ParkMan

Thanks for all the responses here.  I was off on a business trip and away for a few days.  Back to Scouting!

Perhaps a few follow-up thoughts, questions, or points of confusion on my part.

I may have mis-used the phrase "manage".  I work in a business world, so that's a phrase that comes to mind.  But, I do guess the better term might be lead.  I'm assuming someone needs to provide leadership and direction to those folks.  I suppose with clear roles and responsibilities - then perhaps the SM doesn't need to provide much leadership and direction.  But, that's not us.  What I see in my troop is that the SM does most everything.  There's a few named ASMs.  But, by and large the SM takes on most other program functions.  The SM Corps is generally not very structured.  If the SM was keeping up with everything, that's fine by me. He's the captain of the ship, he decides how to sail it.  I fully support that concept.  But, when he's not keeping up with the program responsibilities and actively saying "find me someone", then what?  

As I write this, I think you all really answered my question - even if I used the wrong term and maybe the wrong question.  It's the SM's job to lead the ASMs.  If he's not doing it, then it's probably because he doesn't find those functions all the important.  We've offered time and again to help, but since he never really accepts the help, then he perhaps really isn't that interested in it . I suppose I could try to come up with a scheme to make it work, but in reality - if the SM doesn't think those functions are important enough to do them, then it's probably a futile effort to try to make those happen.

I think some of you asked the million dollar question.  Is the program the SM is running beneficial/harmful to the scouts.  That's a really tough question.  On the one hand.  We have an active program.  The SM camps a lot, regularly throws leadership opportunities to the scouts a lot, and is a generally a good person.  On the flip side, camping participation is low and troop meetings adult led and lightly planned.  Our boy lead approach is basically - SM leads the scouts to most of their decisions. When the scouts are in charge, the SM not only leaves them alone, but pretty well lets them sink or swim.  EDGE is pretty much "Explain and let's see what happens".  The annual planning meeting doesn't really happen.  Patrols, don't really happen.  A health number of boys leave because the troop meetings are most often announcements, some activity, game.  Most scout PORs are poorly done because either the patrol functions are non-existent or the troop positions are not very structured.  In terms of youth positions - the SPL is VERY busy.  Scouts leading events are kind of busy.  Other youth PORs don't do much.  Camping trips never have enough participation that there is any kind of cohesion from trip to trip.  Yet, advancement is good.  

As CC, I struggle.  If someone asked me if do we have a good program that is boy-led, I'd have to say no.  As the parent of a scout, I think it could be a LOT more fun and challenging.  In fact, my son is not enthused by any of it.  Yet, there is about 30-40% of the troop that attends troop meetings once or twice a month and attends camping trips a few times a year.  The committee adults do a good job of organizing advancement such that boys that make first class can generally get to Eagle if they stick around.  Boys that make it past a few years have a good relationship with the SM.  So - is it a rewarding scouting experience - I suppose.  Do I think it resembles the promise of the BSA - not really.  Should I force a SM change - not sure.  Am I ready to force a SM change - I don't think so.

Again - my appreciation for the replies.  This helped level set me.

Hi all,

I'm the CC of a troop of about 70 boys.  I've been struggling to wrap my head around a problem we've got.

Our Scoutmaster has been in his role about 25 years.  He's a friendly guy and always willing to go camping.

He's generally not terribly interested in developing his ASMs.  If a really active ASM shows up and starts filling a role, the SM seems content to let him/her have at it. But, for the majority of ASMs who signed up, but are waiting for something to do - he doesn't seem terribly interested in cultivating that.  Most show up for a while, but then stop bothering to come.  They are really just another parent at the meeting.

The SM constantly says he needs more help and is willing to let all kinds of things slide by.  Last year, I nudged him to try to work with the boys to get patrols to work.  He said "find me adults to advise the patrols".  I did just that.  The patrols lasted for about 2-3 months before the fell apart.  The SM never really leveraged the ASMs we provided for him.

I really don't want to micromanage him, but he seems dis-interested in leading the program.  He wants to be the SM, but not lead the ASMs.  I keep thinking that we need an ASM program, but the SM really doesn't seem interested in that.

I'm about ready to resign as CC over the frustration from this.

Anyone ever been down a road like this and have a solution that worked?

Thanks!

Agreed.

I disagree with coed scouting, but if it comes to pass, I will give it a try.

As much as I like Scouting as it issue, it's far from perfect. I've stuck with it so far because of the bigger picture benefits. I don't see those going away because the boys would have to interact with girls.

It's not just lack of infrastructure, it's having to retool the program. It's having to re-write all the documentation to make it gender-neutral. It's about designing and manufacturing all the uniforms that will fit girls. It's about having all the training in place for the adults so they will be able to comply with YPT standards. It's about recruiting the female leaders so that coed units can go on adventures and events without it being led my all male leaders.

 

Why rush in to the decision without knowing it's full impact? They can't spend money they (BSA) does not have yet, and councils may need time to prepare. Your oversimplification of this changes is either a) on purpose, or b) shows you have no idea of what would need to change to make coed Scouting effective and successful. It is NOT just opening the door as it is now and saying, "Come on in, gals!"  

 

National can dictate all they want, but if the councils don't have the money what then? What happens if a council does not have the temporary or permanent facilities by these dates?

 

 

I think you are being simple about this issue. It's not about bathroom and shower facilities. It is about rushing in to a decision that could have huge financial and program impacts on councils who ALREADY don't have enough money. There's no guarantee as to how much revenue adding girls will bring in. The changes I noted above are just a few that would need too happen to accommodate women. Calculated all those costs AND THEN subtract the revenue from that. THAT will tell you what your profit will be.

I'm not suggesting that they'll rush it.  I'm suggesting that they'll look at it as a strategic decision based around perceived future health of the movement.

As the BSA isn't a for profit organization they're not really looking at profit.  They're looking at cash flow.  i.e, does the organization bring in enough money every year to enable it to stay solvant, pay the staff, accomplish the tasks it wants to do, .  In that, the amount of cash flow becomes important - but only to an extent.  I expect that at it's most senior levels, they're looking at 3-5 projections on membership.  I am certain someone has a chart that shows modest membership growth as a result of adding girls.  Ultimately, I expect that it's that chart that will drive the decision.

Yes, someone will do an impact analysis on going.  What is the cost to councils, the national organization?   But, it will be seen as an investment.  We will spend "X" and the councils will spend "Y" so that in 5 years, we will see membership growth.

That's why I think facilities won't drive this decision.  The senior execs will not prevent this choice because it's too expensive to invest in the future of the org.  It's like businesses taking on debt to fund an expansion that's in the long term interest of the company.

Sort of.  It was said in jest - but there is some truth there.

Admitting girls to the BSA and making the program coed would be a huge deal.  For the BSA to delay a decision of that magnitude because they didn't have the right bathroom facilities would be surprising.

If they do this, I expect that the national organization will announce a timeline.  i.e.

- The BSA will become co-ed on Sept. 1, 2018

- Councils will be expected to have sufficient temporary facilities to support this that that time

- Councils will be expected to update their permanent facilities by Jan 1, 2021.

Something like that.

The President of the BSA will never say "we'd like to go co-ed, but the don't have enough bathrooms."

Ultimately, if the BSA decides to embrace a full co-ed program, I presume that bathroom facilities at camps will not stop them.  That's easily solved with a little money.  After all - so many girls will want to join that the new revenue will easily outpace any expenditures for new bath facilities.

It's only not a big deal IF the units are either all girls or all boys. Then you can have "Girls Week" and "Boys Week", much like they have LDS Week now.

 

However, I cannot imagine units will align strictly all one sex. What then?

 

If you've ever been to a coed camp with lacking facilities you'd know that most BSA camps are woefully unprepared in terms of coed facilities.

That's the big question.  In the larger society, is this a discussion about girls having the same opportunities as boys, about really having co-ed scouting, or about ending a boys only activity.

This article seems to suggest the first option - this is about providing girls the same opportunities as boys.  if so - then it's easily solved.  I'd support that myself.

For those folks who are really interested in co-ed scouting.  Well, I think that's a reasonably conversation.  However, at the end of the day I just don't think the benefits outweigh the costs.

For those folks who are interested in ending a boys only youth activity - I don't have much time for that argument.  There's no discrimination here.

Any luck in sharing this? You've got me curious

This really doesn't seem that hard if you charter only single sex units (i.e. all boy or all girl packs & troops).  

Summer camp - in the short term, reserve one or more weeks over the summer for all girl weeks.  Longer term, if there is interest expand camps or build new facilities.

Camporees - Hold separate camporees - one for boys, one for girls.  

Doing what's best for boys - this doesn't impact that.  Its still parents of boys running boy scout troops.  How does this impact that?

Separate but equal - During the civil rights movement, accommodations were not equal because the quality of those accommodations were not determined by those groups.  In the case of all girl troops or packs, the quality of those units would be determined by local leaders.  The BSA has little to do with unit quality.

This all doesn't seem like that big a deal.

I imagine they'd rather compete with all girl packs & troops than co-ed scouting.  

Hi Jason,

I'd recommend that you volunteer to lead a summer camp contingent to the other camp.  Then, get the word out and get a good list of scouts to attend.  Once you've got that, you'll find another adult to attend with you - I'm pretty certain of that.

Good luck!

EDIT:  Sorry folks - I saw the last append was a few days ago and didn't realize this was an old thread.  

I still think that the BSA could easily get ahead of this by just offering to charter girls only packs & troops.  If girls want into the program, let them into the program.  This is easy to solve.

All the BSA is really doing is providing the framework for the program - it's up to local units to implement it.

I've seen a few unrestricted races happening.  I've not seen it done as a fundraiser.

Mostly just something tacked on to the normal derby & just for fun.

That's what I've found too.  You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink.

Wood Badge is great - but even in the best courses the staff are not miracle workers.  I know plenty of "my way or the highway" scouters for whom Wood Badge is a waste of time.  I'd like to think you could get them excited about the materials, but it's just not their thing.

I'm also a realist enough to know that the Wood Badge content isn't perfect.

hHi ladybug_scout,

I wanted to add.  In your situation where you've got: Cubmaster, Committee Chair, Treasurer, & Den Leaders

Myself, I'd look at splitting up the tasks somewhere along the lines of:

Cubmaster - plans pack level activities - pack meetings, campouts, and other pack level activities

Den leaders - plan den meetings and other den level activities.  Provide manpower for pack activities

Treasurer - manage finances and registration of the scouts

Committee Chair - recharter, membership, and volunteer recruitment.

I'd find yourself an advancement chair ASAP.

The problem isn't boy led though - it's getting a consistent definition of what it is and how to implement it.

I often run into people who think boy led means - give the scouts something to do, a little guidance, and then let them have at it.  If it works out - great, if not at least they learned something.  It's like EDGE is really "E" and then hope for the best.  To me boy led without the "demonstrate, guide, and enable" is what causes folks like the TC to want to give up on it.

The only reason adult leaders are overburdened and burnt out is because they are not applying the boy led part of the program.  1 or 2 ASM's knowledgeable for reference and the boys do the instruction.  That's the classic approach.  In today's culture of adults do it all runs counter to classic scouting, probably one of the biggest problems with the program today.

Much of that I agree with - troops don't know how to implement the program. Is not that adults want to do it all. It's that troops donto know how to do boy led. There's a skill to running a troop that is not taught anywhere.

I read this as "if the BSA wants to make Scouting co-ed, it could."  I think that's the reality anyways.  Perhaps a lawyer or two might have to get involved, but if the BSA decided to go co-ed, it clearly could make it happen.

I look at this a bit differently.  

I think Boy Scout leaders are way too overworked today.  We keep adding more things for them to do, piling on even more training isn't going to make things better.  Trying to get some ASM to prove he knows camping skills isn't going to create scouts more in the classic model.

If you want troops to create more "classic scouts", you need to really organize troops in that model.  We think "train a Scoutmaster and get him going" is the answer - it isn't.  I know so many long time Scoutmasters who ignore large portions of the program because "they know better".  The ASMs in my son's troop don't teach scouting skills as much as they could because the culture of doing that isn't there.  Culture comes from the top - Scoutmasters/Committee Chairs/Troop Committees.  Get them to better understand how to implement the program and you'll see outdoor skills improve.  Simply doing more training of scout skills for ASMs isn't enough.

Thanks so much for the very detailed answer! I've been involved in the troop for about four years now, but was not aware of much of what you wrote.

I've been on a three year saga to encourage the troop to leverage patrols. Our troop has been pretending to use patrols, but really has not. This helps me to understand that we're probably more typical than I realized.

There's STEM scouts and there's having a STEM program in the troop. I knowould of our economy STEM Scouts group in the district. A,few packs and troops have some kind of STEM program. In our troop on 70, we have hlaf a dozen scouts pursuing the STEM awards.

 

Youth-leadership, specifically, is just starting to come back after decades of neglect both benign and malignant.

How do you think the BSA has been neglecting youth leadership? I'm curious

I agree to letting the scout manage this as much as possible.  Learning to follow up on things like this is a good life skill.

That said - I'm a believer that sometimes we all need a little helping hand.  

So, what we do:
- our advancement coordinator records the partials in Troopmaster.  It's really not that much work.  He gets an email listing the partials and then takes 10 minutes to update them.  If he stays current, it's not a big deal.

- the scouts are provided paper copies of their advancement records - including partials - once a year or so.

- a couple of times a year we schedule a merit badge catch up night.  Merit Badge counselors for some of the more common merit badges are at a troop meeting.  Scouts get a copy of their partials and have the opportunity to go and talk with the counselors. They can chose to talk to them or not.