qwazse

I think I get what you are saying. You are concerned about small numbers. Don't worry about that. Everyone participates! If one of the other two scouts is really good at communications, he can be the Master of Ceremonies (MoC). Otherwise ask if one of the adults do that. The MC basically walks everyone through the program. And introduces each participant. Also if you have friends in other troops, you could invite them to participate. Here is one way to make everything work: Have one of the boys be "Sergeant at Arms" (SaA). At the MoC's request, he leads the assembly in the pledge of allegiance, and scout oath and law. (It's up to you boys how to set that up. You may want a color guard bring the flag forward, or you may have it already there. He may want to light some candles as each point of the law is said, or not. He may then ask a minister of your choosing to lead an opening prayer.) Then, when the opening is complete and everyone is seated, the SaA returns the floor to the MoC by saying something like "Sir, the court has been assembled." At this time, the MoC will invite guests who you would like to speak for a few minutes on behalf of you and your fellow Eagle. They could be one or two of your teachers, other scouters, or beneficiaries of your projects. When I do this, I hand the medal(s) to each speaker so that they hold it while the have the floor. To me it symbolizes all the hands that went into you boys making this achievement. Then the MoC will ask the SaA to escort you and your parents forward to give you the medal. The only constant in all of the ceremonies I've seen, is mom pins on your medal, and you give her a kiss. (Let's not fool ourselves, she deserves it. ) Usually dad will put on your Eagle neckerchief and slide. Again there's a whole lot of variation in how this is done. Sometimes the ceremony includes an "Eagle Charge" and "Eagle Oath", if there is a senior scouter. The MoC will then ask the SaA to bring the assembly to a close. That may include asking a minister to lead the benediction, asking the color guard to retire the colors, inviting the audience to stay for a snack afterwards (at this time recognizing any committee, or sisters, who helped in preparation), and dismissing the troop, So you see, just because it's boy-led does not mean you have to exclude the adults. It means you work with adults so that everyone feels like they are part of this great accomplishment. The real trick is setting a time and location for it far enough in advance so that both of your families can attend and you boys can organize everything.

Remember, if you feel stuck, ask for help. Are you two really creative? Write a script. Do you like tradition? Follow a pattern of something already written. Ask previous Eagles in your troop what they have done. Something I haven't seen that I would like, is a panel discussion format. But that's just me. What I think you should do is ask around if there is a scouter who has MC'ed a ECoH for your troop before. They may have some good ideas.

It's a balance. My daughter was academically advanced. Started taking a full load of freshman engineering courses her senior year in high school. Son #1 talked her into staying in the dorms rather than commuting since she was gonna be there so much. I wanted to throttle him! But, turned out she was socially mature as well. Dad just needed to have a little faith .

I first earned my mile swim in a pool. Not until our scout reservation opened with a 250 acre lake, could I even think of doing it any place outside of an aquatics area. Open water (150-200 yard legs) was much easier. Complete straight shot would be easiest. KDD's spot on about the flip turns.

Sounds like son #4 needs to decide if he should transfer to another troop so he has a chance to qualify for O/A, or stick with this troop and take a pass on lodge life. It is unfortunate when adults perpetrate this kind of bias. And it must be tough on you because it sounds like you were trying to keep up a family tradition. But, now it's in your son's (and maybe his friend's) hands. If he sticks with the troop, he can mention at every SMC and BOR that this is his one regret about this troop. He may decide that this wont be his mantra forever. Or, he may decide to be a persistent yet respectful agent of change.

Maybe you shouldn't be selling more. Maybe you could call some packs from less fortunate neighborhoods and offer them a share of your sales. Now, funds that go into pack coffers SHOULD result in lower event expenses. But sometimes it results in spending more frivolously.

This discussion had me fuming on so many levels, I needed a two nights in the woods on a long weekend to simmer down. I brought it up at last night's campfire,and one of our scouts had an insightful point: "If you're not teaching everybody first class skills, then what's the point of calling yourself a life scout?" In other words, from his perspective, the requirement - in total - should not to teach "one younger scout in your troop" a first class skill, but every youth you encounter those scouting skills. It boils down to this: Those of you who think 1st Class as only a rank, a stepping stone to Eagle, will think that the purpose of Life, the rank, is to produce more patches on uniforms. Thus the boy doing this only once in a very controlled context, is precisely what is needed for you to approve that box. Please consider that you are building a house of cards. If, on the other hand, you think 1st Class Scout is a character trait, something that should manifest itself in every teen age member of the BSA, then you would see Life Scout, the trait, as something that drives a person to make it their life's work to instill scout spirit and skills in others. That is a house that you can build a movement on. Now I think a lot of what venturing does (intended or not) is to challenge scouters to think, really think, about what kind of house they are building. The program doesn't leave me much room for the former - venturers don't need (and few want) awards, but the needs of my crew force me think in terms of the latter ... venturers in a general interest crew -- if not first class scouts (patch notwithstanding) already -- need to quickly come to bear all of the traits of first class scouts.

*Scape goat.* And again, your are arguing from the standpoint of fairness, which in this age of situational ethics can be quickly turned on its head. Sure, this is a lot of double-speak. They are using the line that we Advisors use all the time "Venturing is a different program" as justification for opposing change. Venturing is a small slice of the BSA, and young women and men who weren't boy scouts yet become honor campers (by any reasonable category) are a smaller slice -- we are doing our best to change that. But until then, we are talking numbers that are seemingly inconsequential to OA's membership counts. The thing that young arrowmen need to ask themselves is this: "If there is an honor camper out there with the same membership card as I have, but uniformed differently than I am, do I want to be the first to recognize him/her? Or, do I want some other group to jump in line and get him/her first?"

Yes, generally a win-win. On the venturing side, it's almost essential because often you don't have the numbers from your own crew to meet minimums for a particular activity. You can find yourself on a peak or over a reef with mates you just met the day you set out. Falls under "a scout is friendly." One caveat (and I'm especially careful about this in the Troop/Crew scenario): clear it with the boy's SM, especially if he's older. Active boys like this soon become very skilled and hold PORs, but they often can ignore their troop's agenda for something exciting that their buddies in the other unit are doing. You want them to check in before they check out! Falls under "a scout is loyal."

I define age in terms of camping nights, not years since birth. I take "he" to be generic. Not limited to teaching boys. Just like when I see scouts and venturers together, I say "Hi Scouts." period. The ability to be a first class scout and the right to have a patch on a pocket are two different things. So if, for example, a girl knows a first class skill she is prepared to meet the requirement -- even if she doesn't qualify for the patch. Bottom line: a life scout is one who shows scout spirit by conferring skills on those who have yet to obtain them. If he's doing that, he gets the sign-off. High speed - low drag would be a venturer finding a tenderfoot, walking the poor kid through that hideous acronym, dragging him in front of the SM with some "there I fixed it" attitude, and requesting a note to take back to me ... all while we have three crew members who have never donned a backpack in their life and are intimidated about the next 2 day hike! Guess what letter is going into the fire as soon as that supposed star scout teaches those three to light it with flint and steel? I suppose there's a reason why scouts haven't ditched the troop to earn their upper ranks with my crew. Oh, and for the love of all that is right and holy, please nobody call National about this! >:

The blog post that hasn't gotten any traction so far this month: http://scout-wire.org/2013/10/04/chiefs-corner-taking-scouting-to-the-inner-city/ On the other hand, all those reckless untucked scouters are catching heat for their slovenly ways. #firstworldprobelms (Yes I know this site doesn't do hashtags, but if does in the future, I'll be ready!)

I am not a "switcher" in most areas of life, and probably would not be in this one. Instead of WB, I'd look for Powderhorn, but that's just me. And, maybe it's because I took WB but not PH ... yet. But, any boy with an opportunity to camp with another troop is in a win-win situation. He gets to learn how other patrols do things and maybe that will inform on what he expects from his patrol (whichever one that winds up being). FWIW, our IH's boy goes to a different troop and is doing well there.

What if there ain't a crew member needing to learn anything....Are there Many Venture Crew Members joining from outside of Scouting? Round here, most definitely. From the council/area meetings I've attended, 'bout half of the Venturers had never been in BSA, and half of those have never been in another scouting-type organization (like GSUSA, Campfire, or Indian guides) during their junior high years. About 1/8 of my crew have never slept under a tent before joining, almost 3/4 have never slept under the stars or even seen anyone else do it. It's a constant challenge getting everyone up to speed. But if the youth are committed to each other, they will do it. So, this requirement is pretty much the mode of operation in a typical crew.

Sounds like proper high adventure. Only your best trained boys qualify. So, qualify them all! Train them to camp in groups of 4, 100 yards apart. Adults in the center campsite. Say you have 6 boys, 2 adults. The less seasoned scouts hike with the 2 adults. The 4 first class scouts (true sense of the word, not just a patch) on their own. Both groups make for adjacent sites, but using different routes. Groups check in via radio, or better yet, appropriate trail signs, at the crossing for the nearest camp. Now I really want to go! Maybe I'll talk with my troop about it this weekend when Son #2 and I rendevous with them on the North Country Trail.

Well, boys are not flies, and girls are not honey. But fellowship is a key component. (Like I said, I remember my OA literature encouraging co-ed activities on some level.) I could envision a few venturers starting a society of honored campers from all outdoor organizations (girl scouts, boy scouts, campfire USA, BPSA). It's just what they do. Would it gain momentum? I doubt it. They would have to be a uniquely cohesive and charismatic group of youth. (What you're observing, JP, is not being replicated widely.) But for the OA, the question becomes "Do you want to attract that uniquely cohesive and charismatic group?" Right now the answer is "No." And as long as scouting movements in the USA remain starkly unisex, that answer may fly.

Pack meetings, maybe. Den meetings, no (unless it was an achievement involving cooking or nutritious snacks.) But do advise the Pack that they are allowed to set their own boundaries on this. For the sake of his development, ask the DE if he checked with the Packs before making a blanket statement.

If you're seriously considering this troop, you may want to eventually talk to the SM about what you saw. But, yes, older boys get a longer leash. We don't want an SPL to feel defeated by an adult who constantly intervenes. And the impertinent scouts tend to be "long term projects"! After some meetings, I'll remind an SPL near the end of his rope that next time he can feel free to ask an impertinent scout attend an impromptu conference with the SM or me. Under the category of "could be worse" ... I have had to intervene on SPL and scout who were coming to blows. Came out of nowhere because most days those two were friends. Fortunately the rest of the troop had just rushed off to do another activity. (Maybe that's why the younger one thought he could keep pushing it.)

Firstly, I'll sign it most strongly if he doesn't use EDGE, but let me get off of my high horse ... If you camp a lot with another troop, he might want to touch base with that SM/SPL to see if there is anything specific that one of his boys might need help with. Otherwise, I would ask him to pick a skill that another member of the crew seems to be weak on, but it would really help your program if everyone had it down. (If your crew, for example, is really into climbing/rapelling, it might be handy if everyone was solid with figure eight knots on a bight.) Because venturers come with very diverse skills, I wouldn't worry if the person was a younger or older person. I've had 20-year-olds sign on who never camped a day in their life. (And obviously, by the way I worded it, I don't think "Scout" need be limited to boy or girl.) If you have a scout who is a natural teacher (likely if the scout took a while to get to Star), and have seen him do this thing in one context or another, rather than asking him to repeat for the sake of signature, I would suggest you take the time to sit and ask what he's taught recently to whom, and how it worked (or didn't). Ask him if anything in the description of EDGE was omitted from what he did, and if adding it would have helped. Conversely was there something in what he did that didn't fit the EDGE rubic, and did it distract from his student's learning the skill, or did it add to it? Then ... after this discussion ... you and he can come to an agreement as to if and how he should practice the requirement again. In other words, adapt the requirement to the maturity of the scout and the needs of his peers.

Then they're already several decades out of date Arguing that you use the inspection sheet and that's enough is not an argument against changes in uniform policy, since the inspection sheet you use now is different than the one that was used before it. The uniform inspection sheet already goes into minutiae like "the top button is never buttoned" and the insignia guide already goes into the over/under neckerchief question. It already addresses personal issues like combed hair. So if your vaunted inspection sheet already addresses minutiae, then you don't have a leg to stand on in using it to argue against tucked in shirts. What this boils down to is innate differences between how the sexes operate. Men gravitate toward abstract notions of justice (policies that apply equally across the board) while women focus on individual circumstance (but I'm a special snowflake). BSA could hire Michael Kors to design the best darn female uniform shirt on the planet and if he designed it to be tucked, there would be many women who still wouldn't tuck it, and if he designed it to be untucked, there would be many who would tuck it anyway. On top of this psychological difference you add in post-modern fluff like "I want to feel beautiful and confident" and "my body is so strange that I need a custom uniform" and there's your herd of cats. The most annoying patch policeman I know manages to annoy someone in our troop at least once a month, and I can't imagine even him bothering a woman under the special circumstances they keep bringing up because that's exactly what they are, special circumstances and people recognize/understand that. The other 99.99% of the time, a policy is a policy. And, like you said, they're the ones that asked. Not LITERALLY the same one. Every sheet I've seen has the drawing of a boy with the shirt tucked in. So, if the SPL asks you, give him the sheet and say "what do you think?" I don't mind having SPL's get together and hash out where one or the other as "drifted" a little from standard. I just don't like the thought of someone coming down on a group of boys who actually made an effort to be uniform and still look sharp even if we can't see their belt buckles. Among scouters, this kind of stuff is fine to hash out on blogs like these, but to have an edict from National is just not worth the extra $9/year that I'm gonna be paying. I personally appreciate the folks who've corrected my insignia placement over the years. In fact, I got one knot that was missewn as a granny, and the guy who tried to help me orient it and I had a laugh when we realized it, the DE was gonna get me a replacement, but I said "No Way! I want to spend my life looking for the other scouters with the same second on their shirt!"

Hey, I thought I was a RA RA scouter! I cheer scouts when they look at the inspection sheet (the same one I used many decades ago) and make their own decisions. I reserve flowers and imported chocolate for moms who care for our boys (whose hips the chumps on Fashion Star would never dare put in any BSA uni). I make the best coffee in the world for guys who forgo that much-needed overtime to haul gear and boys and camp us. (And I pack some Earl Grey for the weak-stomached.) I revere the woman who will gently teach females youth about backpacking hygiene so they get the courage to set aside all those H&BA for a few days to discover the Beautiful, so that the next time they are in church, those songs actually have the grand meaning they deserve. I respect anyone with the stones to say, "We don't need to waste National's ink for this. Let's use what's already written, and work the program from there." Pardon me, if I don't join in helping the log-eyed pull motes.

You misunderstand. Designated campsites in the same acre do not exist in middle of wilderness recreation areas. You might find a campground on the periphery, but once you hike in, even 20 folks moving and camping in the vicinity of one another can be profoundly destructive. At high altitudes (or deserts, or coral reefs) like Brew describes, contingents of 10 leave an indelible mark.

The separate-but-equal argument is as noble and time-proven as BP's "partial participation" argument is linear.

Maybe I'm looking at the world all wrong. Leader stays at the rear. Gives guidance as to the next landmark and has scouts take turns advancing to the fore and reporting back their observations. At decision points, the leader has the contingent circle-up around the map and compass and develops a plan for the next few waypoints.

Don't remember it, and probably wouldn't countenance it if I heard it. Can't imagine our course director saying anything of the sort.

Different itineraries. Since I work from the venturing side of things, I call them contingents rather than patrols. But, same principle. I did one where a boy planned an outing for 40 people. (Four contingents of ten.) We actually had slightly less than that, but that's what we planned for. Morning of insertion, each contingent's navigator(s) reported to me with their itinerary, described their target camp for the night, indicated their intended direction. (This was very important because we drove up the night before and were all camped 1/4 mile of the trailhead(s). It even took me a while to get my head around the fact that our position didn't jib with where I thought I was in my head.) They also confirmed their return time for the next day. Next year, same boy planned one with contingents inserting from different ends of the same trail and crossing at some point. Drivers would exchange keys for vehicles. We had lower attendance than expected, so we never implemented it. But seemed like a good plan to me.