Lisabob

Also consider this. If he is going into 2nd grade now, he will be in a den with other boys who are probably in his class at school. He will either make new friends who carry over to his school grade too, or be put in with some of his current grade-level friends as a Wolf too. And just because he has buddies who are a grade higher and are therefore in a Bear den, doesn't mean he'll never see them. Den meetings are separate, but the pack should also have an entire pack meeting once a month where he'll be with all the boys. One other way to think of this. If he's a year younger than all the other guys in that Bear den, then it might not be a huge deal right now (though I tend to agree on the developmental differences between 2nd-3rd grade being pretty big). But when those other boys are finishing 5th grade and crossing into boy scouts, your boy will still only be in 4th grade. What will he do then? While it is possible that he could join boy scouts as a 10 year old 4th grader if he has earned the arrow of light, will you be prepared at that point to put your 4th grader into a boy scout troop program with kids who are high school seniors? Or would he be better served to have at least gotten through elementary school first? In the former, he'll be the youngest kid in the troop and that's challenging, physically, emotionally, and socially. In the latter, he'd have to wait another year to join his buddies, but he'd have exhausted the cub program already at that point - where would he go?

Skeptic, good point, and I think part of the scout's problem here. He views the word "agnostic" as a way of expressing his uncertainty about faith - a condition which pretty much all of us here agree is quite common for teens and adults alike. However, he's been told by well-meaning adult scout leaders whom he respects that the word could trigger problems for him in terms of his continued membership in the BSA, and/or future advancement. So he was advised to just use a different label, one without the baggage. There's that strong right/wrong streak a lot of teens have, popping up again - If one word is ok to apply, what makes the other not ok. I think he didn't like that kids could quite unintentionally set off these sorts of landmines with serious potential consequences for them, over something that many people would view as a minor semantic difference - what kind of organization puts kids in such a precarious position. The advice I guess I'm seeking isn't just how to guide this young man's spiritual journey, which is delicate enough and difficult enough in its own right. I guess I'm looking for some input about how to help a thoughtful young man learn to see the world in less absolute terms and live with some ambiguity, without feeling as though he's surrendered his base for determining (and acting upon) right and wrong. (Example of the sort of question he's asking: "If the BSA says it won't admit agnostics, is it a lie to choose a different word like "undecided" to describe the same state of affairs? Because trustworthy people don't lie for the sake of convenience." Now I don't know that we want to answer that question in this thread, because I don't think there's a single good answer to it and it will just devolve into issues & politics bickering - If you want to do that, please start your own thread elsewhere. But that's nature of the problem for this scout, I think - that there isn't a clear right/wrong response to such questions.) We spend all these years of a child's life teaching him about right and wrong (and that's hard enough sometimes) but then all of a sudden we put them in situations were simple notions of right and wrong don't really apply, and they're ill-equipped to handle it. How do you help a kid develop an appreciation of and comfort with that sort of complexity? Boy, this is hard stuff to articulate. I hope what I'm saying makes some sense, and I really appreciate your thoughtful responses.

To be clear, this is not a case where a cocky teen is simply looking to cause trouble or stir the pot, and then sit back to watch what happens. This is a scout who is typically a pretty deep kid, who has shown a lot of commitment to the ideals of scouting (not just he likes to go camping, though he certainly seems to enjoy that, but that he thinks about and cares about what it means to live your life by the oath & law. In talking with him I think his dilemma probably comes from the very fact that he takes the law & oath seriously. Truthfulness, for example, matters to this kid. He said something kind of like "how is it right that I can get into all sorts of hot water for saying I'm agnostic, but if I just say I really don't know what I believe and I'm undecided about the nature of some higher power, that's ok?" (ok I condensed what he actually said but that's the gist of it - I might be streamlining in terms of words but I'm not putting meaning in his mouth.) This is also a kid who does not come from a particular religious tradition. I'm pretty sure his family does not belong to a church, etc., and I don't think they ever have in his lifetime. So it isn't that he's rebelling against a particular approach, as much as that he's trying to decide whether he has a faith home (whether organized or individual in nature) at all. I think asking him to elucidate what he believes would probably not produce much in the way of details because he doesn't seem to know what he believes, or if he believes anything at all. More generally, my observation of late teens is that they tend to have very strong senses of right/wrong, and rather weaker acceptance of grey areas or moral complexity. Developmentally speaking, it seems like the ability to grapple with moral complexity tends to come a little later, in people's early 20s. Yet, late teens also are on a search for deep meaning and identity. Sometimes, these two facets collide. I suspect that's where this young man is in his journey right now. Scoutldr - maybe I am misunderstanding BSA policy. I was under the distinct impression that neither atheists nor agnostics could be members of the BSA, at least, not in keeping with BSA membership guidelines (enforcement is another matter I guess). Again, I don't want this to become an Issues & Politics post - we're talking about a real kid here - but if I've actually misunderstood the policy, please let me know.

I want to ask a question to which I'd like practical (as opposed to polemical) responses. This is not an issues & politics post, nor do I want the thread to go in that direction; rather, it is a post based on something a real, flesh & blood scout asked. Please gear your responses accordingly. What do you tell a scout (late teen) who has his doubts about organized religion, and announces in a public manner that perhaps he's an agnostic. Of course the "a" word brings down the ceiling, so the practical advice the scout is given is to avoid using that word. He then comes back and says some thing like "well maybe I'm not an agnostic. I'm just undecided." Which, because it doesn't include one of the BSA's forbidden "a" words, is accepted without much question. The scout, being a teen, wants to know why it matters whether he calls himself "agnostic" or "undecided," and how scouting can purport to preach about character, morals, etc., while splitting hairs on matters like this. Teens are good at knowing hypocrisy when they see it. How do you counsel the scout? (Supposing he genuinely wants to stick with scouting and isn't just looking for a way to get kicked out.) How do you counsel his leaders?

My son's troop has a requirement that boys be "Scouts" before they can be elected as a PL. Justification is that they should have at least the barest idea of what boy scouting is and should have shown at least that minimum level of commitment too. They also require that SPL & ASPL be either 1st Cl or Star rank (I think it is star but I can't remember for sure), the idea being that you want boys with some leadership experience and perhaps a little more maturity in those position. They are requesting that boys who are elected as SPL or ASPL attend NYLT, but that's a new thing. It isn't a pre-req because there aren't enough boys who have gone. (Currently 2) This might not work so well in a small troop. My son's troop has 30-50 boys at a given time and includes a good selection of younger and older boys. I'm ok with the pre-reqs. What I have seen in the last 5 years suggests to me that your typical 11 year old tenderfoot will struggle just as a PL's, let alone as SPL or ASPL.

Beaver, at first I thought "that's a terrible idea!" But the more I think about it, and having read your last post describing how it would be arranged, I find I like it more and more. My son did NYLT in early June. He had a great time, learned a lot. He took NYLT in preparation for becoming the SPL this fall, but he's been very busy with non-scouting activities in the intervening time (almost three months from when he took the course to when the troop starts up again) and I suspect he has lost a little of the excitement and forgotten some of the ideas that he came back from NYLT with. It might have been more effective to take the course at the end of the summer, when he could apply the material to his troop right away. (Live and learn, right?) If your council is making use of existing infrastructure at the end of the camp season, maybe that will work out really well for boys who can take NYLT straight back to their troops in the fall.

Hello krb, Your friend had it right, a troop may choose to ask a person to leave but that is a whole different animal than having one's BSA membership revoked. Believe me, if this were a matter of your son's BSA membership being revoked, you'd know for sure. Since that is not the case here, your son is free to join any other troop. Nor does he have to wait and see what his old troop decides to do. In fact he could opt to leave his current troop today, and join another troop immediately or at some future date after you've resettled in your new location. As a courtesy, if he opts to leave his current troop, please be sure to let the troop know. (I liked Calico's advice from a few weeks ago about contacting the CO too) I'm sorry to hear that you haven't had a more satisfactory level of communication with your son's troop. Simple good manners dictates that they should be more forthcoming with you. From what you have posted it certainly sounds as though you've done all you can to be a reasonable party in the matter. But don't lose too much sleep and don't let it sour you (or your son) on scouting. I hope that eventyally you will find another troop where your son can learn a lot and have fun in scouts. THere are many good troops out there who will be happy to welcome him.

I'm not a big fan of this. Most of the scouts from my son's troop who have done these badges at camp have not had a very good experience (and his troop attends a different camp every year so it isn't just one camp's program). I'm sure that there are camps out there who do these well, but I doubt they're the norm. If it were up to me and scouts wanted to do these at camp, I'd want a lot of info from the camp in advance about exactly how these badges would be taught. The temptation to just sit the boys down and drone at them for several hours is particularly strong with these badges, I think.

But wait, OGE. Surely, if you disagree about something, it must be a sign that Trev's political viewpoint is at fault. Or faulty. Or something.

What's the point in most of what people post here, FScouter? pack - it is a rather roomy pigeon hole, as these things go. Come on in. swishy hats.... with a feather on top, maybe?

OGE writes: "We had to bail the banks out by Friday or the worls would end, or some such argument" Uh, just for reference, that wasn't the current administration's doing, but the last administration. I can buy the notion that this all seems to be happening (or not happening) too quickly. On the other hand, the last time we had a serious discussion about national health policy was in 1991 and we know how that ended up. Sometimes "slow down" is just another way to say "keep it from ever happening!"

No, Michigan State is not within those boundaries (it is in Chief Okemos Council, about 40-50 miles west). Neither is U of Michigan, for that matter. Egad Ken, you guys will be a monster council! As if DAC wasn't already enormous. I'm one over from you (in your newly enlarged form) and I always liked the programs CVC put on. I hope those will continue. I wanted to add that rumor around here for years has been that Chief Okemos might merge with Great Sauk Trail Council. Clinton Valley, on the other hand, is (was?) frequently upheld as an example of a solid council standing on its own two feet. So I'm pretty surprised. Maybe the move toward mega councils is only just beginning in SE Michigan.(This message has been edited by lisabob)

Someone posted in the other thread that their school district requires 100 hours of community service in order for students to attend the graduation ceremony. The question was whether such hours could also be counted toward scouting. My son's school (and I think, all Michigan schools) requires 40 hours of service in order to be eligible for a state-sponsored scholarship. The scholarship info sheet explicitly allows for service done in conjunction with community organizations or clubs to count, as long as it is properly documented and not done for money. Many of the local churches also have a service requirement as part of their religious education. Again, they don't seem to have any problem with boys using their service hours for both church and scouting. So it seems clear to me that the school, the state, and a lot of churches have no problem with "double dipping." The question to me is, why should we in scouting have a problem with this? Isn't it a little bit beside the point, who the service "counts" for? Isn't the point of requiring community service simply to help the community, and perhaps to instill in our youth the notion that you have responsibilities toward others? Can't we accomplish these goals without taking "ownership" of which service hours "belong" to us? Maybe I'm looking at this all wrong but it almost seems a little arrogant of us to say "well you have to do service solely in the name of OUR GROUP in order for us to recognize it." And yes, I agree, there are a lot of opportunities for service. I also don't buy the "I can't find a place to do my service hours" argument that scouts (and others) sometimes give.

Great point, scoutldr. Supposing this bill (or any other) passes, people can follow the proposed federal regulations that go with the implementation of the bill here: http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#home . As a rule, there is a public comment period prior to federal regs going into effect. If you find something that you feel is outrageous, you should comment on it, and you should also raise heck with your members of Congress, who are supposedly overseeing the federal bureaucracy in most cases. (Congress doesn't write these regulations - federal bureaucrats do.) It is a lot more effective to do this prior to a reg. taking effect, than after the fact. Re: the whole health care debate; I really wish it were possible to have some of these discussions without such hyperbole about "death panels" and so on. And I still don't understand (probably won't ever) why people object to the notion of universal coverage. Doesn't the fact that 1 in 5 Americans - probably including some folks you know and some boys in your troops - lacks insurance worry people? Doesn't the fact that, if you are laid off or fired or "downsized," you might join them, worry people? I won't pretend I like everything, or even understand everything, about the current proposals. I won't pretend the status quo is sustainable, either.

Hey Dan, Trev, I think we should have jackets... or maybe neckers... Pie? Did I hear somebody say pie? Make mine blueberry!

Have a quiet word with your DE. What I was told a few years ago by my then-DE was that the background check only flags people with criminal histories, so the mental health issue probably would not surface at all. He also said that when something is flagged, that isn't necessarily an automatic disqualifier. Some things might be brought to the attention of the committee chair and the charter org., and determined to be small enough, or long enough ago, to be set aside. Now I am not certain if what my former DE told me was a national policy, or merely the local interpretation. So it might be good to broach this as a hypothetical situation and see what your DE says. Supposing that after you talk with your DE, you and the parent in question decide not to submit an adult app, the parent can probably still attend and be a great resource for you as "just" a parent instead of as a leader. Just be sure to have enough registered leaders to oversee things, too.

My son has told me that he really likes the new switch backs and the new socks. He also thought the older switch backs were a big improvement over the old de la Renta pants. Regarding the shirt, he has expressed the view that it isn't stylistically different enough from the old de la Renta one to make him a fan. Before I sewed them flat, I asked him about the shirt pockets and he said he doesn't care one way or the other about them since he doesn't use them anyway. He hasn't worn the new shirt much yet, so from a functionality stand point, he hasn't made any comments on the new shirt. So I guess his vote might be one thumb up for pants/socks, one thumb down for the shirt. Tally that how you will, Calico. As for me, I really like the idea of the switchbacks, but unfortunately the sizing isn't ever going to work for me. Unisex pants sizing is just plain dumb. I'm bummed out because I didn't like the old pants at all and really wanted to get the new ones. I do like the new shirts a whole lot more. The cut is much better and I prefer the supplex material. I could live without the bellows pockets but that's something I can fix easily enough with a needle and thread. When I finally spring for a new shirt for myself, I'll be happy to buy one of the new style shirts. I prefer the newer socks, but the old ones weren't deal breakers for me either (so long as we're not talking knee socks, which I would never wear).

The age thing is in there because some units go by age, rather than grade. However, most units, other than LDS units and maybe home school units, typically are arranged by grade. So in theory a boy could be any age, in 5th grade (maybe he skipped some grades), and earn AoL. He does not have to be 10.5 to get his AoL. He does have to be at least 10 to join a troop.

skeptic, at least those threads are about politics & gov't. The original thread referenced here was about the uniform. xlpanel, don't be silly, of course you have a choice. To state otherwise is to pretend that you have no self control, or personal responsibility. And by the way, you seem to have bought in to an inaccurate stereotype about how gay people look and act. If that's how you decide who you think is gay, you will be wrong far more often than you will be right. (This message has been edited by lisabob)

Good questions, sherminator. Personally, when I read that particular poster's responses, I thought to myself "this guy is an idiot." And so I probably won't put much stock in whatever else he posts. Nor will I bother responding to his posts on that topic because it is clear he's not interested in actual discussion, but rather, that he just likes to toss about ill-informed and needlessly inflammatory opinions on matters that are completely unrelated to the topic at hand. I think there are two things to do. One is to voice objection (which already occurred in the other thread) and then the other is to ignore idiots who feel they're at liberty to make derogatory comments about others. THe same sort of icy silence that might meet such talk if we were all sitting around the campfire together. Maybe it is also reasonable for a moderator to contact the individual and tell them to knock it off. I don't think, however, that it would be appropriate to close the thread or remove that person's posts, based on what was written so far. If he (or she, I suppose) wants to look like an idiot for all the world to see, hey, let him (or her). Readers can be trusted to evaluate for themselves in most cases, I think.

Buffalo Skipper, I may be wrong but I think this change dates back at least to 2003 when I was a Webelos DL (2003 is also the last revision date for the Webelos handbook, I think). When my son's den crossed over, there were several boys, including my son, who were 10 and had their AoL, but they weren't 10.5 and they weren't done with 5th grade. They joined troops, no problems or questions asked. A quick look on USScouts.org shows that the Boy Scout joining requirements (Scout badge) were last revised in May 2004, and at that time, the wording about age/rank/grade was as follows: "Meet age requirements: Be a boy who has completed the fifth grade and be at least 10 years old, or be 11 years old, or have earned the Arrow of Light Award and be at least 10 years old, and be under 18 years old." I know USSCouts isn't "official" but it is rarely wrong about things like this. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to show what the pre-2004 requirements were.

BDP - Just FYI, the 10.5 year age requirement was changed several years ago now. Currently there is no strict age requirement for AoL, and the minimum joining age for boy scouts is 10. Sorry that I can't tell you exactly when the 10.5 requirement was changed, but it has been at least 5 years, probably more. (This message has been edited by lisabob)

While xlpanel is probably correct that technology just keeps getting better and better, what he proposes doesn't fit with what I have seen in the classroom. First, it tends to be the case that the students who I catch cheating on exams are usually the ones who are doing poorly to start with, and ironically, they seldom do much better by cheating. You might think that they could at least cheat effectively! (Now that might be a selection issue - it could be argued that I only manage to catch a certain type of cheater, but honestly I do not think that is the case.) Second, I write exams that take up the full class period. I tell my students that they had better come in to class well-prepared, because if the first time they think about organizing material is when they see the test question, they're in real trouble and won't be able to finish in the allotted time. Thus, they do not have the time to relay the questions, receive the answers, and write them out. Even if they're really quick, it just would not work for them.

THere's a huge respect and manners issue here. It is one thing for people to have phones, etc., and another to know when and how to use them in an appropriate way. If your troop decides to go with anything other than a total ban, you may want to think about what the expectations are regarding the appropriate use, and how you will communicate those expectations, and whether the adults are willing to abide by those same expectations as well. As a side note, as someone who teaches a lot of late teens and early 20-somethings, I can tell you it is blindingly obvious when someone is trying to "hide" their cell phone or other electronic device in their hoodie pocket so that they can send/receive messages or play games or whatever during a time when they shouldn't be doing that. They're always so shocked when I point this out to them - they seem to think they're being surreptitious. If you do have any discussions about appropriate electronics usage, you might want to point this out to your troop mates.

I haven't yet seen the new HB. What do people think about the skill-focused content of the new HB? Is it good, better, worse, than the previous edition? I like the idea that it is separated by topic, rather than by ranks.