Lisabob

overkill.

Now the real question is, what would it take to change this? Troops that have something as specific as this in their bylaws also tend to be adult-controlled and not inclined to lighten up.

Unless the system has been substantially upgraded (I doubt), I'm pretty sure it won't void his other registration. Might check w/ your district membership chair on that, though - they'll probably know.

I wish I could believe this was just "week one" malfunction. But every single year (for about 6 years) that my son has gone to BSA camp (a different camp each year, not usually in week one), this same thing has happened in at least one MB class. Consequently, I think it is a reliable outcome of the structure of the program.

I worked on camp staff, though not at a BSA camp, for about a decade and I'm well aware of first week glitches, challenges with staff training, etc. But we never would have accepted the poor program quality that seems to be routine at most BSA camps. And our campers certainly wouldn't have come back next year, if we'd done that.

Is it worth a pre-emptive speech to your guys? Yeah, probably. In that speech might also be some guidelines to what you want them to do with a camp counselor whose method of "instruction" includes screaming insults and obscenities, and behavioral expectations for your scouts when things aren't going well in their MB classes at camp. There seems to be a temptation on the part of some boys that, if the class is a bust and the MBC is a jerk, to be jerky back. Not the best option, everybody ends up in the mud that way.

bnelon, your interpretation of advancement, in my opinion, does represent a change. I believe that's been discussed plenty in the last 15 pages. If you aren't sure what I refer to, please feel free to re-read your ongoing exchanges with twocub, beavah, and numerous others here.

bnelon, history lesson appreciated (though not news to me), but that's not the point. What you keep describing is, I believe, a weakening of the advancement method. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

"The advancement program is just one of 8 methods that go into making an Eagle Scout. Neglecting the other 7 methods and just looking at the requirements isn't going to make a good Eagle Scout. And I think that is what these boys are seeing. "

First: I've not seen anybody here argue that advancement is, or should be, the be-all, end-all of scouting to the detriment or exclusion of the other methods.

Second: If troops are not using (some/all of) the other methods well, the solution is not to weaken advancement, too.

Third: If you are correct that boys are particularly attuned to how a troop uses advancement (and I think you have a point there, as it is one of the most visible methods of scouting), then doing it well is vitally important to shaping a boy's view of the scouting program as a whole. Weakening advancement won't help here, either.

eolesen, your son might want to check out this site's info on cherokee language. Some cool stuff there, including audio samples and info on writing Cherokee. The site is maintained as part of a vanishing languages program via a couple of Universities in the US.

http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/lang/1684

This is not about being a "socialist" or not. That sort of over-simplified and polarizing rhetoric is actually very unhelpful if the goal is to have a real conversation and understand other perspectives.

While I am sure your method gets you desired results - a pack of boys in uniform - I also think there are several other ways to reach a similar end that might turn off fewer people.

I took your response to sasha's post where she articulated a different reality to be unhelpful and abrasive. Six kids in scouting has to be expensive; not just the uniforming, but all the other activities, too. And the family might want to use their disposable income on non-scouting things from time to time, as well. That they are committed to scouting with six kids is something we ought to be praising, not attacking them for. Rather than try to understand Sasha's perspective and experience (even if you don't agree, which is fine), you got in her face and made assumptions about her spending patterns and thriftiness. Your assumptions carried an implication about her dedication to her kids' well-being and parenting style that probably would turn off an awful lot of parents who are doing the best they can.

If I came to your pack and saw you do to another person what you wrote to Sasha here, I'd have walked out the door. Not because I can't afford uniforms, but because that's not an example of how to treat people that I agree with or want modeled for my child. And because, in my experience, people who behave that way are setting their organization up for all sorts of unnecessary drama. Even if we joined your unit, you'd never get me as a volunteer because of that abrasiveness. I would make an assumption, perhaps incorrect, that you are probably hard to work with on other issues too, not just on uniforming.

In an all-volunteer organization, having an approach that causes others not to want to work with you is a real problem.

[by the way, selling donuts on the street corner without a vender license in my area would get you in trouble. Or are you advocating that scouts should ignore the law when it is inconvenient to follow it?]

5yearscouter, my son had a very similar view of Eagle in particular, and advancement in general, for a long time. There were lots of examples of how more senior scouts didn't possess the basic skills and had fairly serious scout spirit/behavior issues and yet, were held up as role models by troop adult leaders.

But you know, there were lots of boys making 1st Class and Star so everything must be good, right?

My son would say things like "if so-and-so is Star/Life/Eagle, that rank must not mean very much." and "I don't want any award that puts me in the category with those guys." No amount of me telling him that the ranks only mean what you make them mean for yourself, was going to change that. As Venividi says, he saw right through it and lost respect for that aspect of the program as well as some of the leaders, for doing it. And so he sat at Star for over 3 years and the advancement method became irrelevant to him.

Then he switched troops. Expectations for rank are different in this troop, both in terms of skill and behavior. The best scouts, the ones who everybody looks up to, are the ones encouraging others to advance and also holding high standards. They help each other meet those standards. There's an expectation that a Star, Life, or Eagle scout in this troop should be able to do (and teach) the basic skills, and show good character and leadership. Of course boys have less-than-perfect moments, but on the whole, they expect a lot of themselves and their peers. And they don't want to let each other down.

It still took him close to 2 years to come around to a different view of advancement. His change of view was the product mainly of his current patrol mates, who ganged up on him and explained in painful detail exactly why THEY expected him to at least earn Life, and be seriously thinking about Eagle. They didn't want him to set a bad example for younger scouts with his view of advancement.

He will most likely earn Eagle now (everything done but a little bit of paperwork), but because of that delay, he'll earn it pretty much the last day before he turns 18.

So I guess my advice to you would be: help your son find a way to connect with other older boys who have different experiences with scouting and advancement. Maybe through OA? Maybe a Venturing Crew? Maybe just friends from other troops? Maybe cousins/relatives from elsewhere who are (were) also in scouting?

Telling other people what their priorities ought to be and how they ought to use their money has always struck me as both a waste of effort and a bit jerky. Might be, I don't always agree with how others use their money or set their priorities, but it isn't likely to help much by being in their face and holier than thou about it. There's that old saying about attracting more flies with honey than vinegar.

Totally - why wouldn't you?

Make sure he's learning real information from a multitude of perspectives, not just what he finds on (say) wikipedia or in his American history textbook. Might also be good to be certain of his ancestry (there are lots of historical claims that don't check out.). Weirdly enough, the story going back several generations in some families is that they're "part indian" when in fact, they're actually part black, which was sometimes less socially acceptable back then. Current generations may have NO IDEA and assume family lore to be true because, after all, who could doubt great-great-grandma Sophie?

I think the reputation of OA differs greatly across regions and lodges. Around here, it is barely noticeable unless you are in it (and even then...). Since membership is not open to cub scouts and typically not to cub leaders either, my experience has been that cub packs and parents of cub scouts around here wouldn't know what to make of an OA ceremony or dance team if it landed in their laps. I don't even think our local lodge has a dance team team. And my son who is in OA (but not very active - his take, right or wrong, is that it's just another place for big-ego'd adults to spout off) has mentioned on several occasions that he finds it embarrassing to see OA call-out ceremonies at summer camp where half the kids hardly even know their lines, let alone try to present an accurate portrayal of the people they're pretending to be.

Again though, I'm willing to believe there are lodges out there who do a good job of this, and so it is all really about local experience isn't it.

What new uniforms? Haven't seen them or heard about them.

Eaglemom, that's messed up. Based on what you wrote, I don't know how boys in your troop honestly made it through the T-2-1 cooking requirements.

Every troop has things they do well, and things they could do better. Sounds like your troop could have done better on the cooking requirements and role of the QM. Hopefully, there were enough other things that your troop did well on, so that your boys still had an overall great experience.

Horizon nailed it. I'm an X'er. I volunteer quite a bit, but just don't love the notion of joining a club for that purpose.

And I kind of think some service clubs are like some Venturing Crews. The generation that got them going was all gung-ho, but then they neglected to bring in new folks and so they died out. Unfortunately, quite literally in some cases. By the time my son's former troop changed COs a year or so ago, the Lion's club that had sponsored them for 50+ years was down to less than 5 members, all of whom were in their 70s or older. They did nothing to recruit new folks and, in fact, were rather hostile to "outsiders" including leaders of the troop and pack they sponsored!

Similarly, although I'm fairly involved in political activities, I'm not thrilled about joining political clubs. In my first "real" job I was more or less compelled as an unofficial term of employment to join a ladies' conservative club in my area - where the next youngest member was about 40 years older than me. Sigh. We did not have a great deal in common.

ETA: if some clubs relied primarily on retirees or stay-at-home spouses for membership in the past, then they're really in trouble today. When everybody works 50+ hours a week just to scrape by and a whole generation of X'ers are wondering if they'll ever be able to retire (most of us have no pensions - thanks!), it doesn't leave much time for club participation.(This message has been edited by lisabob)

Well tomorrow I get to find out what he did with the hot peppers and duct tape. I hope they weren't used in combination.

I do think many boys are less accustomed to eating balanced & nutritious meals these days (pop tarts for breakfast, cafeteria food at school for lunch, take out for dinner), perhaps in part because of the more hurried and harried lives we tend to lead these days.

On the other hand, I also think boys are more likely to have exposure to cooking and being the cook, than might have been the case in the past, as ideas about gender roles shift.

One thing I will say: I've met many folks who learned the basics of cooking and who developed a love of cooking, through scouting. My son is just one of them. He takes a great deal of pride in cooking for his patrol and they eat very well on camp outs. That took time to develop and he has had a few disasters along the way, but now he's the troop instructor for cooking and he's a regular on the cooking rotation at home, too.

I've read that about one-room schools too, Beavah, but there are a bunch of confounding factors that make comparisons rather difficult. (a more inclusive approach to education now vs. then and self-selection of older students in particular, but also changes in the goals of modern education, changes in parental expectations, changes in acceptable methods of discipline and behavioral standards in schools, etc.)

I don't see what Twocub describes as being antithetical to the BSA's basic take on advancement (learn, test, review, recognize). His unit simply takes a more robust view of what learning entails. And I suspect boys (and parents) in his unit appreciate that. That isn't arrogant, it is a solid way to use the program.

Look, how many parents really want their kid in a unit where everything is one-and-done? What does that teach the kid? And how many kids really want to be part of a unit where they know the adults can be easily buffaloed into recognizing bs-work as if it were the real thing? That's not a way to build up respect (in self or in others), or to set kids on a path toward real self-sufficiency and the adventure that awaits. As Twocub said, kids can smell BS a mile away.

If the kid gets the sign-off for all the cooking stuff (and heck, why not also the MB) the first time he picks up a spatula, where's the sense in that? If you don't want kids to think "scouts is for wimps" (or worse), then you need to give kids an honest experience, including expecting them to really learn things and be capable, rather than recognizing them for half-ass attempts.

Bluejacket, you make some great points. However, your post seems to rest on an assumption that the COR and IH are engaged, or at least are willing to be engaged. In most of the troubled units I've experienced, that is not the case. More often, the COR is "on paper" only and the IH doesn't even want to hear about the unit they sponsor when things are going well, let alone when things are not. These are the COs who basically say, "whatever the unit leaders want is fine" or "let the unit leaders fix it" or "if I have to get involved, I'll just close the whole thing down and we'll stop sponsoring the unit."

Those COs have abdicated, in everything except signing the charter agreement.

I'm not certain but I think there may be some cultural shifts that haven't been taken into account, here. Parenting lore of a generation ago was that you had to have baby on a time table, strict feeding schedule, etc. And of course more people used formula (which was marketed as being "better than breastmilk" for a long time, and then "as good as breastmilk and more convenient" for a while after that).

Current parenting lore is different. Rather than setting schedules for baby and rather than use formula, mothers are encouraged to follow a more natural approach - allowing the baby to eat when hungry, and encouraging breast feeding.

So while a generation ago, the schedule and etiquette was dictated by the considerations of the adult, today the schedule (and perhaps the etiquette) is more about the considerations of the infant. The current thinking is that it really isn't all that smart to expect infants to conform to the conveniences or schedules of the adult world. The minor inconvenience is temporary (infants grow up so fast!) And it is only a "big deal" if the adult world can't handle the occasional breast feeding in stride.

It seems to me that this shift in cultural practices and perceptions of what's normal might not be so apparent to folks who are a bit removed from the time in their lives when they and their friends were having babies.

It might be a poor way to run things. It might result in unnecessary hard feelings among adults. Depending on the back story, it might be worth saying "you know what, I don't need to be on this committee. I'll just let my son enjoy his scouting experience without me being involved in this unit." It probably isn't worth a big argument. If you lose, that's no good. And if you win, what will you have to show for it?

(PS: If there really is going to be bylaw revision at the next meeting, then I suppose the current bylaws will necessarily be made available at that meeting. How could they be revised, if no one knows what they currently say. Perhaps your curiosity can be satisfied, and hopefully the underlying issue addressed, at that time?)

Under the circumstances, eh *shrugs*. What happened, happened. Maybe not what people had expected, but it doesn't seem to have been that big of a deal. Breast feeding is pretty much accepted in most places these days without a lot of fuss.

On the other hand, one time I sat on a BOR (for a Life candidate) where one of the other BOR members had her 18 month old grandson with her. The kid was squirmy, noisy, and plainly had other ideas about what he wanted to do. It was incredibly distracting and not something I recommend. So as a general rule, I'd say it would be best to go baby-free at BORs. But if there's a time crunch and that's who you have available, then you find a way to make the best of it. (A Scout is Resilient.)

I say this with respect, so please don't take it in ways it isn't meant, but: what does the fact that the CO is a Catholic Church have to do with anything? The Catholic Church hasn't exactly been immune to scandal, ethical quandaries, and infighting, either recently or historically speaking.

Anyway, I don't know your situation but if your CO is anything like many of them, they probably want as little to do with the interpersonal complaints and unit politics among leaders, as possible. In fact, considering your comments about joint pack/troop/crew committees, the weird family dynamics between SM/COR, and the weak programs, I bet in your case you have an institutional head (parish priest) who really just doesn't have a lot of interest or sense of calling to be engaged with the scout units that the church sponsors. Otherwise, some of this crazy stuff would have been dealt with by a clear-headed church figure, some time ago.

Best of luck to you starting your new units, and I hope you'll post from time to time about how things are working out. I also hope you'll be able to get those units going without a lot of bad feelings and continuing adult drama leftovers.

Gee, bnelon, I think you will find (upon review of this thread) that there have been quite a few specific changes proposed. I know that I proposed at least two, one of which even quoted from the GtA. What more do you want.