ParkMan

10 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Seems like a reasonable, intellectual, and pragmatic approach to THIS topic. However, not only have I not seen your reasonable approach attempted during the gay and transgender topics, they were basically ignored by both National and frowned against by many members of this forum. So, I don't expect much cooperation on family dynamics by National. I don't hold much hope for the forum.

Barry

This forum has helped me to understand just how varied a country we have.  I've been debating some decisions here that I did not expect to.  It helped me to understand the challenge faced by the BSA. 

I'm not sure who of us on the forum has the ability to plant the idea at National.  I'm still waiting for my National Committee invite.  

It would be interesting to explore how the BSA could have approached the gay and transgender membership decisions in a way that would have kept us above the political hot potato it became.

7 minutes ago, blw2 said:

 

Well aren't they inferior?

No of course there are exceptions.... a family with an abusive father is better off without that father

but generally speaking single parent families are a real shame.  Nothing wrong or shameful about them...hey, it happens.... and it is awesome that one parent goes that extra mile to raise the kids....but they are a sad situation and should not be looked at as a good goal to shoot for....IMHO.

I guess I feel the same about "non traditional families".  Sure some work well perhaps, and a kid raised in one of those is much better off than they would be in a abusive or otherwise broken "traditional" family....but again IMHO it's not the goal to strive for.  And besides....you might even argue that in many cases Latin Scott's "rules" still apply in at least some cases, probably most as far as I know, that of the non-traditional parent takes on the father role and one the mother role, regardless of gender. 

...and no, in a healthy family the roles are most definitely not interchangeable.  I don't mean that in the ways that there are women's jobs and men's jobs.....  I do the dishes most of the time in my family which is a traditionally "women's job" & I'm a dad.  No, men and women are inherently different and both of those very different roles are healthy for kids...IMO

Not going to get into the debate on that here.  But, it does raise a question I hit on earlier.

It's clear that as a country - this is an unsettled question.  There are those that feel they are, those that feel they are not.

It strikes me that it doesn't help the BSA or the Scouts to take a position on it.  Of course those that agree will be glad the BSA is teaching that through the advancement process.  Feels like the best role for the BSA is to stick to developing youth in non-controversial areas. 

If the BSA absolutely needs to wade into a sensitive area like this, then perhaps they ought to be up front about it, ask the scouts to understand both sides of the topic, and then articulate their own beliefs on the topic.

4 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Tell me about it. My troop is stuck in a rut. There is a way to fix it, but being boy led takes too long, and is time consuming. "Don't need PLC meetings." "SM tells SPL what he wants done and SPL tells the troop what to do."

 

It is far easier and faster to be adult led, and have a mediocre, repetitive program, than let the Scouts run with it.

Reminds me of my of my sad moments as a Scouter.

Had a bunch of Webelos visiting the troop one night.  While the scouts were off doing something, the parents were talking with the SPL.  One of them asked the SPL what his job was.  He thought for a moment and responded - "to do whatever the Scoutmaster tells me to do."

1 hour ago, NJCubScouter said:

Thank you.  I don't know whether I had seen that.  It doesn't fill me with great confidence that although the program will be "Scouts BSA," they couldn't even get through the introduction before calling it "Scout BSA," without an s.   

You'd think that for such an important document, 6 people must have reviewed it too.  

56 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

Thanks, that makes more sense to me.  Or perhaps the BSA needs to "simplify, simplify."

I'd agree with that too. Look at how much time we all spend here discussing the nuances of boy led.  For such a simple concept, it sure takes lots of analysis.  Given the amount we talk about it, I guess about 1 troop in 10 acutally gets it right.

40 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

Challenge is that people complain about training being to long as it is. Yet compard to previous trainings, it's a cakewalk. Then you got those who think they know it all.

Agreed as well!  Yet, it feels to me like the single biggest challenge to Scouting today is crappy troop programs.  They're too smart to need training, but yet cannot get a decent program together.  How many Scouts quit because of boring program?

Perhaps we have

Every so often some of the troop leaders will get into a discussion such as "we need to figure out how a planning meeting should be run."  I'll smile, say "already done", and point to one of those.

Maybe instead writing "define", I need to write "train on".

46 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

CC is largely hand off. I know there is some history for it, but do not it. A MC and ASM who know the history want to keep it that way.

While I have looked at other troops, my sons are not interested at the moment in changing. Oldest is seeing the challenges of dealing with the adults and situation as a learning experience. However he did say if the situation gets to a point he cannot stand, he will transfer. Middle son just got elected PL, so he is being optimistic and trying to change from within. But he too said if he starts getting bored, he will go. Wife commented that she hopes they transfer before youngest crosses over in Dec- Jan.

Vice-chair?

I'm not surprised that the new adults are running over the SM.

I hear you - but it strikes me that the BSA needs to focus on defining program mechanics.  Advancement, how patrols work, how to organize a camping trip, what you do on a camping trip, etc...  The program is the same for a boy troop, girl troop, linked troop, co-ed troop, whatever.  

@Eagle94-A1 - you need to promote yourself to Scoutmaster or CC.  The stuff going on in your troop is the result of troop leadership that isn't translating the program into operational decisions.  There's lots of materials defining how camping trips work.  This whole family camping thing is some marketing bullets.  Some new parents coming in and upending BSA program because they heard something about family camping is not correct.  Someone once told me "a Boy Scout troop is not a democracy, it's a benelovent dictatorship."  You encourage engagement from parents, but the CC ultimately needs to keep the adults pointed in the right direction.  If the CC isn't doing that, then the troop needs a new CC or you need to find a new troop.

2 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

 

Gwaihir (who doesn't usually agree with me) correctly states what I meant.  But it does bring up a point that I should clarify, which is that when I said we all need to get our terminology straight, I was including National.  I have posted a number of times (maybe including in this thread) about various ways in which National was using vague and sometimes misleading terms, and sometimes using them in self-contradictory ways.  The prime example in my opinion is the phrase "Family Scouting," which I have posted about several times.  A close second is "linked troops."  They need to come out with a detailed set of guidelines as to how "linked troops" will relate to each other and how they won't, including the terminology to be used, so hopefully we who labor out here in the field can accurately relate the facts to others, and comply with the rules.  (Maybe they have, but I haven't seen it, and my troop may need it soon, as it seems that we (including our CO) probably will be "open" to the idea if someone asks us.)

I want to NOT have to read between the lines, but who am I?  Just a random troop committee member.  You are correct that it was announced as a separate program, which at least implied that the new program would have a separate name.  It didn't happen that way, which I think is a big mistake.  But the numbers will tell, eventually.

I'm not so sure that they do need to come out with more specifics.

The BSA is basically providing us a program that we implement locally.  Perhaps it would just be better if the BSA let's us all sort it out locally.  Does it really matter if some particularly progressive people in one part of the country want to have closely linked troops whereas some very conservative people in another part do not want boys and girls to mix at all?  Doesn't that really give us all the freedom to run troops according to our own values?

I do understand that this won't sit well with those who want the BSA to stand for a particular moral position.  But, perhaps it's best for the BSA to simply provide a program for us and to stay above the fray.

5 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

I'm on board with this approach

I would be too.

Would be interesting to see if they'd go that far.  That's a pretty controversial topic these days.  I get the distinct imoression that the current leadership team doesn't want to be that involved in these kinds of social controversies anymore.

I get the sense that they just want to focus on program delivery and not so much what the program content implies.  They seem happy to leave it to us to decide the moral issues locally.

Tampa Turtle,

I am sorry to see you go.  The forum will be poorer without your voice.

It is sad to see the casualties of the recent changes.  I hope the moderators reflect on your statement.  There is nothing that could be posted here that would cause me distress and I hope the moderators don't feel undue pressure on our behalf.

I hope you continue Scouting and have many happy days of camping ahead of you.

2 hours ago, walk in the woods said:

Actually the CSE very specifically said, on multiple occasions, the BSA is not going co-ed.  Are you saying the CSE lied to us? 😱

This is a silly game.  Let's find a way to parse what the CEO said so we can ignore the reality.

Let's see...

The specific program formerly known as Boy Scouts is not going co-ed.  The BSA is starting a parallel implementation of the same program in which girls can participate.  Overall, the membership policies of the BSA will now allow both  girls and boys the ability to fully participate in it's offerings.  In Cub Scouts, the girls and boys will participate in the same program, but in parallel dens.  In Scouts BSA, the girls and boys will participate in the same program in parallel troops.  Both Venturing and Sea Scouts are already fully co-ed.

2 hours ago, Gwaihir said:

There should have been two magazines.  All of this program change is in the name of growth.  Grow then.  Make a new magazine, have some cross-over content, and then have some content specific to girls and boys wants.  Feature male heroes in Boys' Life and female heroes and role models in Life for Girls.  Changing everything to neutral is lazy circling of the wagons.  

I think folks misunderstand what is really going on here.  The BSA is going co-ed.  While you can have boy troops and girl troops, it is becoming a  co-ed activity.

It's not circling of the wagons, it's a clear choice of the executive board of the BSA.  Girls are becoming equal members of the movement.  That's why the name changes and admittance to the OA don't surprise me.  They shouldn't surprise anyone else either.

These things are not program.  Program is activities, camping, youth led, advancement, etc. Program is not the name of the magazine or who can belong to the OA.  Program is what the OA does and how it does it.

You can have all the outrage at it that you want, but it's just the evolution of the decision they made last year. 

I just was watching the video with Bryan and Anthony Berger (sp?).  What was the deal with the neckercheifs they were wearing?  Did I miss a topic somewhere?

6 hours ago, ScouterNorth said:

This is the best summary I've seen so far.

Yes the program will survive in some form, but it will not be the same and actually cannot possibly stay the same.  When you change who you are marketing to then your membership will change and what they want in a program will change.

I came up during the program of Boy Scouts Canada 30 years ago.   I've since participated in the roll out of the new program of Scouts Canada.  The two can't even be compared as they are so incredibly different.  

The BSA's program will change.  Maybe not abruptly, but it will change and 10-15 years I'm guessing that  kids who are near 14-15 now will scarcely recognize it.

Whether that's or good or bad will be up to debate, but in the end only one metric will indicate success or failure from the Administration's point of view - Membership Numbers.

Respectfully, I see it differently.

The program of the BSA really have never been the primary problem for the BSA.  It's been loss of interest.  Changing the basics of the program won't help.  What will help is a concerted effort to make it more fun.  Not fun through different badges, but more fun through a better understanding and application of the program we already have.

5 hours ago, FireStone said:

Kind of related to my original post and where I think we are going from here, in particular modeling the BSA after Scouts UK, as it relates to uniforms I think we should expect more of the UK model there as well. In the "Adding Girls to the Pack" thread (page 9) on this forum there is a video with Anthony Berger, and towards the end he talks about how the WOSM regards just the neckerchief as being "in uniform". And he's wearing his neckerchief in the UK style, with the friendship knot. 

I fully expect to see more of this and a reduced emphasis on Class A uniforming in the BSA. I think we'll always have Class A, but more for ceremonies, COH, Blue & Gold, formal events, etc. In fact I think this video was pretty much confirmation (unofficially of course) that this is happening already. We should expect to see more of the UK-style larger neckers in the BSA, especially going into WSJ '19.  

That's one of my few purist hopes.  I do not want to see the uniform go away.  

We have an assistant Advancement Chair the serves as the Board of Review Coordinator.  He's generally at meetings twice a month.  We ask scouts to contact him ahead of time to let him know, but it's not a strict rule.  If a scout shows up and requests one, he'll organize it on the spot if possible.

Part of the role of the BOR Coordinator is to develop training materials for adults.  We will have any non ASM sit on a BOR.  It could be a parent or Committee Member.  Over time, the BOR Coodinator has built up enough folks that are knowledgeable in conducting a board that we always have a lead adult who is experienced and two other adults who may or may not be.  

This has worked very well for us and has been a great way to get an outgoing parent involved.

2 minutes ago, Chris1 said:

I was just thinking from a scientific and statistical analysis standpoint it would be good to have information from both sides.

I get the feeling that many people feel the majority of scouters are on THEIR side, and those that disagree are a "crazy fringe group"  .  

So if we all give our opinion along with our background maybe we will see a device along age, or when they started as a scouter, or geography, or district/council involvement, or involvement is specific programs, or if commissioners tend to feel one way, while those who have attended jamboree feel another, or if training staff tend to differ from those who have attended 2 or more national high adventure bases.  Etc 

Let us all TRY to stay respectful, and accept the right of others to have a DIFFERENT opinion. 

I think it has  less to do with Scouting history and a lot more to do with geography.  I'm east coast born, raised, and educated.  I live in a pretty progressive city and have for 20 years.

I'd suggest if we do that, let's start a separate thread.  I think that cuts down on the tendency to try & convince others.

I'm excited about the recent changes as well.  Initially I was apprehensive about girls, but after a couple of months I thought it through and am very excited about it.

I'm a father with a son and two daughters.  I love my daughters dearly and want them to have the same opportunities that I did.  They are both Girl Scouts now and may stay that way - it's their choice.  But, I'm very excited that they have the opportunity to benefit from the program that I did.

I was a Cub Scouts and earned Arrow of Light.  I was a Boy Scout and stopped at Star.  I was not OA.  As an adult, I've not been a Scoutmaster - but have been: Asst. Cubmaster, Cubmaster, Den leader, Pack Committee Chair, Troop Committee Chair, Crew Committee Chair, and District Committee member.  My brother is a Life for Life and OA member.  My father was an Eagle, Webelos Den leader, and Cubmaster.  My grandfather a Scoutmaster and Silver Beaver recipient.  Scouting has very deep ties in our family. 

4 hours ago, Thunderbird said:

While I cannot speak for anybody else, as a female, I would have felt perfectly comfortable reading a magazine called "Boys Life".  If I were younger and joining the BSA because of its program, I would not want or expect the program to change its name or that of its magazine just to accommodate me.  Obviously, it would make sense to change a few things here and there (like the Family Life merit badge requirement on what it means to be an effective father).  But I don't see why changing the name of the program or the magazine is necessary or "Thrifty".

And as a boy, I'd have been just as comfortable reading a magazine called Scouts Life.

It's not the BSA changing it's name to accomodate a few people.  The intent of the BSA is to be co-ed.  Strikes me that they are making it pretty clear to girls that it's their program too now.

18 hours ago, Gwaihir said:

I still think it matters today.  I'm speaking of 10-15 years down the road.  Since inception, it's 2%, but the number annually is up to 6% and climbing.  The "since inception" number will stay low for a very long time since that's how percentages work, but the annual numbers are relevant to the living, and when Eagle scout is the chief marketing tool, you'll see that number continue to climb and the requirements to earn it diminish.  I want to be proven wrong and in 15 years, I'll return here and see if I am. 

I'm not sure if you're talking about today or in the future, but I don't find the Eagle to be the chief marketing tool.  Honestly - I don't see a lot of BSA marketing at all, so I don't think "Join Scouts and earn Eagle" is that much of a thing.

In my area, Scouts generally join because it seems fun.  Many stick around to earn Eagle, but I've never seen a Scout openly say - "I'm only, or even primarly, here to earn Eagle"

3 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

Keeping the word boy in the name of the organization or the magazine would be perpetuating the patriarchal hierarchy of oppression........

Or removing the word boy from the name and magazine of an organization for girls and boys would just be the logical thing to do.

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

That's the thing, the girls I want like the product we have. If they don't know that they'll like it, changing the name of the product doesn't help. Keep the name, add a tag line: "also for girls who like scouting." Sell, sell, sell.

Somehow I don't think the girls give two hoots whether it's called "Boys Life" or "Scout Life".

Since it looks like the editors did a search and replace on "Boys Life" and replaced it with "Scout Life".  They add a few more pictures with girls.  Sounds exactly like the same magazine to me.

Now, where do I see the BSA In 5-10 years.

Coed - all units will be fully coed.  No-one will think twice about it starting in 2022.  By that time the old "boys only" folks will be aging out and members will only know a co-ed Scouting program.  Boys and Girls will get along just fine.

Membership numbers - membership will decline until 2021.  At that point, the new girls joining will offset the natural decline in the number of boys joining.  We will see modest growth in the 2021+.

Program - it will be exactly the same program we have now.  Maybe a few new merit badges.

Outdoor activities - same outdoor program we have now.  

Uniform - there will be a new uniform.  It will look much like the old uniform - just as every Scout uniform has for 50 years.

OA - the OA will still be called the OA, but they will move past the Native American costuming and ceremonies.  The group will invent new ceremonies around the underlying themes, they just will look a little different.

I have to admit - the last few pages were an interesting read.  80% losses because we admitted girls?  Really?

Fundamentally - almost nothing has changed in the program.  We have the same ranks, same merit badges, same advancement process, same volunteer structure, same youth led troop, same camping plans, same high adventure bases, same patrol structure, same awards, same just about everything.

So they change the name from "Boy Scouts" to "Scouts".  They changed the name "Boys Life" to "Scouts Life" .  Cosmetic changes.  This isn't program.  The BSA just admitted girls - what did you think would happen to the word "boy"?

4 hours ago, NJCubScouter said:

There are many, many other threads where doom and gloom is the order of the day.  (Just as an aside, don't people get tired of that?  Day after day, week after week of the sky is falling?  Even if I thought the sky were falling, at some point I would get tired of saying it.  Of course, I know that a couple of people are already thinking, See, there he goes again, the jackbooted moderator trying to stifle discussion, so for the record, I am not trying to stifle discussion, and I never have.  I am mainly expressing puzzlement.)

Oh my goodness yes.  I'm not so much a supporter of the recent changes as I am a supporter of Scouting and the BSA.  I am so very tired of the constant prediction of the demise of the BSA & the constant derogatory comments about the BSA leadership and professionals.

I can't help but feel I could post about the color of Scout socks and it would be turn into a discussion about how the BSA will be dead in 5 years.

4 hours ago, NJCubScouter said:

*Over the years there have been a few "experiments" in keeping a particular thread very narrowly focused, in which the person who wanted to start the thread made advance arrangements with the moderators, and the moderators enforced those limitations.  But it would be very difficult to make that an everyday thing.

Sounds like a nice idea this one time.