ParkMan

1 hour ago, yknot said:

Congress will only do something if it is connected with votes or hot button issues but the numbers just aren't there for us. We're too small, on the politically wrong side of most issues and have no common core. A couple decades ago you might have been able to rely on support from a conservative Christian voting bloc but today the religious aspects of scouting are too fragmented and miniscule. LDS has pulled out. Catholics oppose LGBTQ issues. Methodists endorse LGBTQ issue,  etc., etc. Congressional leaders will never step into that. This past decade, BSA should have been burnishing a less controversial linkage to being the premiere outdoor resource for the nation's youth, but too many entrenched interests have kept us stuck in the mud. That would have crossed religious, social and political lines. I keep hoping they'll wake up and stake out that territory but no movement so far. 

Yes - I am sure you are correct 100%.  I don't see a poltiical reason why congress would act here.

6 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I agree, wood tools needs more time in training AND information in the SHB. When I reviewed the last time I did IOLS, the section on wood tools in the BSHB was missing so much info compared to older BSHBs, that I handed out sections from my 1960s FB and some other sources.

Absolutely.  I love when I get to attend talks on outdoor skills.  Camp cooking, tool usage, tent setup - that's interesting and fun stuff.  Learning to be a great outdoors person is an amazing skill.  I love that  you pulled out prior references and shared them.

6 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I have had older Scouts staff my IOLS, just like they do WB now. It works.

I'm all for older Scouts have a training role in Scouting.  It's a great way for them to practice adult association.  Being 16 and really teaching a skill to a bunch of adults is a great life lesson.  Yet, I think it's important that the lessons be real and not dumbed down.

My sense is that training for adults needs to be real training - not superficial stuff.  Real people sharing real skills.  If that can be taught be a 17 year old - that's great.  But, the adult has to walk away from that session thinking - hey, that was really useful.

2 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I cannot see a scenario in which Congress overrides state statutes of limitations to protect Congressionally chartered orgs.

Honestly - nor do I.  This is not an important enough national issue.  But I hope.

3 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

I also don't see why Congress should. There are lots and lots of not for profit and charities that are locally/state incorporated and subject to state statutes.

Why should Boy Scouts of America get special legal privileges over that of say the Salvation Army USA (incorporated in New Jersey)?

Congress should get involved because it's a question of federal vs. state powers. 

The federal government chartered the organization and charged it with certain responsibilities to the nation.  Because of the action by the states, the federal corporation is in real danger of not being able to fulfill those responsibilities to the nation.  This is akin to other situations where there is a conflict between federal authority and state authority.

The Boy Scouts of America is very different than the Salvation Army USA.  The BSA is a federal corporation charged with responsibilities to the nation.  The Salvation Army is a non profit corporation registered in New Jersey.  We tend to look at this from the ground up and say they are both nonprofits.  But in reality they are not at all the same.  A similar analogy is the Smithsonian vs. NY Museum of Modern Art.  Both are great museums - however the Simthsonian is a museum enabled by Congress for the betterment of the nation.  MOMA is a world class museum located in NY.  Both are treasures, but one (the Smithsonian) was explicitly created by the US federal government.

That aside - I would argue that generally this kind of protection would be worthwhile for other prominent non-profits as well.  We all want to see people who hurt kids punished and we all want to see the victims of abuse supported.  Yet, it does not do the kids of the United States any benefit to destroy the Scouting program.  Our country continues to need Scouting to help support the growth our our kids.  At a time when Scouting should be focused on how it should grow and evolve, it is instead hunkered down, fighting lawsuits, fighting for survival.  This does absolutely nothing to benefit the kids of today or tomorrow.  If there are other nationally prominent non-profits that are dealing with this kind of problem I would theoretically support a cap on the statute of limitations for them as well. 

Again - this is all a pipe dream because Congress isn't prepared for this kind of display of leadership.

20 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

Why? I hate this to, but what would Congress stepping in solve? Stopping the bankruptcy and denying ANY victim ANY claims? What is the end game with Congress stepping in?

I would like to see legislation that limits extensions of statue of limitations for federally chartered organizations. 

Here we have a nationally chartered corporation whose ability to fulfill it's legislated charter is now in doubt because states have extended the statute of limitations to levels beyond what is practical for what is largely a volunteer organization.  Congress should recognize that this action by the states is causing harm to the ability of these kind of organizations to meet their charters.

Having a reasonable duration on the statute of limitations for a congressionally chartered corporation (say 10 years) would still allow the states to ensure that the corporation is following current law and that volunteers and employees of the current organization are held correctly responsible for their actions.  Limiting the duration of the statute of limitations to something reasonable would enable the federal corporation to predict it's ability to meet it's congressional charter and not be continually responding to actions by people involved with the corporation years ago.  Congressionally chartered organizations like this have a unique ability to have a long corporate lifetime which makes it unusually susceptible to problems like this.  It's in the best interest of the people of the United States to enable these corporations to fulfill their congressional obligation while still being reasonably held accountable for the actions of it's contemporary volunteers and employees.

Just now, CynicalScouter said:

There is 0% change Congress will step in to stop abuse claims. That's absolutely radioactive.

I know, but I still hope.

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

As I read it, even if there is no valid, enforceable claims against certain councils, TCC want to know what money and assets they have to possibly force them into giving them up as part of a global settlement.

If I were a council in a state in which the statute of limitations has lapsed AND I was betting that a statue of limitations extension would NEVER happen (as it did in NY), I would tell them to pound sand.

That said, the TCC is once again making it really, really clear they are going to go after the chartered orgs.

If your chartered organization hasn't been notified, they darn well should be alerted ASAP. I know my council hasn't told my CO a thing (then again our unit it 13 years old, so the theory is I guess no way we'd get hit?)

 

I wonder what happens if the TCC tries to pull various COs affiliated with major relgions into this.  Does the national leadership of these various organizations then get engaged and try to push back?

I really wish that congress would put a stop to all this.

16 minutes ago, qwazse said:

In other words scouters should work their way through the advancement program to 1st class ... getting signed off by an SPL or JASM as they obtain skill mastery.

 

In content - probably essentially.  I wouldn't ask the adults to work through the program though - I'd do it much more interactively.   Have a Saturday morning where a knowledgeable Scouter teaches all the ins and outs of using an axe and creating an axe yard.  For volunteers I think you have to increase the interaction and make it more hands on.  That groups needs to add some fun and socializing to it.  In a sense there has to be a distinction between work and Scouting.

47 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Yep, and no body said that. Girl Scouts would be dealing with the exact same situation if they encourage more male leaders

 Barry

I'm not attempting to suggest that you are saying you don't want female leaders or girls in the program.  I'm pretty sure from earlier conversations you're happy that we have both in Scouting today.  My deepest regrets and apologies if you perceived otherwise.

I'm just proud of the fact that we have leaders and scouts of all different genders in Scouting today.  In fact, when I talk with my wife (who is a girl scout leader), I often point out that we have as many female leaders as we do male leaders in the program.  I think that's a really good thing.  In fact, many of the Scouters who I respect the most are women.  

I do get the point you are making.  The way I took it was that for a long time continuity in the Scouting program occurred because kids in the program turned into leaders in the program.  With a high percentage of leaders having a youth BSA Scouting background, it led to a pretty consistent program.  As the percentage of leaders with a youth BSA background dropped, we saw less consistency in the program.  New leaders without a Scouting program began to "guess" and "interpret" what they were supposed to do.

Regardless of why this transition has occurred, I don't doubt that it has.  Myself, I believe that the BSA has relied too much upon leaders showing up with prior experience.  It made the BSA unprepared for the time when leader development really mattered.  When that occurred, the BSA wasn't (and still isn't) prepared for it.  That the BSA training program today is essentially a few online orientation courses and a one weekend overnighter speaks to how little this is understood.  Scouting needs more in-person training, more in-person roundtables, more commissioners who understand how to mentor newer scouters.  Scouting need COs to develop stronger units so that those units have enough continuity and senior leadership to effectively run an unit.  Scouting needs a stronger development program for senior Scouters like we were discussing. 

If I had my way, I think there's a whole shift in mindset that needs to occur.  Encourage experienced leaders to share their knowledge.  Make roundtables work again by having them be hands on, Scouter workshops.  Make roundtable a series of four 15 minute talks by experienced Scouters where they teach and share knowledge.  Bring back Scouting magazine - but have it be filled with article after article with "how to" stuff.  Make the BSA the role model in outdoor adventure for kids.  Create such an adult learning environment in the BSA that adults want to attend roundtable just to talk about gear and adventure.  Stuff like that...

2 hours ago, yknot said:

Does anyone seriously think more girl dads are somehow bad for the future of scouting?

Nope.  And I don't think that more girl moms or more boy moms are bad either.  I've always found the best indicator for success in Scouting is a desire to be a great leader.  I'm thrilled with the diversity we see amongst the leaders.

2 hours ago, yknot said:

I don't think enthusiasm is the issue. I think the issue is that fully entrenched scouters perhaps are not as cognizant of how the child abuse scandals have affected the way the general public views scouting and has created a perception that we are out of touch.  I have literally sat through that song at least a dozen times. Maybe it's just our Council but those darn WB'ers bust it out at holiday meetings and COHs and Roundtables. I actually don't mind the Council events because everyone there is used to it. I don't like it at the unit level because many of our families have this image of scouters as being impressive LEOs or Corporate Execs or Vets but when they start singing that song, it's as if they've suddenly sprouted mouse ears. 

 

Holy cow!  They sing it that often outside of Wood Badge.  Yes, I think (and really hope) that it's something specific to your council.  I first attended Wood Badge about ten years ago and have never seen it done outside of a Wood Badge event.  I would mind the council events because it's not an appropriate venue for something like that.   It's not that I think it's bad or should be hidden - but almost never do people outside of a group think traditions like that are as fun as the people do in the group.  Building resentment like that only cheapens the thing you are trying to hold up as special.

I'm perfectly happy to swap the word entrenched for enthusiastic.  You've captured well what I was thinking.

48 minutes ago, HICO_Eagle said:

Um, no.  Yes, Scouting has a lot of bling but no, it's NOT part of "the culture" -- or wasn't IMO.  There are always people who want to show off but elements like knots instead of letting adults wear the Eagle badge itself were an effort to tone down the bling.  Skill award belt loops weren't so much bling as a display of credentials.

For the most part, the only things I put on my uniform as an adult were the Eagle and AOL knots and the Trained badge -- and those were just to show my experience and credentials.  Anyone who knew me already knew my background and experience and those who didn't know me were free to make up their own minds about me based on my demonstrated behaviors.

As far as the case cited about a beading ceremony at a COH putting off Scouts and parents, I quite understand.  IMO that's just showing off for the adults in question.  It's a youth program.  The adults can show off for their peers at Roundtable or something else.  One of the reasons I spent most of my time at the unit level was that I had little patience for the games and politics played by adults at the district and council level.  I only got involved at those levels when requested and only when it appeared I could have an impact for even more youth (e.g., organizing district camporees or assisting with the shooting sports committee).

By bling, I simply meant that we're used to getting patches, t-shirts, and other similar items for attending events.  Go to camporee, get a patch - that kind of thing.  This is why I don't mind a few items for a specialty training like this.

On the topic of showing off I'm a bit more restrictive myself.  I believe our culture should be consistent and that we shouldn't ever show off.   5-10 minutes for a beading at any meeting - regardless of whether it's pack meeting or a roundtable.  I don't think it should ever be a big to-do.  That said, I don't think we should ignore adult accomplishments.  If anyone does something noteworthy, let's celebrate it.

20 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Wow, I like this a lot. And I think scouters would enjoy it. We talk a lot about Scouting being for the youth. But, adults enjoy growth and develop passion with the experience of maturing as  a leader. Creating passion is probably what WB does best.

The courses can be presented in such a way that participants attend a more advance environment as well. We had an old-timer who was involved in the development of the original WB course. He eventually developed an advance Scout Leader Outdoors course where the participants spent a couple weekends backpacking. They learned advanced knots, first-aid, cooking and so-forth. The instructor spent time on the reasons and theories of the skills so that the participants became experts of why and when to use these skills. Something the old WB course did as well. Since only one person led the class, it was very limited, which was very frustrating because there was a long long waiting list. It was the favorite of all our classes.

So, my point is make the advanced classes both in education and experience.  Not sure how yet since we want committee leaders an equal part of the course. But we are creative.

 

Good job. I'm really excited with your idea. 

Barry

Thanks for the great feedback.  

This is where I'd really love for the BSA larger structure to foster this kind of initiative.  A council would pioneer this, show value, then the area, etc...  At some point, BSA national could internalize this and roll it out more broadly.  We really shouldn't need to wait for national for this kind of thing.  

As an advanced course, I would consider the topics advanced.  I would not tone it down at all for those committee members who want to attend the advanced Scoutmaster course.  If that means you only hold it every other year or that it becomes an area course - so be it.  Make the course matter.

44 minutes ago, yknot said:

It was about a 10 to 15 minute ceremony -- not bad and that part was all fine. There were a bunch of WB people in attendance however from our local troops as well as guests of the person who had earned his wood badge and they all got up to sing the song that talks about what animal they are. I didn't want to say this in my original post because it is harsh but that song does not play well in this day and age with some folks. It makes scouters seem very odd to some and reinforces the perception that some have that there are some very odd, out of the mainstream folks involved in scouting. If it had been one or two people I think it would have been fine but the new parents' reactions were that there didn't seem to be one normal adult in the troop that they would trust around their kid -- the ones who were singing it and the rest of the folks who seemed to think it was a normal thing to do. 

I find that sometimes the more enthusiastic Scouters tend to forget how that enthusiasm can come across.  Just because people who are into Scouting enjoy something doesn't mean that everyone else does too.  I've seen lots of stuff that Scouters do that to a casual parent is indeed pretty odd.

I do not believe it is ever appropriate to sing the Wood Badge song outside of Wood Badge.  It's not a show, it's not a production.  Don't sing it at a beading, don't sing it at a campfire.  It's a tradition of the course that is done for the enjoyment of the participants.  Do it with other Wood Badge participants and enjoy it together - don't make others sit through it.

19 hours ago, Eagledad said:

OK, your post makes sense.

My WB experiences are all good. Of course I'm the kind of person that makes my experience good.

Our courses are presented very well because our Council has a tradition of presenting good courses. I have observed that some courses are better than others as each tends toward the personality of the course director. But, even the worst course is good. 

As I said, I was excited with the new WB course because I felt it fit better for improving overall unit adult performance. 

All that being said, I talk to a lot of scouters and most of them couldn't really explain exactly what they learned on the whole. Which was OK, because my focus was always on ticket design.

Still, I believe folks struggled to explain the main objective of the course is because the material isn't presented well in the since that each subject or discussion is a piece of a larger picture. If the course director gets it, then the course presents each part as part of the whole. But, if they don't, then the presenters practices and presents each subject as described in the WB Syllabus without much thought to connecting all the presentations together. 

However, no mater how the course is presented, if the participants had a good experience, they believe they attended a good course. As you know, we have a lot of fun.

I'm not asking for the demise of the WB course, it think it's the best they have presently for the goals of team building. If I were king of the world, I would put a Harley in every garage and then I would scrap all the training materials today and start over. Actually I would go back to the pre 2000 courses because I thought they were much better, but I would adjust them to fit today. I would push WB back to an advance SM Course and create an advanced Adult Leaders course that would resemble todays WB a lot in content, but not the troop presentation. I would call it, Flaming Arrow. FA for short. 

I think units today are missing senior scouters who are respected for not only their experience, but their extensive Scouting knowledge and Education. That sounds like you ParkMan. And that is exactly what the WB course did for participants before it got hijacked in the 80s as a king of the hill type program. Woodbadgers where supposed to be respected teachers. Simple, but we are talking the Google Search of Scouting. Respect comes from hard work and humble application. Those people want to improve scouting without taking any credit. It's hard to imagine that kind of respect for even WB Course Directors today. There are a few, but that respect isn't necessary to direct the course.

What the BSA needs right now is an advanced scouter course with the intention of the WB goals. But in a format that a Scouter from a Pack would feel at home as much as the Venturing Scouter. Or the the Committee Chair want of education as the SM. I believe the format would be more on a business professional spending two or three days at a conference center. I ran our council Junior Leadership course that way and the scouts loved it because the new format set all the participants equal at the very beginning. Doesn't matter whether the participant comes from the pack, troop, Venturing Crew, District Committee, or Council Committee, they all start at the same place. 

Most here probably didn't know that the early Wood Badge course was so respected by it's format and content that several businesses would send employees to the course. Others would accept the experience as credit for hiring. Interesting considering the course was intended for Scoutmasters. A lot of it had to do with how the top level staffers worked with the lower level staffers (Team dynamics). But, also once the participant understands how the format leads to  gaining knowledge, the experience can be applied in the business world. That is what I would try get back with the Advance Scouter course. 

As for presenting a course online, I would design courses that would give the scouters more knowledge for their responsibilities in their units, but also wet their appetite for attending the rest of the course together for full respect for being a Flaming Arrow. Still haven't thought through wearing a Flaming Arrow around the neck. Needs more time for that.. 

Barry

@Eagledad - thanks for the wonderful post.  You've captured a lot of great points here.

How to improve Wood Badge - I agree with you that it would be a better course if the material naturally helped paint the bigger picture.  I've watched course directors work hard to build those connections amongst the staff.  I can certainly confirm that doing it well is a benefit, but that not every course will have a course director who can do that.

How to revamp BSA training - I see a very similar problem in the BSA.  There is a lack of depth of knowledge at the unit and district level these days - to your point those senior Scouters who make this all work magically.  You describe that very well and I concur.  In a sense, I wonder how much of the various training efforts around the BSA are really all trying to address this issue.  

I would welcome an advanced unit Scouter course that covers the mechanics of unit level Scouting.  In fact, I could see a small collection of such advanced, in person courses.  A weekend or two for each sounds correct to me.  These are serious courses for serious people.

• leadership development & team building
• advanced Scoutmaster training
• advanced unit mechanics
• advanced district mechanics

While I don't think I'd lobby for it, I also wouldn't argue if the Wood Badge regalia went back to the advanced Scoutmaster training. 

1 minute ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Once the camel's nose comes into the tent....

This is where I sure hope that local training teams are showing the value of local training.  In-person training is usually better than online training.

The one time in-person training isn't better is when the in-person training is crappy.  

47 minutes ago, CynicalScouter said:

It's coming. It was announced in that group by someone on the National Committee the same time as virtual ILST/ILSC that virtual IOLS is coming soon/within a week.

I know several councils that did improper/unauthorized virtual IOLS and/or allowed for "testing out" of IOLS due to COVID in the spring. That pissed off the folks a Scouting U. (those left after the purge/layoffs) so this is now coming to allow or authorized virtual IOLS.

Is the virtual IOLS because of Covid?  That was the impression of the point of the virtual ILST/ILSC I saw on that facebook page.

41 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

OK, but I staffed a few courses myself. I counseled a lot of participants for their Tickets and I worked with a lot of adults in my units.

In general scouters are recruited from the day they join. Not like grabbing them and pulling them to a course, but telling them that WB is the final ultimate course. Oh, it doesn't hurt to get the woggle that all the other experienced leaders wear.

And, I can honestly to We will just have to agree to disagree. 

Barry

What keep striking me in many of these comments about Wood Badge is that I feel like I'm seeing a world painted that I just don't see.  I'm the first to admit that I could be wrong and perhaps that's what it is.

I have a suspicion that there's another possibility - we're seeing differences in how our councils operate. 

• I only signed up for Wood Badge because I'd heard about it in my youth.  When the flyer came around, it rang a bell and so I said - hey, this was a big deal for the ASM of the troop I was in as a kid, I should look at it.  No one ever mentioned it to me.  I've been to enough roundtables and district committee meetings to know that Wood Badge gets mentioned maybe once or twice a year.  There is next to zero arm twisting in our council
• The staff on our courses is very well prepared and work exceedingly hard.  They put in tons of hours and have a very high level of integrity in the course.
• Selection for Wood Badge staff is almost entirely by merit and reputation. Good staffers then continue on to staff again.
• I rarely see any kind of Wood Badge show.  I only see WB regalia at the occasional council recognition event, round table, or other large council function.  Wearing beads is hit or miss - even amongst staffers
• I see almost no selection for district or council level positions because of Wood Badge experience.

I write all this out not to suggest that you are wrong - not at all.  But, I wonder how much of this goes back to the same, repeated topic here, of we've got "good" councils and "bad" councils in the BSA.  Some full of hard working Scouters and some full of cliques and politics.  In this dynamic, programs that otherwise are well meaning get caught up and then get blamed.  It's not that Wood Badge itself is fundamentally bad - but that "bad" Scouters have soured yet another Scouting experience.  Wood Badge is certainly not perfect.  It's a training course - it's got good parts and bad parts.  If done well, it can be an asset to Scouting.  Done poorly, it's detracts from Scouting.  This is no different from any program element in Scouting

38 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

No, most folks take the course for the Status, not the skills.

Respectfully, I don't think this is true.  As a staffer myself, I have met very few participants who signed up because they wanted the status.  Most folks I know won't invest two weekends of their life and a bunch of extra time for "Scouting status".  Most people I know really don't care that much about Scouting that they want some kind of perceived status.  

Most participants I've talked to say pretty much one of two things:

• I'm a new leader and I thought this would help me be a better leader
• I'm an experienced leader and people have been telling me for years I should take it.  I had some time this year and so I did.

I'm not naive enough to think that there are not places and times where people do take it for status.  Yet, for every one of those there are probably many more participants that take it for the right reasons.

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Except, it isn't. I've taken lots of leadership development programs. None involve or include open displays of proof of completion (beads) after the fact. None include semi-constant references to the same. Even when the beads are not visible, other things are (jackets, neckerchiefs, etc.) And the main function of post-WB seems to be encouraging everyone to "go to WB".

Except that it's uh... Scouting.  Scouting has all kinds of bling for stuff.  It's just part of the culture of Scouting.  You plop down $250, spend a couple of weekends at camp, and spend a ton of hours working on some projects for your unit.  You get a neckerchief and some beads.  That doesn't seem crazy to me that you get a little bling.

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

I've seen more antipathy towards WB than anything else in Scouting when it comes to Scouters.

You were OA as a kid? Cool.

You were an Eagle? Cool (I will say, just as an aside, being an Eagle Scout does NOT mean you'd make a good committee member or ASM, but it makes it easier. I think "he was an Eagle" has too much weight when it comes to "do they know how to run a committee", but I digress)

WB is either looked on as "meh" (at best) or open hostility.

I am neither an OA member nor an Eagle Scout.  I cannot tell you how much I've heard about both.  OA chapters, OA lodges, the OA running campfires, OA tapouts, OA ordeals, OA sashes, OA patches, conclaves, etc.  The requirements to be an OA member as an adult are more exclusive than Wood Badge.  OA is much more of a fraternity than Wood Badge will ever be. 

The Eagles stuff isn't as strong - but there clearly is an assumption that just because someone is an Eagle Scout that they are a superior leader.  I think you described this well.

I suspect that the real issue here is that it's simply become an accepted part of Scouter culture that's a good target.  It makes us all feel better to pick on Wood Badge and the people who take it.  In the process, we end up openly discouraging people from getting some training that could help them along their journey as a volunteer.

Again, it's just a course.

50 minutes ago, Sentinel947 said:

Hopefully the new 5 year on staff rule will break up the insularity of many Wood Badge Staff groups. Ultimately Wood Badge suffers from trying to be too many things for too many people. A talent staff can overcome it, if they are focused on the right things. Easier said than done.

The concept of the 5 year rule is sound - but the choice of 5 years was wrong.  7-9 would have been appropriate.  The implication of the 5 year rule is:

• You have to serve 1 year as a troop guide
• You have to serve 1 year as course director
• You have to serve 1 year as asst. course director.

That means that 3 years of your tenure on the course are spoken for.  That leaves 2 years for other positions.  It is beneficial for a course director to have been in other positions - asst. quartermaster, quartermaster, scribe, ASM logistics, ASM Troop guides, religious coordinator, etc...  What this is going to force council's to do is promote course directors very quickly and the course will end up with less experienced course directors.  That's not to say someone cannot do it that quickly.  However, at a national level we will see  that less experienced course directors will have a negative impact on the quality of the courses.

Push that out a couple of years and I think that would have been about right. A Course Director with 7 years of experience in the program is appropriate.

12 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

As someone who was asked to work with struggling units while on District, I liked the new WB course because the vast majority of the issues I was dealing with were adults who didn't understand the goals of the program and didn't know how to operate as a team. Scouts skills (at all levels, Cubs Troops, vetnuring) were not issues causing these units to struggle. Understanding why they were there and working as a team was the number one issue I was dealing with. 

Where National failed with the new WB was they took the WB name and respected reputation to develop the team building course. They should have started with something completely new. Now everybody wants a woggle. Shesh.

I look at this and don't think failure.

I see that the biggest obstacles to unit health today are organizational.  Packs & Troops that don't put on fun programs, don't recruit parents to help, don't grow to a sustainable size, etc.  Better knowledge of Scout skills would help certainly - but that isn't why packs and troops fold.

So the BSA leadership has done a good job with marketing - take something desirable and align it to one of your problems.  Now lots of new leaders are motivated to complete Wood Badge and hopefully along the way improve their organizational skills.  Isn't that a good thing?

2 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I've ran into those critters. I've also ran into critters who believed if you aren't wearing beads, you don't  know squat. I found it interesting that when i suggested something, it was ignored. When my beaded friend suggested the same thing, it was brilliant. 

I'd just remind us all that Wood Badge is nothing more than a leadership development program.  A Scouter pays their money to attend, the complete the course, they work their ticket, and they receive their beads.  There is no board of review and there is no test for membership.  No one checks your ethics on the way to the beading.  No one looks to see if you're a saint or a jerk.  Completing your Wood Badge makes you no better as a Scouter or  person that anything else - it just hopefully provides some tools that let you be more effective.  Similarly, completing your Wood Badge doesn't make you a pompas wind bag either.  I have a hunch that the people who flaunt their beads are simply just arrogant people who like to do that kind of thing - if it wasn't Wood Badge it would be something different.

In a program that really has too little training for it's volunteers, I'm glad that Wood Badge exists.  I'd love to see other, similar programs for different roles in Scouting.  An advanced Scoutmaster course for example.

It's just a class folks.

It's probably easier to simply provide federal incentives and contracts to supply last mile broadband service.  I suspect that it will end up being a wireless technology anyways.

The FCC could administer the program.  If money needed to be raised for it, just place a small monthly surcharge on every communications subscription in the US.  The 95% of us that have good connectivity could fund the 5% that do not.

1 hour ago, TAHAWK said:

"results"?   Complex factors in her life got her to that state, most beyond the control of a training course staff.  Some people are simply more emotionally vulnerable than others.  Routine life is harder for them, and they need friends who can shelter them from day-to-day stress, like competitive candy throwing or singing in "public."   They find it hard to engage in unfamiliar activities amidst strangers.  She was possibly "talked into" attending against her instincts. The lady mentioned needed to just leave if her patrol mates and TG could not help her successfully cope.   I have never seen the gate locked. 

I do have to wonder how attentive the troop guide was in this case.  When I was a troop guide, it was impressed upon us just how important it was to be aware of the engagement level of each of the participants.   Are they learning, are they frustrated, are they having a good experience, etc.?  Is someone naturally a quiet person or is something going on that they've pulled back?  We always really internalized the idea that we wanted to do everything we could to maximize what people took away from the course.  In the interest of living the servant leadership model, we did it quietly, gladly, and to the best of our abilities. 

While it is certainly possible that she hid it very well, I do have to wonder if signs from her were just missed.   But - it is also certainly possible that she simply hid it well too.  Despite the effort expended, we were people too and sometimes we missed things.  No staff is perfect.