Lisabob

My husband taught the boys to sew something (I don't remember what!) . All us moms thought it was great. At first a few of the boys were iffy, but then he said "hey, if you learn to cook and sew, you'll never need a girl friend!" With 4th graders, that went over quite well. They did mosaic trivets too. They made a hat & key rack at camp. They made display stands for their pinewood derby cars. They did a leather kit project at camp - I remember those being expensive and not that impressive, and would look for an alternative to the ones the scout store sells. I know one den leader who had the boys make lightening bug houses with wood and mesh screen. Those were a huge hit (what kid hasn't run around at night trying to catch them in mom's empty mayonnaise jars) I don't remember what else they did. I think if I were doing it again, I might contact a local troop and ask whether they have any useful rope projects that they would teach the boys to do. Maybe teach the boys how to lash together a mosquito-net bed frame for summer camp, for example! You can use pvc pipe for these rather than wood and make the whole thing for about $5. Very useful. Here's a good resource I found on the web. It is 62 pages long, but lots of good ideas and materials in there. http://www.cubroundtable.com/assets/pdf-documents/Craftsman-Activity-Badge.pdf

I like the ones where you can tell at a glance what they were for. So here are a few of my favorites: Indian Lore Basketry Finger Printing Fishing Hiking Camping small boat sailing water sports space exploration reptile & amphibian study And these, I just think are cool although in some cases it isn't immediately clear what they're for: electricity oceanography astronomy architecture athletics genealogy radio (never would have guessed it was for radio though) wood carving And these, I think are stinkers: *archeology (sorry but it looks like an animal dropping!) *chemistry (most people have no idea what that thing is.) *collections (looks like a junk collection to me) *computers (is that my old 1980s Tandy TRS-DOS?) *cooking (oh yeah, lots of scouts wear chef hats on camp outs) *cycling (this looks like a warning against cycling - how bout putting Lance Armstrong on there somehow instead?) *electronics and energy (really? could they be more boring? electricity was so cool, you'd think they could do better here) *nuclear science (agree w/ Schiff, the old atomic energy was better) *music (not cool, not cool) *pets (what sort of mutant creature is that?) *skating (huh??) *snow sports (ok image but on a purple/blue background? for winter?) *family life (not cool, but then I don't know what would work for that one) *model building (that red thing looks like a flaming car crashed off a bridge and is headed straight into the river, where it will hit the boat any moment now) And finally, the one I think would be most likely to win the "stump the chump" contest, where non-scouters are asked to guess which badge it represents: graphic arts

How about asking him if he truly thinks he is ready for a BOR?

Well we have had girlfriends show up for eagle projects and courts of honor! The older guys who are in scouts don't tend to hide it. Some of them might not widely advertise and I doubt they'd wear the full uniform to school but most don't appear as horrified at the thought of someone "finding out" as the 11-14 year old crowd seems to be.

Fair enough, and no I don't see much point in discussing ACLU further via pm. We probably just wouldn't agree, as you said, and that's ok by me. So back to the topic at hand. I guess the question for me is, who sets the standards, and why? At a school function, standards are set by the school. At a church function, standards are set by the leaders of that church. Of course parents have a great deal of influence too, and could (for example) inform junior that he will not be leaving the house in that outfit, or that they will not pay for that shirt, etc. I know I have done that, and I bet you probably have too. Some parents pick different battles than others though. Now if in school, in church, and in many other aspects of a child's life it is adults who are setting out the expectations, what about in scouting? Here we purport to give more freedom to the boys to make their own decisions, within an ethical framework. Sometimes they will need more guidance in figuring out where the boundaries of that framework lie. There is a question as to how much guidance, and how broadly to set the boundaries. Some scenarios: Maybe adults impose a rule that says "no screamo band t shirts or other "inappropriate" clothing at scouting functions" but beyond that, the boys choose what to wear. That gives a lot of latitude to each boy to grapple with the ethical decision making business. It will probably also lead to a troop where few younger boys, but maybe more older boys, wear some or all of the uniform. Such an approach demands of the adults that we provide boys with solid explanations for why the scout uniform is desirable, and then we respect their ability to turn the explanations over in their own minds. It requires of the kids that they actually think about matters for themselves rather than just following others by rote. Or maybe adults impose a rule that says "either scout-related T shirts or uniform shirts are ok." That leaves the scout with a much narrower option, but still an option. Let them decide when one vs. the other is appropriate. I bet they figure it out fairly quickly, and I would expect that in such a troop, most boys would wear a troop T to weekly meetings and camp outs, and save the full uniform for formal events. Or maybe adults impose a rule that says "scout uniform shirts only, scout pants optional." We see this all the time, don't we. The boys will own and (maybe grudgingly) wear the shirts. I know your son likes the older style pants (which is great for you, as they are widely available at a low price on ebay!) so he might have shown up with the older style scout pants but probably most other boys would not have. With the newer pants, I think it is far more likely that more of the boys in such a troop would wear scout pants too. But this approach gives scouts fairly little opportunity to think about uniforming for themselves, in my view. Or maybe adults impose a rule, like in my son's troop, that it is a full uniform troop. Nobody travels with the troop out of uniform. Show up without your socks/belt/necker/hat (let alone shirt & pants) and you'll be sent back to get them, plus you will probably need to get your own ride to the event because the rest of the troop isn't going to wait. No boards of review if you aren't in full uniform either. This rule is about as coercive as I can think of. It does work if the aim is to get a truly uniformed troop. All of the boys and adults in my son's troop show up to pretty much everything in full uniform. Over time, it becomes ingrained that this is just how the troop functions. Older boys take on the responsibility of passing it along to the next generation of scouts who join. I am not convinced that it works in terms of teaching boys to think through the ramifications of a particular behavior (uniforming in this case) for themselves. In that regard, I don't think it helps teach boys to make ethical decisions over a life time. It does teach them to wear a uniform because Mr Z said so. The first three scenarios require that the official uniform be functional and not grossly out of step with boys' senses of what is acceptable. While the consensus seems to be that things are improving regarding the form and functionality of the uniform, I think there is still room for more improvement. If that happens, scenarios 1-3 would be more likely to yield a more fully uniformed troop than is currently the case. The last scenario, heck it could be a hawaian print mu mu and lei, and the boys would have no choice but to wear it (or quit). I agree there can be many benefits to uniforming. Perhaps the question is not so much whether uniforming itself is desirable but instead, whether the type of uniform prescribed makes much sense, and how much latitude we want to give the boys to make these decisions on their own.

I am interested to hear what you are all describing because it doesn't fit what I have seen. Around here, councils seem to have moved away from offering Pow Wow at all, and instead incorporated the former Pow Wow material into their U of Scouting curriculum. The cub-focused end of U of S remains focused primarily on the hands-on, recharge your batteries, fun side of cub scouting. One of the benefits I see to this approach is that it allows for more interaction between leaders in different parts of the BSA program. A lot of webelos leaders attend some of the boy scout sessions to get a better feel for the program for which they are preparing their webelos scouts. There are also usually some sessions focused on webelos-scout transition and den chiefing that draw a diverse crowd of scouters and even some boy scouts. Another benefit is purely logistical, but it cuts down on having to find the resources to run two separate, major, programs.

Interesting post. Thank you for that. I would just point out that I don't see the connection to the ACLU though. Nobody is arguing that scouts and scouters should NOT have a right to wear the uniform pretty much anytime they please. Certainly, the ACLU isn't making such an argument, and would probably stand up for the right to expression via uniforming if such a case came up.

"Giving the card without the counselor's name is like handing out a blank check. Not a good idea." Totally agree. Using the example of the former SM from my son's troop who used to hand out signed blue cards with no MB and no counselor name on them - if a boy were unethical he could take the card that was intended for, say, the fingerprinting MB and go do the personal management MB with it instead. Now why would this be a problem, you wonder? Well we had a boy do exactly this at camp one summer. He took a card (blank except for the SM sig.) meant for one badge and cajoled a summer camp MBC/teenage staffer into just signing off on the personal mgmt badge as if the boy had actually done that badge. Of course he had not done any work on the personal mgmt badge - it was a scam. But the blue card had both the "counselor's" and the SM's signature on it so it was valid! Right? (Can't tell you what a furor this caused.) A more engaged SM could and would have avoided this entirely because he'd have insisted that both the name of the badge and the counselor's name be on the blue card before signing it. In the summer camp situation, he would, at the very least, have had a record to show that he approved a blue card for badge A, and not for badge B. (By the way my son has a whole pile of blank blue cards with this former SM's signature on them. He could, in theory, never ask the current SM for a blue card again and still complete all of his Eagle-required badges. Upon questioning from the current SM: "When did you talk to me about starting badge X?" if he were untruthful, my son could simply reply "Oh I started that 5 years ago back when Mr. Smith was SM" and there would be no way for either the current, or former, SM to know if that was the case or not. So much for meaningful adult association in the process.)

And why is plaid part of Webelos? It is ugly and most of the boys I know think it is sort of effeminate.

Eagle 69, this apparently varies a lot from place to place. In my district, troops are required to submit blue cards to council and they are checked for accuracy. We have had MBs turned down for boys because the "counselor" was not on the list of approved counselors. To answer the original question: In my son's troop it has varied from one scoutmaster to the next. The last SM just handed out a signed blue card upon request, didn't even really keep track (or ask??) which badge it was for, let alone who the counselor would be. I know for my son, the result was that he has a big old stack of extra, blank, blue cards, with the SM's signature giving him permission to start. There wasn't any guidance there. The current SM talks with the boys and sometimes pushes them toward a particular individual as a counselor. I don't think he keeps track in any formal way, but he is more on top of the situation than was previously the case. He has also been known to contact a counselor from time to time (well at least me, anyway) to give a heads up about a particular boy's situation and needs. I know that as a counselor I have appreciated knowing the SM and I were able to communicate like that. (This message has been edited by lisabob)

I am truly sorry that you have had to go through such a difficult experience, and that your children have suffered too. I completely understand where you're coming from when you question whether others might be quietly leaving because of his apparent behavior and the rumor and innuendo that probably surround it. That could be addressed by the charter organization (they have the right to turn away anybody as a leader at any time, for pretty much any reason). And it is clear from what you wrote that the first person you spoke to from the council, whose response was "he's such a good leader, I can't believe it" needs to learn some things about the typical behavior patterns of abusive individuals. Maybe they should also re-take their Youth Protection Training! I seem to recall the online YPT including info about how abusers often cover their tracks. I am not in your position and so it is a little hard to know what I would be comfortable doing. However, I think you need to talk to the Scout Executive in your council. This could be accomplished in a face to face meeting, by a letter, or through the troop's charter organization as someone suggested earlier. But I think this rises to that level. And again I don't know how you and your son feel, but I think I would be strongly leaning toward shielding your son from having to talk about this with still more adults from some council committee or something, who he probably does not know well. Whatever was in the initial reports to social services was probably difficult enough for him. I wish you only the best and I commend you for your strength in dealing with such a difficult issue.

Sad! My favorite cub leader site was the Virtual Cub Leader's Handbook, hosted on geocities! I hope they find a new home for it.

I have to agree with ScoutNut. While your motives are good, people's resources are limited. I worked on our council's U of S committee one year - it was a TON of work. I would move heaven and earth to avoid duplication of that effort. Talk with your DE and ask for help coordinating the schedules of all of these conflicting events. In my experience, that usually happens because various different groups/committees all have good motives and good plans, but lack effective communication between the groups. Your DE, or maybe your district chair, should be able to help you overcome that communication gap.

There is a fun little book out there called something like Travels of a T Shirt in the Global Economy. The author takes a good look at how your typical cotton T is made. Guess what, it probably puts on more miles in the process of growing the cotton and manufacturing the shirt, than your car does in a typical year. Then there's the farming techniques used to grow & harvest the cotton, which may not be all that green, not to mention the dyes and other industrial chemicals used to turn raw cotton into your shirt. Sorry, not as environmentally friendly an industry as people might like to believe. (though really, the environmental aspect is not the primary focus of the book)

Sounds like a good plan, Nissan. Your district and mine sound similar in size. We have about 30 packs, 16 troops, and a couple of crews. Reaching those packs that don't attend anything - I think you might do better at a committee meeting than a pack meeting. I don't know what your pack meetings have been like, but I recall ours being pretty busy. As a leader, I wouldn't have had much time to talk with you at a pack meeting, and our parents and kids would definitely not have wanted to hear from some training guy at THEIR meeting. While you're visiting those packs, see if they have anybody who would like to join your training team. That's the surest way to guarantee their attendance at future trainings!

I don't understand. If you already have a UofS, why would you want a pow wow? U of S includes cub scout leaders and all of what has been discussed here could be offered as part of your existing U of S. Putting on this sort of program is pretty labor intensive. Getting people to participate and not burning them out ("Yet another one of these trainings they want me to go to! When does it end?!") is a challenge. Duplication doesn't appear to make much sense here. Is this a good use of your limited resources? By the way, I think a model rocketry class would be a lot of fun for your cub leaders, in whatever venue you do it.(This message has been edited by lisabob)

Did you READ that article? You know, the one where the Anti-defamation league is extremely disappointed because they feel that this ruling limits people's rights to sue the gov't using taxpayer status as their basis for claiming standing? This was a set back, not a victory, for the notion that taxpayer status automatically equates to standing. Additionally, when you take quotes out of an article and leave out words like "only" you are changing the meaning of the quoted material. This is considered to be unethical as you are now misrepresenting the point made by the original author. For instance, the full quote is: "Update: On June 25, 2007, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, concluded that taxpayers have "standing to sue" ONLY when Congress spends money in a way that violates the freedom of religion clauses of the Constitution. ADL called the decision, 'a setback to religious liberty in America.' " (emphasis added) See how that "only" changes the meaning of what you quoted? Intellectual honesty matters when you're trying to put forth an argument. Look more carefully at the actual majority & concurring opinions. Alito wrote that there are only very limited instances where taxpayer status is sufficient for standing. Based on previous decisions, Alito said standing can only be considered when people feel the religious freedoms in the 1st amend. are being violated AND there is a link to a specific congressional expenditure (which was not the case here). In his concurring opinion, Scalia went further and said even that wouldn't be enough to constitute standing, in his view. The long and short of it is that the 5 member majority (Alito, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, and Thomas) ruled that the group that brought the suit here had NO STANDING. Bad example for you to use, mate. (This message has been edited by lisabob)

Summer camp is not a good comparison point. You have to admit that many summer camps employ sub-par "counselors" (and I use that word loosely) resulting in boys not really learning a heck of a lot and being cheated of a better experience. Not all, of course, but seems like a problem that pops up on the boards here pretty often. By telling the kid to pick who ever he wants from the council list, you are missing an opportunity to match the boy up with some adults who might be real inspirations. Kids typically will either pick the person they know (who may, or may not, be a particularly good match for that kid and that badge) or else, the first person on the list. Or, if your troop doesn't have a history of boys working more or less on their own on MBs, boys will hear from others about who is "easiest" and many others will pick that counselor, regardless of quality. Presumably you know a wider selection of scouters and might recognize that Mr. Smith is someone who a particular scout would really get a lot from working with, while Mr. Jones would be kind of a disaster for that same kid.

xlpanel, the law does not work quite as simply as that. There may indeed be a case here - I don't know all the details of the situation Merlyn cites - but Beavah is correct that "taxpayer status" has often been considered to be too low a bar to give a person standing in court. Also, referring to someone as "a homo" is usually considered to be derogatory in most circles. I am supposing your intent was not to be rude and that you simply were unaware.

Well said!

Just some thoughts about some of the skill sessions. I'll use cooking as an example but I think this could apply more generally. You might want to gear it to multiple levels. For example with cub leaders you will have people who have never cooked outdoors at all, people who only seem to know about eggs in a bag and foil dinners, and people who could feed the neighborhood 5 star meals over their campfires, in case of a power outage. Another good session for cub leaders who are novice outdoor people would be a hands-on gear session. As a cub leader I'd never used a camp stove before and would have liked a class that would have allowed me to assemble/dismantle one, try out a backpacking stove, etc. Not show & tell where somebody stands in front of the room with the gadget - but real hands on so I'd have felt more comfortable using these with kids around. (same would be useful with tents/sleeping bags, various types of backpacks, etc. - esp. for Webelos leaders who want info to take back to the parents, as the kids get ready to move to boy scouts where they'll need a bunch of gear) You should make sure that you think about whether you want each class to be mostly "how to do this" or whether you want them to be mostly "how to help kids learn to do this." These are not necessarily the same things. Don't poach from existing trainings! I learned to do the biscuits in the orange peel thing umpteen times (and never liked it anyway). Do raid the rank books. A class on cool ideas for Wolf/Bear arrow points could be good.

I definitely agree with your last sentence! We have faced the same challenge where I live, after years of a training team that didn't believe in doing anything at all to prepare (just show up and read the powerpoint to participants, or worse yet, find someone to do the training the day before and don't even give them the materials). I don't know how big your district is, but if there aren't that many packs, you might try sending someone from your training team to a pack committee meeting for those who don't attend RT often. Making that personal connection and also having a chance to make the pitch and show you are not the same old, same old, could help you restore some confidence and maybe boost attendance.

Hi Glenn, Thanks for the rec. I've heard a lot of good things about Seven Ranges and will pass on your suggestion to our PLC for future consideration (they already picked next year's camp but it is always good to look ahead). As for Manitoc, our boys did have a nice time there. The MB staff was solid and the program was well run. Those who did the one-day rafting excursion enjoyed it, and the Rail Roading was a big hit. A year later, they are still talking about the Moose in the dining hall! It would have been nice if there had been more stuff for older boys though.

I don't know what the national trend is, but again speaking from what I've seen in my area of the country, Pow Wows are defunct and have been replaced by a more general "University of Scouting." And yes, many of the things suggested here could be covered in such a forum - if you can get people to participate. One thing I've learned is that there are many divisions within the BSA bureaucracy, even at a district & council level. The people who are on the Council CS committee may have no idea what the U of S people are doing, and vice versa.

Nissan, Good luck with your new position. One thing you mentioned that I want to ask about. It has been a little while since I was a cub leader, but my recollection is that while BALOO is required to do any cub camping, OWL is not required in order for Webelos DLs to take their dens camping. Recommended, but not required. Around here few DLs take OWL. Some just take OLS instead. Perception is that "they'll be boy scouts soon enough - might as well just do the boy scout training now and get it over with." I don't know whether you face that in your district, but selling OWL as distinct from OLS is a challenge here.