Zahnada

NOOOO!!! I can't let this topic slip down the Open Discussion page into obscurity!! I won't let it!

Leadership is the key to Boy Scouts! It is what separates us from any other organization in the country. Church youth groups teach morals and community service. Explorers and other groups not tied down to heavily by BSAs liability protection have outdoor experiences. But where will you find leadership?

I've looked at resumes of people who try to kid themselves that they have leadership experience. "I was on Honor Roll so therefore I was a roll model to the school. That's a type of leadership." I seriously read that on a resume.

But look at a boy scout's resume. "I was directly in charge of a group of 8 boys for 6 months. I represented them and taught them and led them." "I planned activities for a troop of 40 boys for 6 months." "I was an instructor for a summer for hundreds of boys."

Leadership is probably the most important thing that boys get from scouting. Not to say that morals aren't important. They actually go together. A good leader is a moral leader. But the leadership experience is what makes a boy who's a scout look, act, and just seem a little different from any other boy.

That's why I wanted to push this topic back to the top of the list. I know that BSA is restructuring their JLT right now, but I still want to hear ideas. Nothing is perfect. Tell this forum what you like and what you don't like about scouting leadership policies no matter how radical. I just tore apart the 11 Steps of Leadership (and have more tearing to do) and nobody's challenged me.

anyway, this post really doesn't have much of a purpose but to raise this topic back up on the forum.

Yes, it does upset me that I missed the boat on national JLT planning. It's too bad. But that won't stop me from speculating and developing theories of what a JLTC should look like. I'm like a sports fan who keeps imagining what trades his team should do to improve. Realistically, it will take probably 2 more summers before a completed version of the JLT is handed out to Councils. That's an enternity for a boy in scouting. I've been told that scouting is done at the local level, so I shall keep improving our council's JLTC until I can get my hands on the national program. And then, there are probably many camp specific changes that will need to be made on that. Nothing is perfect.

But back to the 11 Skills of Leadership...

My previous argument is that we need less class time in leadership camps. Learning takes place through activity, discoveries, and reflection. A lot of class time can be cut out by just trimming the fat from many of the skills. The wording repeats itself horribly and becomes very confusing. An effective boy leader shouldn't have to turn to his notes to remember how to initiate a planning session because there are so many steps and theories.

So let's not clutter up the camp with classes that may give a nice theoretical or abstract background to leadership. Let's focus on classes that boys can and will easily apply.

Some just need to be removed. Counseling is one that comes to mind. It is incredubly abstract and confusing. I believe that in the beginning it says something like, "Most counseling should be performed by an adult leader." This is a skill that few people understand, remember, or will ever use.

Next up is Controlling Group Performance. This class has a great title and sounds very important. The actual class leaves much to be desired. It is basically a class that says, "Everything will work out if you plan, evaluate, and set the example. Be sure to understand the needs and characteristics and resources of the group as well." While this may work well for an overview of the course, it should then be titled "Bringing it all Together" or something and should focus towards that task. Right now, it is a skill that is long, and fairly inactive. The purpose of Controlling Group Performance could be achieved through classes like Planning, Evaluating, and Setting the Example.

The final class that should be removed from the curriculum is Representing the Group. Once again, here is an example of a great theoretical concept, but not enough of one to warrant its own class. This class can be summed up in a few minutes "Patrol leaders wear two hats" and can be presented at the daily PLC. Every scout should eventually attend a PLC and will learn the skill in a way where it actually applies more. This would be helped even more if the PLC used patrol opinions to plan events. But a camp should not take the time to make this its own class.

Well, those are the first three that I would remove from the curriculum in their entirety (except for Representing which would have concepts introduced through daily PLCs). That brings us down to the 8 Skills of Leadership. It's a bit more manageable, but still a little large. Tell me what you think.

Tune in next time for: Zahnada's reworking and combining of classes to reach his optimal 4-5 Skills of Leadership.

Well, since this topic seems to be drifting off this forum's radar, I will assume that there are no objections to NOT basing JLTC on Woodbadge.

Now, my next idea for JLTC is... interesting. All I ask is that you read what I have to say with an open mind and then hopefully this will open some debate. Actually, I have a feeling that Bob White will tell me that they have either already tried or are currently utilizing what I will say. So much the better.

We need to rethink the 11 Skills of Leadership. And I mean to massively rethink them. First of all, they occupy far too much classtime in a standard JLTC curriculum. These boys have finished school just a few weeks before this. They are on summer mode. While some boys are bred and raised and excell in the classroom, most will turn their minds off. I can't say I blame them. They come to a camp and get stuck in a class for hours at a time.

Now, the counterargument is that the class should be very active. It should be interactive and full of activities and games that illustrate the points. I most certainly hope this is true. But it still is a very artificial atmosphere and no boy will forget that he's in a class. Back to schema theory, presentations are associated with class, class is associated with school. School is associated with boredom. Classes, no matter how enthused the staff is or how active it is, will always still be a class.

So I propose to limit class time. And to do this will mean to limit the 11 Skills of Leadership.

Here's the ideal vision of my plan. Right after morning flag, the scouts do some sort of patrol activity. The staff, intertwines in that activity one of the skills. Such as planning. The skill could either be specifically incorporated, used in the example, or specifically left out (ie. intiative games where they are not allowed to communicate). After lunch, a brief 30-60 minute reflection is held on the morning activities where the staff will tease out the skill that was being emphasized. A quick explanation of the proper uses of it, using the morning activity as the backdrop and then they perform an afternoon activity. In the evening, a brief reflection is held on how this school can be brought to the troops.

Now, I realize that something very similar to this approach is used, but I feel it is being bogged down with all 11 of the skills. We need to ask ourselves: would we rather the scouts leave the camp remembering only pieces of 11 skills or would we rather have them leave with 4-5 skills hammered home and deeply understood? I actually expect answers to this basic question to vary, and I welcome the debate.

But back to the skills themselves. I have read through the classes many times, and I have decided that these skills are horribly confusing. You'll have the five steps to this, and within step 2 are the three keys to this which are mirrored by step 4 that explains the 8 components of this... There is so much good material on leadership that all of this is important information. However, is it essential information for a boy leader? My answer is no. The important facts of each skill is smothered by secondary, theoretical, abstract ideas. They leave the camp knowing lots, and not knowing anything.

The skills need to be reworked to hammer home certain ideas within each. We shouldn't give the theoretical base of everything, because a person leaves a class remembering only so much. Let's repeat the things we really want them to leave with.

Ok, this is getting long enough. Tell me what you think.

And coming soon: Which of the 11 Skills of Leadership will Zahnada say are not necessary? Goodbye counselling.

While we're on the topic: GO LANCE ARMSTRONG!!! Now there's a hero. There's someone who kids should emulate. Of course, it's rarely the choice of the parents on who should become a child's role model. They can play their child in a position to find a role model in certain people, but the freedom of choice rests with the child.

This whole conversation about sports athletes being role models interests me. I think schema theory fits in this really well. Kids separate out the events in their lives with amazing skill. They realize that a basketball player is a basketball player. Therefore they imitate the player's on court skills and actions. As a youth basketball coach and referee, I hated to see kids display the same facial expressions of "I didn't foul!" that so many professional athletes have.

However, they do not look to basketball players for the way to live a moral life or the way to treat women or the way to abuse substances. A kid may shoot a free throw a certain way because "That's the way my hero shoots it" but they don't start smoking pot because "That's the way my hero lives." Athletes outside the world of sports do not match up with schemas. Their actions, while often unfortunate, are not (always) looked to for advice on life.

That's where parents and scouting come in. A parent IS looked to for nearly all aspects of life. A parent encompasses many mental categories of a child and therefore their example is extremely important. The same could be said for scouting.

So, I agree with some that people can be appreciated for their accomplishments. But in the case of Lance Armstrong, the guy is an amazing athlete, has an amazing story, and is a class act.

I think Bob White is actually backing up my major point. Woodbadge should not be the basis for JLTC. As he points out, Woodbadge teaches leadership to all sorts of scouting positions. Including administrative. This already places Woodbadge as teaching a very different type of leadership. Adult positions in scouting vary so much, and Woodbadge has tried to cover all those positions that it would be confusing to the youth. JLTC should be a focused training session to teach boys how to lead patrols or troops. They can then apply these skills to other areas of life. I feel that if we try to bite off too much with a JLTC curriculum, then less will be understood by the boys and the important topics will be buried.

I'm not sure if I want to open up a new can of worms, but Bob's last post made me question the focus of Woodbadge. I feel that things like Troop JLTs and an understanding of the JLTC curriculum are valuable for scoutmasters. Such training could help the program enormously. If Woodbadge doesn't have the time or isn't focused towards these objectives, then maybe some new work needs to be done with Woodbadge. Some have suggested a tier system for troop JLTs. Maybe such a system could work for Woodbadge. Maybe one year could focus on specifically being a SM or ASM and the next year could involve commitees, volunteer work, and other administrative leadership. This is just a thought. I hate to take the topic away from JLTC which I feel the emphasis needs to be on.

With that said, what is the history of JLTC? Which came first, Woodbadge or JLTC? When was the original program written? I'm not sure, but it definitely seems like the current JLTC is based heavily on Woodbadge. The classes are a bit abstract, confusing, and sometimes I feel they "dumb-down" the topic a bit much. If this is the case (but please tell me if I'm way off base) then I think it shows that JLTC should be written independently of Woodbadge and if anything, Woodbadge should conform to the JLTC curriculum.

Whew. Sorry if I was all over the place in this post.

There's often a lot of talk about the connection between Woodbadge and JLTC. Many people want to have JLTC based on the Woodbadge program to encourage a dialogue between SMs and scouts. So, here is my ideal Woodbadge.

First we must ask ourselves the question: Who is JLTC for? It is a program for the boys. The boys who attend gain leadership skills that will (hopefully) benefit them throughout their lives. The boys in their home troops receive an improved program because of their newly trained leaders and will also learn leadership by example. To take another step back, the boys and girls who interact with a JLTC trained boy will also gain some insight just by viewing his example. The diffusion can be enormous.

So who's Woodbadge for? The answer is: The Boys!!! Anything that an adult gets from Woodbadge should be secondary. Woodbadge should be an experience that helps the adult work with the boys.

Because of this, I do not feel that a youth course should be modeled from an adult course. If anything, Woodbadge's curriculum should be based on JLTC.

To create a healthy dialogue between scout and Scoutmaster is important, but it could be approached differently. To me, JLTC (in its essence) should be "This is how you, as a boy, can lead." Woodbadge should then be "This is how you, as an adult, can let the boy lead." To create the dialogue, then Woodbadge should explain to the scoutmasters what exactly the boys are learning in JLTC. There's the dialogue. They're both learning the concept of youth leadership, but they're approaching it from different angles. This would accomplish the goals of scouting much more efficiently than two similar courses for two very different ages.

Another important emphasis of Woodbadge needs to be the troop JLT. I agree with most other posters that real leadership experience and learning should take place at the troop level. Once a troop JLT program is developed, it should be taught at Woodbadge (and hopefully JLTC) so that it can be introduced at the troop level.

Besides these reasons, I also feel that there's a definite difference between adults and youth in their learning styles and to create similar courses will put youth in a learning position where they are not completely comfortable or efficient. Adults can sit through PowerPoint and take notes during classes. Youth need more activity. I'll probably post more of my opinions on this subject later when I talk about the 11 Skills of Leadership.

Bob White,

As this discussion seems to be "dying" down, I don't know if there's much reason for me to defend myself further. But for the past several posts, I HAVE SAID THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE MEMBERSHIP NUMBERS TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SUCCESS OR LACK OF IT FOR AN ORGANIZATION.

Please stop attacking me on a matter that I have actually stated I do not believe in.

And I feel that caution is not always "self-defeating." Pessimism and optimism need a healthy blend for success. To blindly follow either one is self defeating. I feel that my faith in the program and my love of scouting is enough optimism. My worries about the road scouting is taking are the pessimism. We may not agree on that road, but I am not participating in scouts saying, "Well, I should let my troop die because scouts is dying."

But now we're off the issue.

Bob White,

I must admit, those numbers are a relief to me. I hope I don't give the impression of someone who wishes the destruction of BSA. I'm just not an optimistic person. It probably comes from living on the West Coast. I assure you that the comments I have made accurately portray the situation in many areas here.

And as I stated earlier, I believe that numbers can be deceiving. So I don't put all my faith about success in membership figures. I still stick to my statements in other posts that BSA needs to refocus and that refocus should center on JLT. I am still not convinced that scouts has finished weathering the storm of controversy and I expect many more debates and court cases and controversy in the years to come.

I'm very excited that this message thread was started. Youth leadership is something that I feel separates scouting from any other organization. It's what makes scouting the unique and wonderful experience that it can become.

I actually think we should move this thread outside the "Issues and Politics" forum and maybe into "Patrol Method" or "General Discussion." Ideally, JLTC would be important enough to have its own forum. I just fear that some people may avoid this forum because they don't want to hear about all the debates and controversy and I would hate to lose those valuable opinions.

I have a question for Bob White and any one else who can answer. What does the pilot JLTC program look like? What were the major changes?

I encourage OldGreyEagle and Eagledad to copy and paste their messages into one of these other forums. I hope we get some good debate because I think there are many strong and valid opinions on JLTC.

First of all, many have questioned if I have any membership number evidence on my behalf. I just looked at the figures at www.scouting.org and did the math myself. Now, these are only numbers so they probably shouldn't/couldn't generate much discussion, but it may help in my defense. These are the total number of cub scouts, boy scouts, and varsity scouts.

1998: 3,195,429

1999: 3,209,366

2000: 3,118,111

2001: 3,049,070

So, for percentages, BSA was growing .4%, then the Supreme Court came around and we lost 2.8% (which isn't horrible considering the position BSA was in), then in 2001 we lost another 2.2% (which is probably less of a decrease than it could have been if not for the rampant post September 11 patriotism). The numbers for 2002 weren't posted yet. Add to this a population increase of about .89% (CIA World Factbook) and it's 3-4% lost per year. Once again, these are only numbers and most organization have cycles. Just don't tell me that membership is booming.

What's just as bad as lost membership is lost funding. Most notably the United Way. This is a national problem more than a local problem when it concerns many large donors. Businesses are thinking twice about giving BSA money because of the controversy and BSA inability to actively defend itself. This type of lost funding has not had much of an affect on program yet, but I think the reprocussions will be felt in the next 5-10 years. Once scouting needs to be cut back at the local level, then the impact on the boys will be noticable.

And I agree with what the last few posts have said. The local level and the troop and patrol level is where scouting occurs. I'm sorry that because I'm pessimistic you have felt the need to attack not only my council, my troop, but also my convictions to the program. I take personal offense to comments that say I don't really care or I would be doing more, because basically, you don't know what I do.

But I still feel that this issue involves all of Boy Scouts. While the local level is the place to fix the situation, the national level is where the issues were created and they need to do more damage control. They need to defend their positions with more eloquence and turn the focus to other areas of Boy Scouts.

This turns me to another program aspect that I feel very strongly about. Leadership. While this strays from the topic, and you will undoubtedly hear more from me about this, I feel the leadership program is the most central and the most overlooked aspect of scouting. It's what truly separates us from every other youth organization. Due to liability, bettering camping and outdoor activity can be found with other organizations (not to say that BSA's outdoors still isn't one of the strongest in the country). Other groups offer discipline and morals. I challenge anyone to find a group that offers as much leadership opportunity as Boy Scouts. This is why I feel the curriculum for JLTC needs to be reworked and why it should become a primary focus for Boy Scouts.

Sorry if I went off subject for a moment. Keep your eyes posted in other forums for more.

I believe Hanaski stated it best. BSA is not advancing. They are not changing or growing as our current culture demands. Once again, I'm not calling for a reversal of the gay decision. That would cripple scouts. Instead, I think it's time for BSA to look at its program, policy, and interactions among society and think of developing change.

I'm not talking about anything radical here. But it's time to adjust. Boy Scouts needs to open its doors to the people and explain what it is that we're about. That message is being lost. What do advertisements look like? It's always a boy in front of an American flag, wearing full uniform and saluting. Such patriotic displays are important, but they do not tell the whole story. BSA should be improving and marketing their leadership camps (since they do have probably the largest and most active youth leadership program in the nation). Their ads should be showing more camping, climbing, horse riding, and other "cool" activities.

This is where public relations have failed. This is where BSA is dying. They're hoping that their old image carries them through the current problems. Instead, the image has gone from moral patriots to mindless, conservative, anamatronic, little army men. Now, naturally, the controversy is young and the transformation is not complete, but I cannot believe that many of you are not seeing this problem developing.

I read somewhere on this forum that the Eagle Scout color guard was booed at the Democratic convention. That should be a red flag! I know it's in a very liberal part of the country, but never forget the impact of Hollywood and the media.

Boy Scouts has not been out repairing broken bridges and making the country realize the value of the program. Instead, they have been heaped in issues and politics and the true use of scouts is being lost.

In regards to media coverage, which is being seen more by the public: the wonderful experience that Boy Scouts has to offer, or the controversy with gays and atheists? BSA needs to shift that spotlight elsewhere if it wants to save itself. Right now, the organization survives on a good name and on the faith that people have put into it. But this view that, "Zahnada is just blowing this out of proportion" and "People will always know how great we are" is just allowing the attacks to come with no response.

BSA needs to change if it wants to survive. Not policy, but marketing and program. I think leadership camps are the key personally, but that's a whole different issue.

Dan,

I realize that if gays and atheists were allowed (at this time) the backlash would be much worse than it is now. The strongest supporters of scouting (LDS and Catholics) would never allow that and could possibly withdraw enough membership to destroy BSA. I'm not an idealistic liberal. BSA is in a no-win position right now.

While hiring PR people to "put a positive spin" on the issue sounds like a cheap idea, that is in essence what I think needs to happen. BSA has not articulated and explained their position well at all. They are not defending their actions against the onslaught of attacks that will only get worse. This has been a public relations catastrophy because nobody outside of BSA understands the reasoning behind these decisions. Even in this forum, I have not read a post that makes a compelling argument.

In response to littlebillie,

Yes, "transition" is probably a more appropriate and optimistic term for the situation than "dying." But transitions are turning points. They are times for change. BSA is not handling this transition well at all. Sure the Supreme Court gave BSA the right to choose its membership, but it doesn't mean that we should all be hiding behind that decision. BSA cannot survive if its only action during this "transition" is to say, "Well, the Supreme Court says we're right and that's good enough."

They're standing by idle and taking all the blows from several directions. It's just as everyone who argues against my view states. "Scouting is a wonderful organization and it will survive on its merits alone." No! Because it's not actively defending those merits anymore. Public opinion of Scouts continues to worsen.

I know many of you don't think that you see the degredation that I'm seeing. Many have stated that the adults don't just stand around and talk about politics in the troop and neither do the boys. That's not the problem. What about when scouting comes up with people who aren't members or have no experience with scouts? What does the conversation often turn to? Controversy. Gay rights. Discrimination. Try it. Go out and find someone who is not active and has never been active in BSA and ask them, "What do you think of Boy Scouts?" Their answer will most likely address the controversy someway.

It's all about mental schemas. Scouts and controversy are quickly becoming linked in people's minds and BSA is not solving the problem. This may be the only time that scouts has faced an image crisis. They are in transition and they are handling it very poorly.

Certainly the kids don't care about politics and hardly anyone in Cub Scouts even knows the distinction between a homosexual and a heterosexual. The opposition I see isn't coming from the kids. I see the parents as becoming less willing to let their kids join Boy Scouts. Now I admt that this isn't very apparent now, but the once good image of BSA is tarnished. And I don't see them doing anything to remedy that.

America is becoming an increasingly accepting place. This acceptance reaches more and more gays and atheists. I'm not opening a debate on scouting policies regarding these issues. But the more that BSA allows the nation to see them as an elitist, conservative, discriminating group, the worse things will get.

And I think you over estimate the scouting appeal to youth without the influence of their parents. Scout has never been the "cool" activity. This is especially apparent in middle school where all of life is centered around popularity. I'm seeing parents who are much less willing to encourage their sons to continue in scouting through this rough age.

This is probably the roughest period that BSA has ever had to endure. And I don't think they're handling it well at all.

kwc57,

I tend to agree that the sky is not falling. My post probably did sound a bit apocalyptic. BSA has endured for many years. It has faced challenges from other youth organizations and has still prevailed as the peak example of boy leadership and morality.

And what has allowed the American population to keep such faith in this organization? A good name. A name that stands for all the positive attributes that are desirable in boys. And this good name could not be attacked by anyone.

Until now. Every newspaper article is dragging BSA's good name through the mud. People love to see the mighty fall and the media is portraying just that.

Now, Boy Scouts has endured all the controversy because of their good name and the faith that its member have in it. But this controversy only became heated a few years ago. Now BSA is a target. It is a target for ultra liberals, for gay rights, for atheists. They are a target and the attacks will keep coming. And if each attack is weathered as they have been in the past, it is only a matter of time before BSA crumbles.

Boy Scouts need better public relations. That's what I'm arguing for. I'm sorry, but your view that "the sky is not falling" and that everything will be fine is only making the problem worse. Every organization needs to look to the future and I see a very bleak future 20-30 years from now for BSA. I don't know if my grandchildren will have the benefit of Boy Scouts.

Boy Scouts of America is under attack and right now, our defenses are poor.

The Boy Scouts have been pushed into a public relations nightmare. With an already poor marketing campaign, this current string of lawsuits is crippling.

I'm not writing this post to start a discussion on BSA's gay policy (which I feel is wrong). It has become apparent to me that their method of dealing with this controversy is horrible. As a result, if nothing changes, I predict that BSA will be a dead organization in 20 years. They will be a shell of the organization that the country respected.

While Boy Scouts have never been "cool", it has been respected. Middle school students may have hid their uniforms from their friends, but by the time high school came many boys wished they were Eagles. They respected the diversity that the program offers and realized that being an Eagle Scout is a great addition to any resume because it stands as a symbol for a dedicated and moral person. I was accepted to a good college because my resume was loaded with leadership, community service, employment, and glowing letters of recommendation. This all comes from participation in Boy Scouts.

Suddenly, this isn't true anymore. I can see it change by the month. Before, when I would proudly state that I'm an Eagle Scout, I received comments of, "That must have been hard work." and "I wish I had been a scout." Now the comments are, "So you hate gays?" or "Did you hear about the atheist who was kicked out?" It is becoming increasingly less honorable to be a member of this organization.

There are many comparisons between the KKK and BSA. At this point, these are ridiculous. However, I can see the gap beginning to close. What BSA once stood for is being forgotten among a swarm of controversy. To many it is perceived as an arrogant group of conservative elitists. In some places, it is already a black mark on a resume to be affiliated with boy scouts. I can only see things getting worse from here.

We all know that there are dozens of mothers who are forcing their sons to become Eagles so at the last minute the boy can shout out that he's an atheist. Result? Fame, martyrdom, and a lawsuit for the family. There are boys in scouts right now who are waiting to become Eagles so they can come out of the closet and force BSA's hand. Result? Political statements and more bad PR.

The public relations department of the Boy Scouts is doing a terrible job. They have let this run wild and it will continue to worsen until BSA begins to defend itself. To constantly state, "We are a private organization and reserve the right to admit who we want" does not help the situation. It only loses more sponsorships. It only makes more families decide that sports or music would be a better use of time and money for their sons than scouting (which is not to say that sports and music aren't important).

BSA needs to begin to eloquently explain their position to the country. As of now, I still have not heard an eloquent explanation of why gays are not allowed except for references to setting a good moral example. But what does that mean? These abstract terms are not explanations. I have yet to hear an argument that would convince any liberal of the value of scouting.

It's sad to see such a great organization slowly die. And it's even worse to see that little is being done to save it.