NJCubScouter

Personally I think that some sort of "extended" annual Scouting experience is an essential part of being a Scout. That would be "regular" summer camp for the younger Scouts and then a choice of summer camp, high adventure, NYLT, Jamboree when applicable, or some other experience for the mid- to older Scouts. Unfortunately, for many Scouts, and their parents and leaders, merit badges have become the focus of the summer camp experience. We have one 16-ish year old Scout who just spent one week at regular summer camp earning Eagle required merit badges and another week at our council's "Trail to Eagle camp" (basically a week of all provisional campers earning Eagle required merit badges, interspersed with sessions on how to do an Eagle project, etc.) Not exactly "Follow the Rugged Road" (a BSA slogan from "my day"), but on the other hand this kid is now on track to make Eagle whereas it is probably unlikely he would make it if he didn't spend the summer earning 6 or 7 required MB's. And part of the reason he wasn't on track before is that instead of going to the MB-focused camp the rest of our troop attends, the previous summer he had gone to Philmont and he had also gone to the last national Jamboree, so he felt he had to "make up" for the MB's he didn't earn those summers. So it probably wasn't a very good summer for him earning Communications and Emergency Prep and whatever else, but in the end, when he's an adult, he will have gone to Philmont, Jamboree, and probably will have earned Eagle too. And he actually knows his outdoor skills. That isn't too bad.

Lisavan, welcome to the forum! In our district RT's consist of a general session for both Boy Scout and Cub Scout leaders and then breakout sessions for each. Maybe the different points of the law are supposed to be addressed during the breakout sessions? Or maybe it is a mistake. I don't know.

RichardB, thanks for the information. I have a question: Is this same information on the BSA's own web site, in addition to the web site of just one chartered partner? The health and safety guidelines are the same for all CO's, right?

Welcome to the forum! Both of the things you mention represent "adding to the requirements" and therefore are not permitted by the Guide to Advancement. (I don't have the page number handy.) In practical terms, of course, sometimes going with the flow is easier than being "right." My guess is these are not the only examples of "adding to the requirements" in your troop. If I am right, this is a general problem that needs to be addressed. Your son has a much more immediate issue to deal with: Is it better to rock the boat, or just tie the knot? (I am not necessarily expressing a preference, just identifying the issue.)

Yet another sign that technology is passing me by. I have no idea what that means.

No, it's not partly the fault of the Girl Scouts. If there is "fault" here, it would be with the people who buy the magazine for their daughters. But as ianwilkins said, people are free to buy or read what they want. And the fact that a pre-teen girl is reading about makeup and fashion and other fluff doesn't mean she isn't also reading Popular Science, outdoors magazines, computer magazines or whatever. (Well, statistically, she probably isn't, but the point is that people can read more than one magazine.) As for GSUSA and its publications, I once again turn to Wikipedia, that great source for information that is probably correct on any given day, and seems to be correct in this case, and I learn that between 1917 and 1979 they did publish a magazine, which was called The American Girl for most of its history, and just American Girl (no The) at the end, and which has no relation to the American Girl dolls, which apparently currently has an associated magazine named, of course, American Girl. I have never heard of the GSUSA publication; my older daughter joined the Girl Scouts about 10 years after the magazine stopped publishing. My guess would be that the GSUSA stopped publishing American Girl because not enough people were buying it to justify continuing to publish it. Which is basically why the fluff magazine Girl's Life DOES exist, because enough people buy it for advertisers to want to advertise in it, and it makes a profit for the owners. Otherwise, as my Economics 101 professor would have said, the owners would take their money and instead publish a more profitable magazine, or car, or widget, or whatever. (I should clarify, I have been saying for years that our society pays way, way too much attention to things that are frivolous like hairstyles, fashion, and most of all these days, "celebrity news" in general. We as a society have a lot of important things to deal with, and yet a lot of people only seem to care about which celebrity is dating which other celebrity. I can't get through the day without hearing "the latest" about some celebrity who I don't care about. And I would partly put sports in the same category, especially these days when many of the athletes can't seem to just play the game or whatever, but become celebrities themselves and then we have to hear about THEIR antics along with those of Paris and Kim and whoever else. And one part of this problem is that society is sending mixed messages to young people, and I think to girls especially. Yes, get an education, become a scientist, run for President, find a cure for cancer, but at the same time don't weigh too much, don't let the styles of the day pass you by, don't be a "geek" because then you won't be popular, etc. etc. And we do burden boys with this kind of thing as well, but to a much lesser extent, in my opinion. This Girls Life magazine IS part of a larger problem, but as I say above, the magazine publisher is not the cause of the problem. They are just making a profit off it, like thousands of other publications, every media company, every clothing company, etc., etc. etc. Boy, that turned into a rant, didn't it? But I think it's all on-topic. One little magazine is not the issue, even if it happens by coincidence to have a title "corresponding" to our beloved Boys' Life with the science and outdoors in the front, ads for military schools and fundraising candy in the middle, and the bad jokes in the back.) (And now totally OFF the subject, and maybe some will consider THIS trivial, but is that the current edition of Boys Life? I can see "September" but the year is not clear, and nobody in my household gets Boys Life anymore. (Actually the one who used to get it moved out a few months ago.) But here's the thing: Isn't that an F-117 Nighthawk airplane on the cover, right below the name of the magazine? Isn't that a retired airplane? If the cover is all about the future, it seems to me that might not be the right aircraft to have front and center. It still looks cool, though.)

It was not the wrongdoing ASM who "confided" in the SM, it was the Scout who confided in the SM. It is an easy mistake to make, because the sentence containing this information is not written very well. But I think it is clear that the "he" who confided was the Scout. I think we need to be very careful in discussions like this. Since it says "different scoutmaster" we don't actually know whether the person was "the" SM or another ASM. The media generally do not make these distinctions. But the point is that you have implied something about a person who is probably very easily identifiable in the troop, and the implication is based on a misreading of the article. All I'm saying is, let's not make a bad situation worse by implying things for which there is no evidence. And also let's not jump to too many conclusions based on an article that isn't very good. For example, this article does not really tell me who was the first person to report this to council, either the "different scoutmaster" (who learned of it 2 months after it happened) or the mother (who learned of it 4 months after it happened.) That seems like important information.

The BSA was "looking at" (meaning, considering the possibility of) "going coed" (meaning, at least, the Boy Scouts) more than 40 years ago. I have to believe they have been "looking at" it, at least on and off, ever since then. The CSE's statements in this article are very vague and generic. He never says "coed". He says he doesn't have the "answers." The one concrete example he gives of a program involving both genders was a "partnership" (a word that can mean a wide variety of things) between local BSA and GSUSA units. That is not necessarily a "coed unit". That is two (or more) units, including at least one made up of male BSA members (Cubs or Boy Scouts is not specified, maybe it was both) and at least one made up of female GSUSA members, working together (in an unspecified way) to deliver a program for both genders. What exactly did that look like? We are not told. Might this mean a serious investigation into coed units? It might, but I doubt it. I think it would have been made clearer. I have learned over the years that trying to "read into" what top BSA leaders say is often a fruitless exercise. If every idea that a CSE ever ran up the flagpole was actually put into practice, the BSA would be a much different place.

While I have supported separate Scouting programs for boys and girls (all of my children having been in the Scouting program corresponding to their gender, though for varying lengths of time), when we get back to the tired old line of "political correctness", that's where I get off the train. We've got a great program in the BSA. So great that people want to join it. We should be HAPPY about that. It doesn't mean the BSA necessarily has to let all those people in, when some of them are of a gender that has a corresponding Scouting program out there. But we shouldn't treat the fact that these young ladies would like to be part of the program as a bad thing. It's a challenge that has to be dealt with. I personally would like to see the GSUSA deal with it by encouraging and assisting their own local leaders to make much more use of the outdoor aspects of the Girl Scout program. Let's look for positive solutions.

Welcome back to Scouting and welcome to the forum AirbornChaos!

Which "classes" are we talking about here? Are you talking about atheists? Or something else?

As much as we in this forum might talk about advancement (and Eagle in particular) not being a "big deal", and the kids should be there for the fun, adventure, learning, character-building etc., the fact is that BSA National does make a very big deal out of Eagle. They promote it as the pinnacle of achievement in Boy Scouting, they express justifiable pride in the award and its recipients, and they devote substantial resources to it. That being the case, we should not be surprised if some kids believe National and conclude that Eagle is a big deal. Some of those kids will not be eligible to earn the award, because they are female. If one of those girls asks "Why", the honest answer is that however much you may want it, only boys are eligible to earn it, and that's the National policy, and that's it. We can debate whether that is a good policy, but that is the current policy. I think it is not completely fair to tell a young woman who wants it, and thinks it is a big deal, that she shouldn't want it because it's not a big deal, when National says it is a big deal.

I think you misread my post. The original post seems to be about year-round schooling for everybody. It has nothing to do with IEPs.

It does make it easier when a mountain range runs through part of your state, though admittedly the highest point in the state (and in the Appalachians in NJ), which is creatively called "High Point", is only 1,803 feet above sea level. Not a very big mountain, it's really a series of ridges in NJ. And it's not the only "mountain range" in New Jersey, we also have the Watchung Mountains, but I think the highest point there is 800+ feet. A lot of hiking goes on in those mountains too, even though they aren't very big.

Right, in NJ they call that "Extended School Year" but it only covers a fraction of the school population. Most IEP's do not require it, and as for your second category, if it is not an IEP situation I think the student has to fall into the "economically disadvantaged" category AND have limited achievement. I believe federal grants pay for that group. But my assumption was that this thread was about year-round schooling for ALL students.

This has not been seriously proposed for New Jersey public schools. The conventional wisdom for why we are still on a schedule designed to allow students to help Dad harvest the crops, when there are precious few crops to be harvested, is basically that (1) it would be too costly to pay the teachers what would amount to about a 16 percent increase and (2) many schools, particularly those more than about 20 years old, are not air-conditioned and it would cost a lot to change that. I don't necessarily believe these are insurmountable problems, but I keep hearing about them every time someone dares to raise the subject. Are there states that have completely eliminated the summer break? I would think there would definitely be a major impact on Scouting in that situation.

SpEdScouter's profile says he is in the "Midwest". I was going to suggest backpacking on the Appalachian Trail but that is a lot of driving for the non-participating parents. Unless you reverse course halfway through and end up where you started, the drivers need to go from Home to Start, Start to Home, then at the end of the trip, Home to End, End to Home. I remember those trips as a Scout and though parts of the AT were less than a half hour away, that's still a lot of driving for a weekend trip. If you are talking about a week-long trip it's even more driving, because Start and End may be a state or two away from each other.

Here is what the BSA's Congressional charter says: Notice the word "boys". So how is it that the BSA can have programs for people other than "boys"? Including Venturing, which is a program for both boys and non-boys? Including Exploring and Learning for Life, which although they are "separate", are still operated by the BSA? Note that I have no problem with the Venturing program, or LFL or Exploring, being coed. I also would not have a major problem with the Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts going coed, but I think it would be better to strengthen the GSUSA's outdoor focus and keep the Boy Scout and Cub Scout program as they are. But how is "coed" even an issue under the Congressional charter? I am sure I am not the first person ever to ask this question, but I do not recall any threads about it in this forum.

Welcome to the forum August! What position(s) do you hold in Scouting?

Heh heh, anything's possible. Actually, during my "adult leader camping career" I heard comments about my snoring at (or after) just about every trip. Sometimes from my tentmates, but often from neighboring tents as well. Most of the guys had a sense of humor about it. Not all, though.

I don't think our council has anything like this. (The annual Trail to Eagle camp, a week devoted to just earning Eagle required MB's, is bad enough.) It does sound like too much micromanaging what the Scouts are supposed to be managing for themselves.

I know this is not what you asked, but since this is an "inner city" troop, is any assistance available from council. There used to be (and probably still is) a "Scoutreach" program but I am not sure what kind of money, if any, was attached to it.

We had a camporee where the kids built trebuchets and competed for distance. As someone else mentioned though, it is not something you can just throw together. (Well, you lash it together, but you know what I mean. It's the "it" you lash together that might require more than a couple of weeks.)

and Eagle732 responded: I didn't say that. I expressed no opinion on the site you mentioned. I merely mentioned that this very forum is a place where you (or anyone else) can discuss Philmont. I'll also say that it's a little unusual to have a thread in this forum discussing what the owners of a different web site should do or not do, or to (essentially) "gather signatures" on a sort of "petition" to be presented to the owner of a different web site. But we have no rule against it, especially since the other site in question does appear to be a free, volunteer-driven web site (like this one) and the topic is so closely related to Scouting.

We have an online forum to discuss Philmont related topics right here, and people do discuss them. We have a "Camping and High Adventure" forum and there have probably been Philmont-related discussion in "Open Discussion" as well.