Lisabob

I have very little tolerance for people who make excuses for rapists. And there are *always* excuses, it seems. These people are a big part of the reason why rape is such a common crime. It is still, more or less, socially accepted behavior. If it were not, many rapists might have thought twice before forcing themselves on their victims. On the flip side, though, I feel very badly for the woman (then, girl) involved, who is forced to relive her experiences every time Polanksi's behavior gets rehashed in the media. For her sake, I hope this is the last time, whether he gets tossed in prison for the rest of his life (unlikely) or whether the case is finally dropped.

State of Michigan used to leave graduation standards entirely up to the school district, except to mandate half a year of "civics." There were really no standards to control what got taught in that half a year, either. Result: districts in more well-off areas had fairly stringent grad requirements, including 2-4 years each of math, science, english, and social studies. Other districts had basically no requirements, other than a certain # of credit hours and that half a year of civics. You could take 4 straight years of nothing but fluff and still get that degree. They were turning out students who struggled with basic arithmetic and who were functionally illiterate, but hey, they had a high school diploma to show for it. No Child Left Behind brought changes. Among other things, states have to test students on an annual basis. There are undoubtedly problems with this, which we all know about. In general, I don't like what NCLB has ended up doing. Some states write notoriously easy statewide tests, just to boost their "pass" rates. Most countries have national standards and national exams. Well-crafted ones, as pack says, can do a decent job of improving the educational experience for everybody. NCLB isn't going to produce a well-crafted set of national standards, but I suppose it is one way to lurch forward.

I don't think you can take anybody under 10 into a boy scout troop. All of the current options include a minimum age of at least 10. But yes, I have known a bunch of kids who turn 10 in the middle of 5th grade or later, for a bunch of reasons. They are not required to wait for 10.5 to join a troop. I suppose some might say I've been a bit concrete sequential about this. It comes from having a few too many SM's insist that such-and-such is policy, either for Webelos or for joining a troop, when they're flat-out wrong. And most of those folks just won't look at the documentation. They want to believe what they want to believe. If I had a dollar for every time that happened, I would retire tomorrow. Whether a barely-10-year-old is developmentally and emotionally ready for life in a troop is a separate question, and sometimes, I admit, I think most of them are not. (This message has been edited by lisabob)

That's a good point. But I guess my experience is different from what you are describing. I have met quite a few boys who were only barely 10 (with AoL) when they crossed over. Maybe this is because in my area, the cut off for kindergartners turning 5 is in December, not October. It also depends a bit on when people do cross overs. While in my area, most cross overs are done in January or February, some places it is common to do them earlier (or later). And some places encourage the boy to cross as soon as he is ready. Maybe the 10 1/2 thing might have been the actual rule at some past time. I know I've met a lot of scoutmasters who quote it as gospel truth.

Yet again - a webelos scout does not need to be 10 1/2 in order to bridge. It is likely that most will be, but it is in no way required. Current minimum age is 10 (IF the boy has his AOL, or IF he has completed 5th grade). However, if the boy has not earned AoL and also has not finished 5th grade, then he will need to be 11 to bridge. Seems like this has come up a lot lately.

My two cents' worth: 1) We don't, in fact, pay many teachers for 12 months of work. If we did, teacher salaries would be much higher. I'm a teacher (at a university, but still...). My salary is based on 8 months of teaching. I can opt to have it paid over 12 months, but that just means smaller paychecks stretched out over the year. It doesn't mean I'm actually paid for the summer, unless of course I teach summer classes. My retirement, life insurance, and other employer-provided benefits are all based on my 8 month base salary, whether I teach extra in the summers or not. Sorry OGE, but that's kind of a pet peeve for me. I'll admit, though, that it is sort of tangential to the topic under discussion. 2) I believe kids need time away from the drill-and-kill atmosphere that our schools have often become. They need time when they can avoid the stresses of dealing with the dehumanizing, institutional, atmosphere of American public schools. I don't believe that getting rid of summer vacation would produce mentally and emotionally more healthy kids, although perhaps it would bump up their math proficiency or reading levels by a grade or two. 3) I also believe it is the parents' responsibility to ensure that their children don't let their brains rot over the summers. Too many parents have no problem with children playing video games 10 hours a day all summer. No wonder the kids are drooling idiots when September rolls around. 4) I believe there are many paths to knowledge. Holding a job, traveling to other parts of the state/country/world, enrolling in some special program, going to camp, learning a skill, or just cruising the neighborhood and spending time with family can all produce a rich and valuable fabric to draw from, as people grow up. I know that what I learned in my various summer experiences was at least as valuable to me as what I learned in school - in some cases, it even caused me to realize the worth of what I was learning in school. Those experiences made me who I am, in ways far more powerful than anything that happened in school. I wouldn't trade that for anything. 5) It cannot be deniend that most wealthy democratic countries have school years that are almost 1/3 longer than ours. And having studied in other countries' school systems, I also know they're a whole lot more intense than the typical American school experience. I don't think we serve our students well by giving them so MUCH less education, and more to the point, by giving them such uneven quality of education, in comparison to the rest of the world. But take away summer? That would be the final straw that would cause me to homeschool my kid.

The last time we had a new committee chair, we had a committee election. I do not think this is a good plan. For one thing, the person who lost clearly felt terrible about it, being publicly repudiated in such a manner. He then became less involved in the troop. While he might not have been the strongest possible candidate for CC in some respects, he has other talents that might have been better utilized, if he hadn't been embarrassed in that way. For another, I think the election ended up being, basically, a popularity contest. By the way, the same is true of how we pick SM's in this troop, with the same basic result. While I am not suggesting that the individuals who ended up in these positions in my son's troop have done a bad job as a result, none the less, I don't think this is a solid strategy. It would be better, in my view, to avoid the equivalent of middle school student government elections. Somebody said this is an interpersonal and political thing, and I agree. But nobody really wants to have to deal with that garbage in scouting (though we all know it happens anyway). So elections would be pretty far down on my list of preferred ways of dealing with this issue. If you have a disengaged CO, it is a lot tougher to pick good leaders, but perhaps you as the SM, along with the current CC, can ask for a meeting with your COR and put forward your joint preferences for who should replace the CC. Then you can announce that the COR has chosen So-and-So, and leave it at that.

I would also point out that scouting is not a Christian (or any other religious) organization. One need not be a member of any religion to be a scout and the scout law and oath are not explicitly based on any conception of a particular deity's policy on anything. And also, that if you want to put your best foot forward in matters where there are substance issues on your record, it is probably best not to use the name of an alcoholic beverage to get people's attention. I wish you well. And ScoutNut's advice is solid. The scout unit's charter organization has considerable influence in matters pertaining to whom they will allow as volunteers in their units.

I would have to agree with Eagle92's observation. Most of the boys I've seen get Eagle before age 14 are out of there immediately afterward. Some remain registered (I don't know why?) but just don't show up anymore. My son's troop has a culture where most boys don't earn Eagle until they're about 16. It isn't that there are intentional road blocks, it is just how it usually works out. Most of those older guys do stay involved until they age out. And we have several who age out as Star and Life scouts every year, too. So I don't think that these guys are all necessarily hanging on just to get to Eagle.

It depends on how you and your spouse view not only the activities and time commitments involved in scouting, but also the other people in your scouting circle. I know that for a while, my husband was really burned out about scouting because he had met and been forced to deal with some real drama queens and kings. He has little patience for idiots and control freaks, even less than I do, and got disgusted with the whole business. He liked the program and the kids - it was the adults he couldn't stand. When we were both leaders (in a dysfunctional pack) it seemed like all we ever talked about was how to handle various problems related to scouting. The same began to be true for a while when I was doing certain district jobs under less than ideal conditions. Sometimes I just wanted to vent or was looking for a neutral sounding board for ideas, but he got pretty sick of hearing it and we both got tired of having all our conversation revolve around scouting. So we don't do that anymore, to the benefit of our marriage I think. Also, just because you have kids in scouts doesn't mean they want to talk or hear about it all the time, either. Barry had good advice there. I've learned to keep my thoughts about scouting (including the many cool opportunities available, which can become overwhelming to kids) to myself most of the time, especially as my son has gotten more into leadership positions in his troop. I'll occasionally share resources, but I am much more choosy about how I do it now, than I was a few years back. Sometimes that means containing my enthusiasm a bit, but that's what it takes to maintain the peace in my house.

But you apparently do disagree, scoutldr. I hope that I am reading you wrong because you appear to be insinuating that there is an appropriate comparison between the current Democratic party of the United States, and the Nazi party in 1930s Germany. Please tell me that's not what you intended .

Scoutldr as I bet you know the political platform of the German national socialist party was not exactly about providing better social services to all... People who don't understand the historical context of names and phrases might, indeed, attempt to argue that the words "national" and "socialism" are somehow an apt combination to describe what Obama is doing. But to anybody with any historical knowledge of inter-war and WW II era German politics, that's a pretty big leap to make.

Oh come on now John, lots of other countries have universal health policies. The Stalin/Lenin comparison is a red herring, aimed at scaring people. It is not really any different from people who dredge up other notorious dictators to attempt to frighten the masses into believing that Obama is somehow on equally evil footing. We can disagree til the cows come home regarding the merit of actual policies, but let's keep it in the realm of reason and not emotion.

John, Lenin fomented civil war in his country that killed untold numbers. Stalin imprisoned his own people, shipped them off to Siberia for the alleged crimes of having fought for the Soviet Union during WW II and making incidental contact with westerners in the process, for being ethnic groups other than Russian, slaughtered middle class merchants who were the backbone of the economy, tormented nations for opposing the forcible and violent take-over of their (previously) independent countries, and used the considerable police powers of the Soviet state to terrorize people for the mere fact that Stalin was a paranoid maniac who felt everyone was out to get him. Combined, Lenin and Stalin contributed in a very direct way to the deaths and severe hardships of many millions. Read Gulag Archipeligo. You cannot be serious, comparing Obama to Stalin and Lenin. Read your history more carefully, sir.

Sorry fellas, but the notion of guys wearing garters gives me the giggles. (my son's zip-off pants haven't pilled either - we do line dry them most of the time)

I think that was actually Calico's point, sherm. The uniform is not a required element. Boys can be scouts, whether they own the uniform or not. This is not to say the uniform is unimportant, but there's a lot of difference between "important" and "mandatory." Parents who don't care. Those were the folks I really had a hard time with when I was a cub leader. But I also learned that a lot of them who seemed not to care, actually just had a lot else going on in their lives. And let's face it, most families with no prior scouting experience do not immediately buy in to all the hoopla of scouting. It takes some time for people to get enmeshed in the culture of scouting (including the uniform). We can become incensed about this and drive a lot of folks away, or we can accept this and work away at this attitude a little bit at a time. Lastly, I want to ask you to hold off on your judgment of the family's motives and finances. I've met plenty of families, like Calico describes, who are keeping up outward appearances of prosperity when in reality, they're struggling mightily. On the flip side, you also don't really know what a boy or a family is gaining from scouting, or how they might express appreciation in the future. As cub leaders of the pack that drew from the "poor" school in town (high percentage of free/reduced lunches and gov't subsidized housing), we had a family join who were quite wealthy. The father was often out of town on business and the boys seldom showed up to events, but when they did, they always had fun. Also, the parents wanted to know the financial details of the pack - exactly how were dues used, what did fundraising pay for, etc., in detail, which was kind of a pain in the neck at times. We couldn't figure them out. Neither boy earned his rank. They quit after a year due to schedule conflicts. But shortly after they quit, they gave the pack a large check to buy a new pinewood derby track and electronic timing device (both desperately needed). With the donation came a note thanking us because Dad had fond memories from his youth of his time as a cub scout, and his sons had seldom enjoyed the experience of just being pals and equals with other children, regardless of socio-economic status. Cub scouts gave them that opportunity and they had fun. Who knows, maybe down the road, those kids will put their own children in scouts too, or maybe give generously to their community FOS campaigns.

I had this very conversation with somebody the other day, but let me put a different twist on it. Yes, sometimes, kids are thoughtless, self-absorbed, poor communicators who are all too willing to waste other people's resources. On the other hand, sometimes they back out of things because there's an underlying problem. For example maybe somebody else (maybe one or more of the adults) has taken over in ways they neither like nor can effectively resist, and they no longer feel any ownership of what they started out to do or desire to participate in what the event has become. If it is happening a lot, it might be worth taking a step back to consider both possibilities, rather than just complaining about "kids these days..."

You can't set other people's priorities for them. If you have a family that just doesn't like uniforming, or sees the uniform as an unwise use of their money (and it doesn't matter if they're rolling in dough, some people aren't going to part with their cash for something that they don't see as a good value), you can either gently nudge them or you can expect to lose them. I think if it were me, I'd push hard on the book. The kids really need that, and this becomes more true as they move up in rank. Without the book the boy is at a serious disadvantage. Without the uniform, he can still be a cub scout and gain plenty from the program. Lack of uniform is not going to keep him from advancing. Once you get the book issue resolved, maybe you can encourage the family to at least consider the shirt. Once they get that, you can start working on them for the necker, the hat, the slide, the belt (for belt loops of course), the pants, the socks bit by bit.

Folks, again, please look at the joining requirement. A boy who is 10 years old can join a troop if he has earned his arrow of light. See the BSA website to read the requirement: http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts.aspx However, in this case, that's not the situation since these boys are new to scouting. If they are not 11 years old, they are not currently eligible to join boy scouts.

Nope, I wouldn't count it either. For those who don't want to wear the uniform to a recruiting event - well you aren't requiring them to attend, are you? I would consider putting this in the category of helping the troop. But that doesn't make it service, and in the real world you don't always get "something" just because you showed up.

Our district membership team, unit commissioners, and DE(s) have always encouraged parents of boys who were brand new to scouting as 5th graders to consider joining boy scouts straight away, rather than joining cubs for a few months. The primary reason is that by the time they figure out what cub scouting is about, they'll be moving on to boy scouting. Better to just get them established in boy scouts. However, that depends on a number of factors, including the boys' eligibility to join boy scouts. Current joining rules are that a boy must be 11 years old, OR be 10 AND either done with 5th grade or 10 AND have Arrow of Light. So a bunch of 10 year olds with no scouting experience who are just starting 5th grade do not meet the joining requirements set out by national. It might be worth having a friendly chat with the DE to clarify how s/he proposes to handle this. I know some instances where this rule is overlooked, but the rule is still the rule. The other thing to consider is the boys' maturity level. Some boys are ready at the start of 5th grade for boy scouting. Some are really not, and they do have the option of staying in cub scouting not just for 6 months, but for the full year if they wanted to. This should be discussed and decided on an individual basis, with full input from the parents, the cubmaster, and the scoutmaster. It is not a group decision and the DE cannot force it one way or the other, if the parents want something different. The one thing I would strongly advise you against doing, is to compare these brand new scouts to the existing cub scouts who "did their time." Cub scouting is NOT NOT NOT NOT a pre-requisite to boy scouting. It is a separate program with its own culture and own merits. Yes, boys with cub experience are probably better socialized into the scouting ethic than those who are brand new to scouting, but there's a huge difference between a troop and a pack, both for boys and their parents. And anyway, a good troop program ought to be ready to handle new boys with no scouting experience. Teach them the skills they need and you'll be fine.

Eagle92, I am not disagreeing with you. I would like to see more strings cut too. But it hasn't been a widely shared view and as I'm neither the SM nor the CC, I have found it challenging to make it happen. To be fair - it is actually 10 elementaries, 4 middle schools, and 6 high schools in the troop's mix. Could the boys handle it? Yes I think they could, but again, that's not necessarily a widely-held view. As I said, I think that those of us who buy in to the notion of boy-led (as more than window dressing) tend to be a majority on this forum, but a minority in our local scouting communities. I'm not saying that's how things ought to be, just that sometimes one needs to recognize the situation on the ground.

I hear what all of you are saying, but I think that the people who tend to congregate on this forum are more in favor of "boy led" than is the case out there in the general population of scout troop leaders. Just using my son's troop as an example, the committee put together the calendar. They tell the boys when to meet, and the boys (via PLC) put together the meeting plan using that calendar. Maybe this is because there are boys from 3 school districts and 3 private schools in the troop, and it is very challenging to stay on top of 6 school systems' schedules. Maybe it is because the troop meets in a school, and so there are certain dictates about school holidays, major school events, etc., that the troop must work around. Maybe it is because the adults don't believe the boys can figure out all of this on their own (and maybe they're right, maybe they're not). But in reality, I don't think it is uncommon for a committee to arrange the calendar and just give it to the PLC. All that said, I'd prefer to see the boys do this, and hope the SM and CC would rein in the committee.

It is not the council's job. As a general rule, councils do not police troop-level advancements. They have neither the staff nor the authority to do so. Nor do most councils closely vet troop-level volunteers. This is the job of the charter organization, who must sign off on the applications of every adult volunteer. If the charter organization doesn't do its due diligence, that's their fault, not council's fault.

I disagree with novice_cubmaster. I have met a lot of parents who told me that their cub-aged kids never read anything, but that they enjoyed boys life. We also pushed hard on parents to read BL with/to their sons, with a lot of success I might add. Those beltloops get expensive. We paid for them the first time a kid earned them, but not if they earned a repeat loop (which many did, especially as they got into the webelos requirements). At that point, we offered to buy the little rocker segments that they could put on the back of their brag vests instead. Those were a lot cheaper and the kids like them too. If parents wanted duplicate loops, they were welcome to buy them out of pocket though. More generally - we ran our program for anywhere between $30/boy to $150/boy, depending on the year, the fundraising success, and the willingness of parents to pay out of pocket for things.