ParkMan

Our troop is not pulling the trigger on this yet. Not out of philosophical reasons, but because we have parents who so believe in Scouting that they all have daughters in the GSUSA and are telling us they don't see any reason to change that. We just don't have the interest yet. What we did reason is that a quasi-linked troop structure makes sense. We'll share equipment, merit badge counsellors, planning help, etc. We'd offer joint signups for things like Merit Badge colleges. When we think about week to week program, we felt we'd need a core group of leaders who focus just on the

Funny - I was at a Scout meeting today. We got to talking about this topic. For as much as it sounds like the world is against it, we realized that just about every major pack in our area is planning to offer this. These are not paid employees of the BSA and no-one is twisting their arms. These are parents who have kids in the program. They've just looked at it and said "sounds good to us." The word from the troops so far is that they're likely to follow the pack's lead. The three biggest troops in the district have all said their open to it. I don't think folks are nearl

I do respect your opinions. For months, I've read thread after thread about how girls don't belong in troops, about how the BSA lied to us. I've listened for months as people has defamed the BSA, denigrated girls, and the GSUSA. I think I've been beyond respectful of folks who want to vent. But, for the sake of the movement we all hold so dear, there comes a point where we need to start saying - can we please move on.

I really think it's time to move on. The debate is really over - we can rehash it here, but the future of Scouting is co-ed. Yeah - maybe we weren't consulted - but it's done. The boys (and girls) will adjust just fine. The program will be just fine too. My recommendation is to move past rehashing this debate. Instead of fearing that girls are going to ruining Boy Scouting, work with the girls to create really strong co-ed troops.

I wonder if he see's the path to growth for girls really being separate girls only units.

The endgame for the BSA is the end to the phrases "boy scouts" and "girl scouts" in conjunction with it's program. It's just "scouts" now. We don't say "girl venturers" and "boy venturers" - it's just venturers. I'd suggest that as a community, we ought to embrace the new term and own in. Like it or not, it is what the program is now. Seems like we ought to get the most mileage from it we can.

Hah - didn't expect to see the thread get into discussion on being communist If anything the BSA is somewhere between a republic and an oligarchy

I'd disagree. The BSA just co-opted the general term for it's 11-17 program. It's: Cub Scouts - "I'm a Cub Scout", "I participate in Cub Scouts", "I have a Cub Scout meeting" Scouts - "I'm a Scout", "I participate in Scouts", "I have a Scout meeting" Venturing - "I'm a Venturer", "I participate in Venturing", "I have a Venturing meeting" - OK, not sure about that last one

That would be silly It's got to be: Cub Scouts are called Cub Scouts Sea Scouts are called Sea Scouts Scouts and called Scouts Venturers are called Venturers Explorers are called Explorers

That's my guess as to what will happen here at some point. For the next 5-6 years, it will be separate. This will allow anyone who is in the program today to migrate through. Once that happens, we'll start to see the transition. That feels pretty fair to me too - if you join the BSA today, you kinda know where it's heading.

Very fair. I do get that there are different styles out there in the world. Apologies if I seemed critical. What you describe is unusual me and I was just surprised enough that I kept thinking something was getting lost in our exchange. My abstraction would be this: - The COR and IH provide direction to the unit on how it should conduct the program. They also set the rules for how the unit interacts with the larger CO. - It is possible that the COR, IH, or even the IH's managers extend that authority to others in the organization of the CO. Basically, the IH could say - let

It's 15 minutes into the football game, and the art teacher (who is not the field supervisor) goes up to the football coach and says "for the rest of the game, I want you to run only these new plays I've created". The football coach is supposed to just obey?

If your troop committee is like mine, they're just hesitant to a new big project that doesn't help improve the program for their sons. The path in our troop is for some adults interested in doing this to spearhead it. 4-5 adults who are willing to work to make it happen. The rest of the committee will support it if they get it going. My recommendation: 1) figure out if you CO would be open to it. If no, then there is probably little point. 2) start talking about the possibility with folks. See if other parents are interested. If yes, develop a proposal and take it to t

Welcome to the forum @BigDale!

I'm not following your thinking. A good analogy is a sports team. If this were a high school, a teacher would not be allowed to go to the football team and start telling the coach how to run the team.

If it seems that way - I'm sorry, but that's not my intent. The principal (as the IH) and COR asked us to run a scouting program at their facility. The 3rd grade teacher did not. Why would the principal and COR want me to start changing around the program because the 3rd grade teacher showed up at the scout meeting and started telling me how to run a scout troop? BTW - I'm not picking on 3rd grade teacher. My wife and mother are teachers.

Ouch! Thats awful! It's tough to discuss situations without specifics. I'm gathering that it wasn't something ridiculous where the VP made a mistake and the student should have known better. If it was, that's a different case. But, assuming it really was a case where the student got caught between two adults who legitimatly disagreed... If I were the parent this would have resulted in a meeting between me and principal. "Your band VP told my son to do this and say no to the teacher. It is ridiculous that you are now suspending him because he was caught between two adults o

Really - that's what the adults (probably just the SM or CC) are for. I wouldn't expect any scout to openly defy any adult. I would expect the more experienced scouts to be aware enough to call in an adult to help. If a teacher came along and said "boys quiet down", I'd expect a nice "Yes, absolutely." If the teacher said - stop playing and clean your cook kits, I'd expect the scout ic charge to say - "Thanks, but we've been told this is free time. Let me go grab my Scoutmaster for you." For the scouts, it doesn't need to come down to just obeying or defying - a leadership skill I expect t

I fully appreciate that there are different models for the CO/scouting unit relationship. A charge from the IH By the CO charging the unit leaders with implementing the program, he/she places them in a position of trust. Those individuals are charged with providing the Scouting program to the best of their abilities. Part of that responsibility is to advocate for their program. Say I were the IH or COR. When I create a scouting unit, I have in essence created a scouting department within my CO. I am a CC of a troop - so that makes me responsible to my organizational chain.

It would seem reasonable for the CO to add rules about how the troop operates when they don't compete with official BSA rules. Those rules could be more restrictive. For example: the troop can not plan an activity at a time that conflicts with other CO activities. The referenced rule that boy scouts should obey cub scout leaders feels like that category. A CO cannot change advancement rules. They cannot say - here's extra work a scout has to do. Beyond that, I believe they can make other changes they see fit. For example, they could say no patrols. The more they remove here, t

Good call - walking away is best. There are lots of packs out there that function very well. You only get a small window of time as a Cub Scout parent. It's one thing to try to change a few things. But, when it gets to this level, I really don't think it's worth your energy. You're right to put this on the door step of others who dig into the issues. For those of us that have been around for a while, the structure and behavior you describe of this unit are very unusual. A single combined pack/troop committee is odd. A committee that told the leaders not to come - very odd. The dis

I've had scouts dual register. It's unusual - but it is allowed. I'm sure there are packs in your area that would love to have your son join. If you'd come to our pack, we'd have welcomed you to the group. When you approach a new pack, I'd just go over the dual registration approach at the beginning. As for pursuing the issue with the old pack. My recommendation would be to make a call to the helpline above. Give them a report of your concern. They'll follow up with the council and it will get investigated. I wouldn't think any more of it - I'd move on.

Welcome @thehavensgrey. Thanks for getting invovled with Scouting again!

Instead of reading, I'd suggest internalizing the lessons contained within and developing an activity the scouts can do. They'll remember that more.

As a CC, I'd welcome a phone call from a parent. Here we have a concern from one parent about bullying by another patent. It may be something, it may be a misunderstanding. But, I would want to know. I have pretty good relationships with the SM and ASMs. It's easy for me to ask around and see what people think.