Twocubdad

As Rocky the Squirrel would say, "And now for something completely different?" Who says you may not question a Scout about prior requirements? What happens if you do? Sit the young man down and explain to him that we have two problems. 1) that he has been short changed by the troop in his scouting career and had failed to properly teach him the skills basic to being a Scout. Second, that you are not comfortable kicking this can down the road without doing your best to give him the training he deserves OR in allowing him to proceed down the road toward Eagle without learning these basic skills. Therefore, as the two of you work together planning his Eagle project, you will also be working on the basic skills he lacks. Then, whenever he wants to meet with you to review his Eagle project, you spend the first hour working on Scout skills before moving on the the project. You're not retesting, you're not recending ranks (as if that were possible), you're doing your job as a Scoutmaster -- teaching.

If Scouting had begun with no advancement component, some competitive element would have been invented by now. Maybe not individual advancement, but some formalized competition structure. "My son is on the state championship Scout Troop." Or, "I was an Eagle-level finalist in the Southeast Region Scout tournament." Somehow it has to be rendered to a resume item. Look at what has happened to cheerleading and marching bands over the past generation or two. Short of devine intervention, advancement is always going to be part of Scouting. But if the Lord does mandate we eliminate advancement I think we would suffer substantial membership losses in a relatively short period. Consider how many leaders "retire" as soon as their son makes Eagle. Or the number of troops which would be at a loss if they didn't have weekly advancement classes or MB universities to rely on. How many parents would continue to invest time and effort into scouting without the payoff at the end? If you make the assumption we will only keep the boys and their families who really, really understand the intrinsic value of the program and what it is trying to teach, I think we would face some massive losses. I've had parents -- and even ASMs! -- tell me they want their sons to "hurry up and make Eagle" so they can focus on lacrosse in high school because that's where all the scholarship money for middle-class kids. Does that sound like someone who understands the real value of the program? Even if the boys want to stay simply because they enjoy Scouting, I think you will lose a fair number of them due to lack of parental support. If Scouting as seen as "just hanging out in the woods with your buddies" with no tangible product, I believe you will lose the support of some parents. Yeah, this is a pretty pessimistic view of SOME parents and the superficially-engaged boys we hope that some of the stuff we teach will eventually stick. Fortunately, with kids you never know when a seed planted with a boy like this will finally sprout. On the other hand, if we're left with half as many boys and parents, but with those who really get Scouting and are involved because they really want to participate in the program.... wow!

I seem to be much more concerned about the cost of Scouting than anyone else in the troop. I work to try and keep costs down, find alternate funding sources and fundraising opportunities, but tend to get a "whatever" response from troop families. Both popcorn sales and camp cards proceeds go 100% to cover the cost of summer camp, high adventure trips and even funding for Eagle projects. Participation is always minimal.

Whether it's a 13-y.o. Eagle, First Class in a year, or 30 requirement in a weekend, the problem is somewhere in that picture is an adult gaming the system. Most adults have been trained to look for solutions, solve problems, eliminate inefficiencies and organize chaos. They pick up their 11-y.o. son's brand new Scout handbook, look at the list of requiements and say to themselves, "This isn't that hard, WE can finish Eagle in a year or so. We'll stack all the first aid requirements together and knock them out on a Sunday afternoon. Better yet, we'll jump right to first aid MB and that will cover the MB and the T-2-1 requirement. Four birds with one stone! "I can plan one campout where we knock out 25 or 30 requirements. Shoot, half the requirements are complete just for showing up. We'll do a 14-man color guard so everyone can complete that. We can hike for five miles (or until the adults get tired) pointing out plants and animals while we pick up trash. That's five requirements right there." Webelos III is so much fun! Boy Scouts, however, is an experience. Experiences require time.

1. Not sure of a percentage, but it happens. I actually think we lose more boys to the notion that the program will require them to work at things. They much prefer the YMCA and private camps with counselors there to powder their butt, dining halls with a chef making custom omlets in the morning and an aquatics staff whch fetches the canoe and holds it steady while you climb aboard. Apparently the concierge staff on our campouts is not up to par.... 2. Over the years we've had a few but almost always it's the parent driving the switch and almost always because Dear Sweet Thing wasn't handed some advancement or position mommy and daddy thought he deserved. We've received a couple Scouts for similar reasons but most incoming transfers are Scouts with old-school dads (yes, it's the dad) who want a more traditional program for their son. Only one time have we had a Scout transfer to another troop where I felt the change was needed and beneficial. The kid was a real goof-off and ranther odd. He developed a reputation of being, well, odd and unreliable. I thing he really wanted to change, but boys being boys wouldn't give him a chance. A clean slate at a new troop was a really good thing for him. 3. Troubled? Heck, they're teenaged boys. They're all troubled. You've got to be more specific.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

I see both sides of it Wilton. I've helped with the MB Midway and served as an ASM. My experience with the midway was that the folks there were incredibly talented and dedicated to the program. Most of the groups on the midway provide an experience far beyond what most boys can receive back home. If one element of merit badges generally is to allow boys to learn from experts in the field, the midway allows Scouts to work with people who are the best in the field on a national scope. While I'm sure there are booths which aren't as strong as other, I was very impressed with the ones I encountered. Sure, not all the boys appreciated the opportunities they were presented (like we don't see that every week) and there will always be Scouts who work the system to see how many badges they can earn with the least amount of effort, the merit badge midway at jamboree is one of the best parts of the program there. The "rumor" that the midway would be eliminated was an early direction of The Summit planning teams. As I've posted before, Jack Furst, the chairman of the group, told me personally the midway and patch trading would be eliminated. I don't know what's happened with patch trading, but I know the midway was "saved" by a ground-swell of support from the thousands of volunteers who have build the midway over the years. On the other hand, as an ASM last year, the staffing levels and resources put into the subcamp staffs was ridiculous. I can't give you hard numbers, but judging from a distance, I'd say a third of our subcamp staff were overhead -- creating elaborate lounge areas, decorated mess tent, and full-service coffee shops. I know these folks put in a tremendous amount of time, effort and probably a good bit of their own money into this. But to what end? Just to out-do the other subcamps staff? To get the CSE to come have steaks with you? How does this benefit the Scouts? Yeah, these guys are volunteers, paid their own way, yadda, yadda, yadda. But so are the guys working the program areas and living in the staff camps as well as the contingent leaders camping and eating scorched hotdogs with the Scouts. Breaking up a lot of this navel-gazing silliness and re-centering the program on the Scouts will be a really good thing.

Vennie is spot-on. In another thread on this topic, Fred made a comment along the lines that 10- 11- and 12-year-old boys have a very keen sense of fairness. His point was boys wouldn't stand for adults who change requirements or add to them (my words, not his). But this is the other half of that equation. That same sense of fairness makes them very aware of who is getting away with something or when the adults are blowing smoke.

Love the history lesson, Stosh. Question: When and how did "To the Color" become the bugle equivalent of the National Anthem. BTW, on the US Army Band site, the name of the call is singular, not plural.

I've posted this before, but it probably merits repeating. Last year at jamboree, by chance I wound up talking to Jack Furst, the head guy heading up plans for The Summit. I don't know titles, but I suppose he's near the top of the food chain for the jamboree. I had previously met him when he lead the BSA contingent to world jamboree in 2005. Very purposefully, national jamboree is being modeled after world jamboree. The big change will be instead of spending 10 day wandering around with their buddies taking in the sights and activities at jamboree, Scouts will have certain days during which they will go with their troop to participate in specific events. At world, Scouts were taken off site for an aquatics day, one day they did a service project in a local community (which will be included at national), they went to Gilwell one day (which had a huge climbing area in addition to just being Gilwell). There were also specific programs on-site which the Scouts attended with their troops at set times-- there was an ecology program (my son got to meet Jane Goodall, the gorilla lady), there was recycling program built around creating headaches ... uh, I mean junk bands, etc. Because it was international, there was nothing advancement-related and relatively little patch trading. Other parts of the world tend to trade uniform parts -- hats, neckers, even whole uniforms -- rather than just shirts. Being at The Summit, the new jamboree will take this model from world, but will focus on the high-adventure opportunities at the site, which makes obvious sense. You're adjacent to the best white water and climbing on the east coast, so why wouldn't you? I'll also say there were some things Furst said he wanted to do with jamboree which were pretty clearly DOA, like totally eliminating both the merit badge midway and banning patch trading. Yeah, good luck with that. The MB Midway is just too much of a resource to give up. Some of the programs offered at jamboree are unlike anything a Scout can do anywhere else. I do believe the patch trading was a bit out of control and needed more supervision, but the Scouts -- even those who weren't at all interested in patch trading before jamboree -- had a lot of fun with it and it was a good way to get them out, about and meeting people. Jamboree was due for an overhaul. AP Hill was a lousy site and the program had become stagnant. What is being proposed is a great improvement. But like any renovation, there will be things which work and those which don't. Personally, I think excluding scouts from attendance based on physical condition is a real negative. Summer camp standards should apply, not Philmont standards. If there are particular high adventure activities which have higher standards for physical condidtion, fine. One selling point for The Summit was it would be cooler in the mountains with less walking the AP Hill and the site was just as flat. So why exclude the cupcakes? I don't know what the actual program schedule will look like, but I also hope they don't try to over-program the Scouts. I think the whole state fair/Disney World aspect of jamboree is part of the fun. Take off with your buddy and go explore. For some boys, this may be their first time off the farm or out of the city. Hanging at the bottom of some cheesy, four-foot tank may be lame, but if it's the first time you've ever tried SCUBA, it's pretty cool. I hope we don't loose that. While I absolutely agree jamboree was over-run with visitors, there needs to be some outlet for the folks who want to attend other as participants. Jamboree is more than just the jamboree itself, it also functions as the "National Scout Show" and the "National Convention." In the future, once the site is built-out and fully operational, maybe there can be a window after the "real" jamboree where the site AND the jamboree activities are open to everyone. I bet the WVa tourism folks would pony up even more money to sponsor something like that, especially if a lot of the day trippers stay in hotels and/or spend more time and money in the area than at just the jamboree.

Hmmmm..... the bugle call played at the beginning of an evening flag ceremony is called.... wait for it.... "Retreat". This is like the kids who shreek in horror when the flag team allows the flag to brush the ground. They all scramble for their lighters 'cause everyone knows if the flag touches the ground you have to burn it. If anyone would bother to read the actual Flag Code, they would see D'rat is right. The procedure isn't important, it's a matter of showing respect and honor.

Nov-Dec 2011 issue (current) of "Scouting" magazine, page 15, "Advancement FAQs": One hundred years ago, First Class was Scouting's highest rank and Star, Life and Eagle simply represented earning additional merit badges. While that concept has changed, First Class still signifies that a Scout hase mastered all of the basic Scouting Skills. Taken together, the Tenderfoot, Second Class and First Class ranks offer a short course in these essentials.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't IOLS supposed to be the equivalent of completing the T-2-1 requirements? We're not exactly talking Marine Corps Crucible, here. During my IOLS my patrol included four Eagle Scouts and a retired Green Beret captain. Some dweeb trainer wanders into our camp to teach us square knots and bowlines. We ended up teaching him rope tricks and fancy climbing knots. The whole weekend was like that. We had a good time and made light of how grossly over qualified we were, but could have easily spent the weekend miserable and complaining about wasting our time. When it comes to requiring re-training of existing leaders whenever a new syllabus is issueed, why doesn't the training team establish a policy that every new syllabus will have a corresponding recertification course for existing leaders? If nothing else, isn't that a more appropriate use of training resources? Think about it. If every Webelos den leader, Scoutmaster and assistant has to retake IOLS, that's an incredible waste of resources and volunteer time. If retraining us dinosaurs is such a problem, why isn't there a system of annual updates -- a couple hours or an online course outlining changes to the program or best practices -- not a whole friggin' weekend. Or they could do monthly meetings where new informations is shared -- gee, there's an idea. It could replace the current monthly coffee klatch where the Good Ol' Boys strut their feathers. National training folks should spend a little more time trying to meet the real training needs of existing leaders. I don't doubt there is a need. But what rational organization keeps their experience people updated by forcing them to retake introductory training. (Sorry, seems we have two threads going on the same topic.)

E92's clip didn't do justice to the level of gobbledigook in the full article: A Scouter is considered trained for his or her position in the BSAs ScoutNET system when they have completed a prescribed course, or sequence of courses. This could be the current course set, or even a course or courses that they took in the past. For example, Scoutmastership Fundamentals if they took it back when it was the current basic training. But to be able to wear the trained patch, and for the unit to qualify under the unit Journey to Excellence (JTE) standards, trained means that they have taken the current training set for their position. Huh? Then as the portion of the article E92 posted says -- in a very, very round-about way -- that they're dumping the principle that once you're trained to a position and stay in that position even if a new training course is released. Actually, to fully comprehend the sillyness, you have to read the whole newsletter. There's another article that they're developing new standards for "testing out" of certain courses, like Outdoor Leadership Skills. Question: if an Eagle Scout, or an Army Ranger, or anyone with the needed outdoor skills can potentially test out of Outdoor Leadership Skills, why does a leader who has been in the trenches doing the job for YEARS have to retake the class? Gotta say, when it comes down that I have to retake all my training just because they decided rewrite the syllabus, may very well be the thing that pushes me out.

Everyone blew right past the right answer: We're tryin' to teach young men character and fitness, not how to weasel out of work on a technicality. Thanks, Beav. Be careful raggin' on getting folks off on a technicality. Some of your Bretheren at the Bar may take exception. This isn't about technicalities and specifications. It's about teaching kids what's right. So when it becomes clear a BoR candidate hasn't fulfilled the requirements of a merit badge what do you do? Do you throw your hands up and say, "merit badges are part of the district program"? (By the way, I'll buy that concept when our district actually starts recruiting counselors instead of relying on unit volunteers.) Do you quote G2A section x.y.z? Or do you quit worrying about appeal-proofing your program and ask the boy, "so what do you think the right thing to do is?" Help him find the right path. Hopefully the boy will offer a reasonable solution himself, but if he can't there's nothing wrong with suggesting he repeat the MB. True story -- OneCubSon pulled a blue card for Personal Fittness and at a troop meeting approached the counselor to ask about getting started on the 90-day fitness program. The counselor took the blue card and a few minutes later gave it back signed as completed. OCS brought me the card and asked what to do. I asked him what he wanted to do. His idea waa to do all the work, show it the the counselor and then turn in the card. I told him that was a perfectly reasonable solution. That's all we're looking for. That may not have been technically correct, but it was the right thing.+ Bart -- I don't remember what I had for lunch today either. I do, however remember doing my First Class Cooking at Dan Nichols State Park December, 1972. It got down into the teens that weekend. I was so cold, I got up about 2:00 am and started a fire. Soon the entire patrol was up so I went ahead and made breakfast -- bacon, eggs and instant oatmeal -- about 3:00 am. A year from now, Bart, I don't expect you to tell me what you ate at LNT training, I do expect you to remember what you were taught. If a kid has absolutely no recollection of completing a requirement, yeah, it's a red flag and deserves further investigation. Which is why I would bring in the person who signed the book for their input.

Thanks for the advice, Pack, since I've generally ignored the I&P threads for a number of years now. I'm set up to sort threads by the most recent post, so occasionally I'll get sucked in with a Scout-oriented subject line, but otherwise don't follow the I&P threads. The tutu ad appeared while I was reading ScoutFish's thread about Cub campout menus. It was a banner ad on the forum page, not a pop up on my computer.

So the real problem here is laziness and ingratitude. Menu planning and food cost has little to do with it. Solve that the way with do with the Scout patrols -- duty rosters. Take a list of everyone on the sign-up sheet and assign them jobs. Start with the uniformed leaders and give them program jobs -- fishing, hiking, crafts. Then assign the remaining parents to meal prep, cooking, cleaning, packing, etc. give everyone a copy at check-in with their name and assignment highlighted. Then at each meal read aloud the assignments for the following meal. If someone complains about their assignment, tough. The job is still their responsibility. They can trade with someone else, con somebody into doing it for them or go out and hire somebody. Jimmie crack corn, you don't care -- it's their responsibility to fulfill, not yours. In the future, if they don't want to get stuck with a crummy job, they need to volunteer in advance for something more suited to their management ability -- like handling registration for the event, planning the menu and buying groceries, or -- heaven forbid -- volunteering to be a den leader and getting one of the really cushie program jobs. Better yet, two months ahead of the next campout, create a blank duty roster with all the jobs listed. Go to the leaders meeting and allow the leaders to have first choice. Then go to the pack meeting and have the parents volunteer for the remaining jobs. Tell them anyone not volunteering for a job will be assigned one. It won't be perfect, you'll still be the last one to leave, emptying trash cans as you go, but it will be better than before and will make a point that this is a cooperative organization and everyone needs to help.

Can you guys please hold off on all the treads related to gay issues? I'm getting banner ads popping up for rainbow colored tutus.

I'm one of the guys who loves cooking on campouts. To me, that IS one of the purposes of the campout -- the comraderie, teamwork, pride and satisfaction of making a great meal under unconventional conditions is a big part of the fun of camping. If you have guys like me who want to do that, what's the problem? If not, and big camp meals are a hassle for your parents, then stick with the PopTarts and bologna. In Boy Scouts, we have a troop chef who does all the cooking for the adults. He's great. To me, this is an example of leading by example. The boys see how well the adults are eating and want to step up their game as well. By tradition, the SPL eats with the adults and our chef usually has one or two boys working on cooking MB help him, so the lessons are trickled down to the patrols. Plus, during JLT, we divide up into two or three man cook teams with and adult coach and try to prepare the most over-the-top, complicated dishes we can think of. The boys really stretch their limits and it's encouraging to some of those dishes turn up on campouts later in the year. I'll grant you, though, that the Cubs probably don't care and the example is likely lost on them. As to cost, you're feeding a family for $30-$40 for a weekend and folks are complaining? What do they think they're paying for food at home?

Gary wrote: "Since a BoR can't retest how you going to determine the requirement was met except that its signed off in the book." You ask more questions. For a First Class candidate, "So did you enjoy cooking for your patrol?" Scout: "I guess." BOR: "Well, what was on the menu?" Scout: "Don't remember." BOR: "What campout did you cook on?" Scout: "Maybe last year sometime." BOR: "Can you tell us about some of the other times you've cooked for your patrol?" Scout: "I don't really like to cook." BOR: "It really doesn't sound like you completed this requirement. Are you sure?" Actually, I probably wouldn't ask that last question. Instead, I'd be looking for the Scoutmaster to see if he can illuminate the situation. As SM, I've been invited in to a couple BoRs like this. In the situation I can recall, the Scout was really, really shy to the point of not being unable to answer the questions properly. I confirmed the requirement had been met. I've also had my advancement chairman catch me on some mistakes, usually dates and stuff like that, which I've mistakenly signed off, but couldn't have been completed. And I had one kid request a BoR after a Scoutmaster conference in which we agreed he wasn't ready to advance. (Since we had conferred, I signed the SMC requirement, but not the others. The AC assumed a SMC signature was a green light for a BoR.) While there are lots of way a board may properly determine a Scout has not completed a requirement, even in situations where the board doesn't have the authority to recind completed requirement (such as with merit badges), it's their responsibility to let the unit committee and unit leaders know where the boys and the program are defficient. It's not about the individual Scout, but rather how to fix programatic problems going forward. I would sure have wanted to know about E92's kid with Indian Lore MB. There's a problem there somewhere. When I first joined the troop, the practice was for all the first year scouts to be signed up for First Aid MB at summer camp which was then taken as defacto completion of all the T-2-1 first aid requirements. I tried to solve it from my end, but it wasn't until the advancement chairman showed up at a committee meeting and reported that none of our Scouts seemed to know any first aid that I got any help recruiting folks to teach FA in house.

You say, "He's autistic." If you absolutely must elaborate, I'd add, "I think he's a great little fellow and I'm looking forward to having him in the pack." Edited to add -- be sure to call your council and ask them to send some one experienced in special needs kids to one of your committee meeting. Everyone in the pack needs to be trained on the subject. Be sure to involve the parents in the training and get their input. Is it me, or does the Scout sound a whole lot like you, Scoutfish? (This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

So can we call those "discretionary strict precentages"? Beav, you described perfectly what we do. And yes, fred, we count campouts and meeting separately. You have to attend both. Thirty-two weekly meetings and zero campouts doesn't equal 50%. The two are measured separately. And again, for emphasis, the precentages are Pirate Rules -- more of a guideline.

Don't write, call. "We've missed Billy at Scouts the last little while and I'm just checking in to see how you both are and if there is anything we can do for you." Or a similar open-ended question, then listen.

But after being gone for a solid 8 months? I'm not talking about the kid who was active through July, and started missing when football practice started. I have a pile of those guys. They've only been gone two-and-a-half months. And they drop in when practice is cancelled and come Saturday morning to campouts, if they can. Now that it is getting dark early, several of them show up for troop meetings still in their workout clothes. I have no problem with them picking up right where they left off. But 8 months is a different deal. No sports season or school activity lasts that long. If grades/school was an issue, they could have attended over the summer. They've missed summer camp, JLT, eight campouts and getting to know an entire class of new scouts who joined the troop since they've been around. As Beavah has said, there are just more important issues here than advancement.

Forget Eagle. A basic purpose of any BoR is to determine if requirements have been met. Another function is to evaluate the unit's program. I'm not saying the board has the ability to go in and determine if the boy completed requirement 4a of the tiddly-winks merit badge, but if 82 of the MBs are from the same counselor or all signed-off on the same date, the board would be warranted in asking more questions. Perhaps there is nothing for the BoR to do at that point, but that may certainly be something to be brought to the attention of the unit committee or district advancement committee. While the information can be determined from the written record, where's the harm in asking the candidate? He's sitting right there. Without asking, how would they have known the young man earned all the MBs the old-fashioned way? Can the questions be phrased in a kind, friendly matter and still get to that piece of information? Someone with an extra ordinary story should expect extra ordinary questions and be prepared with extra ordinary answers. If I graduated high school in June 1980 and earned a PhD from Harvard in January 1981, I would expect a job interviewer to raise questions about it. "Harvard? The one in Boston, right?" Tough questions aren't unkind or discourteous, per se. And anyone who has amassed a resume like this should be able to handle them. And again, it sounds like this fellow did. Guy -- curious. Did you discuss any of this with the Scout? I'd be interested if he had the same impressions.

Which is the point I tried to make this morning. We're not McDonald's. We DO add barbecue sauce to the burgers if that's what the owners and customers of a particular store want. And usually -- certainly the case here -- there's another burger joint just down the street if you don't like barbecue sauce on your hamburger. I'll even give you directions to the other store. The problem with these discussions parsing advancement policy is that we tend to look at advancement in a vacuum. It's not. Advancement is one part of the overall program. And as advancement is just a part of Scouting, Scouting is just a part of these boys' lives. What I think Beav's getting at, and certainly what I'm trying to say, is that you need to step back and look at the totatality of what's going on with this kid. Your hypothetical sounds as if the boy entered a time warp for eight months. But that's never the case. There's always some cause or reason for the absence and the circumstances make a difference. A good SM will want to understand what's going on with the Scout and will likely have a fair idea in the first place. After 8 months it is inconceivable that you would just pick up with a Scoutmaster's Conference without an understanding of what's happening with the kid. And that needs to take a little time. Assuming that after 8 months a boy calls out of the blue for a SMC (and it's hard to imagine that happening) there is nothing wrong with the SM saying, "you know, we really need to get caught up with each other. I haven't seen you since February, so maybe we can chat at the next couple troop meeting and you go with us on the campout in a couple weeks. We'll see where we are and worry about advancement stuff later." But here's my question to you -- how does recognizing and rewarding a Scout who has not attended an activity in 8 months advance the mission of the program? Waht is that teaching? Is that good for the Scout? (I don't know, maybe it is, given a particular situation.) Is it good for the unit and/or program? If you look at advancement in a vacuum, it doesn't matter. But if you consider the big picture of what we are trying to teach these young men, I think it does.