside the box" when the boys are barely capable of boiling water, you know? 5) A question - is it mainly the younger, or older guys who are going for the ramen noodles and cold cereal? In the former, it is likely lack of skill and knowledge. In the latter, it could be lack of skill and/or plain old laziness. The solutions are different. Have fun with it and tell us how it turns out!

How about asking a boy who is your troop scribe to head up this project? Or, boys who are working on their communications MB could help out (creating a newsletter or brochure is one of the requirement/options - 7c. And the mb handbook explains how to do a tri-fold brochure in MS Word, which most people have access to). We''ve occasionally had a troop newsletter. Some people argue that if it is a boy-led troop then the boys should be the only ones in charge of this, which tends to mean it does not occur. (Apparently they see no need for informing us slack-witted adults of when and where things are happening, in writing!) Personally I don''t buy into that view; I think it would be better if we had an adult working as a guide or mentor to help the youth produce a newsletter, but failing that, I still think having an adult-produced reminder of dates, places, and costs is better than having nothing. And at the cub pack level, I think it is essential.

We had a problem with this one year too. It ended up that a grandparent brought the child to den meetings, which worked out well when they ended up as the boy''s legal guardians too. I don''t think you are obligated to allow someone to show up high (or whatever) to a cub scout meeting. I do think you need to be careful about putting yourself in a position where you''re acting on rumors though, rather than evidence. I don''t think it makes a difference that the DL is a law enforcement officer. Presumably they aren''t on duty when they''re at the den meeting, right? Also, in addition to your committee chair and chartered organization rep, I think it would be appropriate to let your district executive know you are dealing with this situation, just so s/he doesn''t get blindsided if parents contact him/her.

Michigan is one state that has refused to allow vouchers. The issue was put to a referendum several years ago and it lost But, Michigan is also one state with enormous disparities in the quality of the public schools, and the city of Detroit, in particular, comes in for its share of kicks with the lowest 4-year high school graduation rate in the COUNTRY last year, according to some reports (25%). Now I know several Detroit city school teachers and they are dedicated, hard working people. I teach a lot of young adults from Detroit city schools who were among the small minority who survived to graduation. So I''m not knocking them. But the system is beyond rotten, despite the efforts of those shining individuals. To right these wrongs, Michigan tried two approaches that, while not "vouchers," bear some similarities. First, public school funding in MI is not based on property values and is instead distributed by the state gov''t with all kinds of rules about what kinds of things school districts can raise bonds for (basically, nothing to do with running a classroom or program). Money is provided on the basis of how many students a district has (the "foundation grants"), plus extra for certain other categories of need. This was supposed to even the playing field between wealthier and poorer districts. In fact most analysts in MI acknowledge that it hasn''t really done so, and instead has hamstrung many districts'' abilities to offer appropriate programs to their students, particularly fast-growing districts whose funding doesn''t keep up with their needs (the foundation grants don''t cover the cost of rapid expansion of services that are needed). Not to mention it makes that large pot of education money an attractive target for cuts by a government that is eager to plug budget holes elsewhere. Second, and maybe more important in terms of the voucher argument - MI has a "school of choice" program where any student can transfer to almost any public school district, as long as that district has openings. If a student transfers, the home district LOSES the per-student allowance that it otherwise would have gotten from the state gov''t in its school funding program (above). ALL OF that money then goes to the new district that the student chose. The net result of this is that people are flocking away from the chronically screwed up inner city schools where ever they can, and enrolling their kids in the somewhat less screwed up inner ring suburban schools instead. City schools are then being closed due to declining enrollment and lack of state funding. Which means that any changes barely have time to get off the ground before they''re killed due to enrollment shifts, that there''s little point in trying anything much different because you might get shut down anyway next year, and that the school with the best PR campaign to draw more students (regardless of results) wins. Schools that are losing students have stretch fewer and fewer dollars to maintain their core programs, which means getting rid of extra programs, which in turn leads to more families "school of choicing" their kid out of the district. The kids who remain behind are the hardest-luck cases whose parents either cannot get them out (one must provide transportation on one''s own to the new school, which is a burden for many parents), or whose parents don''t care enough to bother. Now that is EXACTLY what opponents of vouchers often say is likely to happen. But, on the other hand, if my kid were trapped in such a system, I''d school of choice them too! So I can hardly blame the families. Instead what we have is a system of perverse incentives with lots of (perhaps) unintentional negative consequences for schools that are already weak. What we really need isn''t vouchers or school of choice - both treat symptoms and not the disease. What we really need is a total overhaul of our mediocre public education system which was designed for reasons far different from today''s demands. But I''d be pipe dreaming to say that THAT had any real chance of occurring.

Yeah pack, a little too successful? But seriously - I teach the Declaration of Independence about this time of year to a bunch of glassy-eyed college freshmen. Just did it again today. It always astounds me that: 1) most of them (vast majority) have never read one of our most important founding documents, and 2) when I make them read it (yes, I''m mean) many of them can''t or won''t translate it into "current" English and have no historical knowledge of the context in which it was written, and 3) once they do read and interpret it, so many of them are surprised to discover how radical a document it really was, which suggests that not only had they never read it previously, but they''d never had cause to really think about it either, and 4) after doing all of that, we usually have some wonderful and often spirited discussions about the implications of such a statement today. I''ve taught intro to American politics at the college level for long enough that I now expect most students to arrive with rudimentary (or worse) knowledge of our own founding and history. Blame whomever you want for that, but it is true. I do NOT think that one needs to be a college freshman in order to discuss the nature of government and power, its obligations to citizens/subjects, and the appropriate course of action when gov''t fails to meet those obligations. So I don''t think the lesson and topic was inappropriate. I do think this teacher - probably young, inexperienced, and eager to share his love of the topic - failed to set up his discussion in a successful manner. But geez, hardly a reason to call for his head! He admits he could have done it better and in the future he probably will. This exercise could turn out to be an extraordinarily successful one with a little bit more practice at skillfully developing discussion of controversial ideas. And who said history, especially political history, shouldn''t be controversial? It is/was, in all but the worst and most dreadful textbooks. And at least he''s teaching his students history in a way that makes it relevant and hard to forget. For that, I thank him.

GAHillbilly, you raise an interesting point about the myriad issues that teachers must deal with in their everyday jobs, aside from actually teaching. I have to keep this short as I''m on my way out the door to go teach a bunch of college freshmen right now... But also, I hope your older son is taking some time, not only to push and question his literature teacher and her assumptions (which I always find to be fair game), but also to learn from her and from the literature she is presenting. On occasion I have had students who come in to my class with assumptions and agendas that are so strong, it precludes them from doing anything other than engaging in a debating club. That''s unfortunate because it isn''t really the purpose of my classes (even though I teach about politics!) and it keeps them from developing deeper understandings. Although I''m against religious or political proselytizing in the classroom (even though I teach about politics - again!), recognizing someone else''s viewpoint isn''t the same as being required to agree with it and sometimes students seem to confuse the two. Sometimes if students would set aside what they perceive as the ideology war, they might actually get something much more valuable from the material, in return. Just my quick 2 cents.

I''d suggest that your argument too, Beavah, reflects an "interestin'' set of prejudices." I''m divided on the idea of vouchers. On one hand, I can see where they may reduce the funding level for some schools to such a level as to make it impossible for those schools to do their job. As such, the "you''re robbing resources from public schools and then blaming them for failure that is partly the result of the lack of appropriate resources!" argument makes a lot of sense to me. On the other hand, in places like Cleveland, or Detroit (or name a big city) where the public school system is a chronic disaster anyway (with some exceptions), I don''t see how vouchers can make the situation worse. Whether they make it any better is another issue altogether but in those cases, anything is worth a try if it helps some kids escape a rotten system. As to Beavah''s argument that: "All da voucher programs are a net benefit to public schools, because for every kid that leaves only half of the money leaves, " This depends very much on the local/state "rules" and is not necessarily true everywhere.

Hi Anne, Thanks for asking. Here''s the update: The topic did come up at our committee meeting and, as I rather expected, about half of the adults seem to just be waiting for an opportunity to ask this boy to leave. That hasn''t happened yet though. At her meeting with the current SM, two previous SMs, and the CC (all of whom actively camp with the troop and most of whom are very patient people), the mom was asked to come up with some specific strategies that the troop leadership can use to work with her boy. At our committee meeting there was a lot of discussion about how the mom''s apparent unwillingness to acknowledge her son''s problem or share information has made it harder for us to work with him. Some people also jumped to some conclusions about what the boy''s problems are (or aren''t) and how and why the mom is (or isn''t) dealing with it. Those jumping to conclusions seemed the most ready to just be done and ask him to leave without delay. It was pointed out that the meeting between the mom and the 3 SMs & CC is the first time in a year and a half that the mom has been directly confronted and specifically asked for information and assistance. It is a good step to take, though personally I wish we''d taken it some time ago. Also, patrol membership has been juggled so that this boy is no longer in with those boys whom he antagonizes most and who seem to like to push his buttons at every possible opportunity as well. As trying as this boy can be at times, he''s not the only boy who has acted poorly - there are a few who seem to love to goad him as well. Hopefully a little distance will benefit all of them. However, neither mom nor the boy attended our troop meeting this week (after the sit-down with the 3 SMs and CC) and the boy is not signed up for our next camp out. This could be due to other conflicts, or it could be they''ve decided to move on. We''ll see. My main concern has been and continues to be that we do this "right" as much as possible. That is, that we take logical steps to at least try to make it work rather than looking for any excuse to pitch the boy out. I think I''m seeing some progress along those lines. If, at the end of the day, the family chooses to leave anyway, that''s their option. So it is still very much in play.

How about using some of it to help pay part of the cost of summer camp in 2008? That''s typically the biggest expense for a scout family.

Well first, I don''t think it would hurt to have an open conversation with this CC and let her know how you have perceived her behavior. Do this face to face over some coffee, not by email where things can be so easily misconstrued. And focus on your desire to build bridges, not on your annoyance that she''s stealing your cubs. Not that I think this is guaranteed to work, but maybe. And then if it doesn''t work, ok then focus on your own pack. Politely decline opportunities to do future events with this other pack. Definitely don''t do round up together next time!

Question - does anyone know of alternate requirements for this award, other than the ones listed here: http://usscouts.org/awards/HonorPatrol.asp I am asking out of curiosity because the requirements my son was describing to me the other day do not seem to match this. For example, he said that one of the requirements they were given was to have ALL patrol members in full uniform at all patrol meetings for one month (not three). He also said there was nothing in the requirements they were given about camping or patrol outings. I''m asking purely for informational purposes; I don''t plan to get involved (this isn''t my issue, it is his). I just wondered if maybe the troop is using something they made up on their own? Or if there is another variation on this honor patrol award that I''m not aware of? Or I suppose my son could have misunderstood the requirements.