EmberMike

There are tons of posts about it throughout social media. I just thought it was interesting to note that in looking at BSA official social media accounts, it was as if the President wasn't even there at all.

I follow BSA on Instagram and they've been posting to their "stories" recapping events at Jambo. They post multiple times per day, highlighting guests, activities, etc. But not one post about Trump's visit or speech. Nothing on Twitter, either. They're pretty clearly downplaying the President's visit, at least on social media. With as much as they post on Instagram, surely the President visiting Jambo would have been worthy of a post. Guess they're as disappointed with the visit as many of us are.

Not much else that anyone can or should do. If the BSA says any more than they've already said, they do more harm than good. If they speak out against the content of the speech, they're seen as anti-right. If they endorse the speech, they're seen as anti-left. Neither situation fits today's narrative of what the BSA is trying to be. Which is exactly what they said in their statement, non-partisan. And pretty even-keeled as far as political issues go. It's an organization that embraces ideologies on both sides of the political spectrum. Left on some things, right on others. Like most things in the political discourse these days, this issue will pass as well. Hopefully sooner than later.

It's an answer, but not to the question National has been asking. They don't care really about serving the demand for a BSA-like program for girls. The video outlines their desire to better serve families overall, and specifically make scouting easier to participate in by not excluding girls and splitting up the family. Hypothetically, if GSUSA fixed their program and fulfilled the need for a more outdoorsy BSA-like program, I suspect National would still be making this move. Because it has nothing to do with available programs. It's a membership drive, with the aim of making scouting more "accessible" or more family-schedule-friendly.

Even via video Obama was more Presidential than Trump was in-person.

The best Jambo guest speakers are the ones who can be motivational, inspirational, and relatable. Trump was none of those things tonight. He just used this as yet another tour stop to brag about his win in November. Obama never attended, but I think it would have been better for everyone if Trump hadn't showed up, either. He certainly didn't have anything positive to add.

Fair point. I think the difference is that kids are more drawn to sports that scouting, especially as they get into their teens. Unfortunately scouting may always have to try a lot harder than sports teams to be enticing to the kids and convenient to the parents.

The viability of girl-only units will depend on if there are enough girls to make a unit. This is going to be a tough thing to pull off for many groups. Even with the pack being a feeder into these new girl-only troops, it will likely take years to get enough girls involved to build a successful unit. Separation keeps the anti-coed folks a little happier but it gives these new girl troops an uphill battle to get established, recruit, and grow their own troop. Not to mention getting enough new leaders involved.

This was my original (and still is my current) motivation in wanting to see co-ed scouting happen. The constant demand for girls to have a bigger place in the BSA seems to indicate a lack of this kind of program elsewhere. I would love to see the BSA become the place that fulfills that demand. After watching the video, however, I don't get the feeling that providing a place for girls is really a high priority for National. Their motivations seems to be largely fixated on alleviating the difficulties and strains faced by adults being pulled in too many directions by the hectic demands of modern parenting. That as a means of making scouting more accessible to families and (hopefully) stopping the membership erosion, that seems to be the focus. From what CSE was saying, anyway. Being a proponent of co-ed scouting, I still get what I've been hoping for if co-ed moves forward in this way and based on these membership goals. It just would have been a little sweeter to see it happen with more of an emphasis on all of the good this could do for girls, not just for membership numbers and organizational growth charts. BSA isn't presently in a place where membership is so dire that they needed to make a move based solely on the goal of increasing membership. We had another 10 years probably before we got to that point, if declines continued as they have been. They easily could have positioned this as more of a move to grow the program, extend more scouting opportunities to girls, enrich the experience in a more diverse population of scouts and scouters. Instead they just made it blatantly clear that this is a business decision, and not much more.

Interesting video. I watched it after my previous reply, so it did kind of fill in a few answers for me. 1. This isn't a fast-tracked decision to go co-ed. They've been working on this, Surbaugh said hundreds of people have been involved and/or given input. They've been looking at this option for a while now. 2. They're not calling it "co-ed", it will be Cub Scouting for Boys and Cub Scouting for Girls. Separate gender dens or separate gender packs entirely. 3. Local option, no packs will be required to accept girls if they (or the charter) choose not to. 4. Sounds like they don't really know how this will work beyond the pack. There's a lot to be determined for how this program moves up to the troop level, OA, Eagle, etc. And they want to decide these things before going ahead with the change. This sounds like a business decision more than anything. Family scouting looks like a potential solution for National to buck the trend of declining interest in "legacy" organizations like scouts, elks, PTA, etc. It also sounds like it's happening, regardless of what anyone thinks. Surbaugh did say that the option to stop this conversation and pass on the idea of girls in BSA was a valid option. But I doubt it's really on the table. Everything about this that I've seen so far seems to indicate that it's happening. Surbaugh thinks that without Family Scouting, the erosion continues, no way around it. It sounds like he views this as a critical move, one the BSA has to make.

Or providing the illusion of welcoming comment on the matter. Sure you can comment all you want, but it's already happening anyway. Even if this does indeed lead to co-ed scouting, and although I'm in favor of BSA going co-ed, I'm not a fan of how this is playing out. Although I've taken issue with some of the concerns others have about co-ed scouting, I've also acknowledged that there will be challenges to adding girls to the pack, and that there are certainly many valid concerns. I've got plenty of my own as well. And with those concerns in mind, the potential of seeing co-ed get fast-tracked into some councils as early as January is deeply concerning. If that is indeed the plan, I think National is being downright reckless with this change. This should be a gradual move, with lots of time for discussion, planning, adjustments to training, etc. Instead, it sounds like packs will be expected to just jump right in, and work out the details as they go along. I thought this would take years to achieve. Instead we're talking about 2018. It's crazy.

My apologies, I read that statement to be your words, not the words of moms in your group.

She certainly was if the consensus around here is that only men lead a group of kids into the woods.

I know plenty of moms who would do far better in the woods than a lot of dads. It's sad that anyone would say that anything is "men's work" in this day and age, where women prove over and over again that they are just as capable as men. I suppose we should tell all of the women in the desert that war is "men's work", or the women firefighters who prove they can do the job as well as their male co-workers that they should had up their turnouts.

Keep in mind this "Family Scouting" initiative is likely aimed at the Cub level, where leadership training is not much of a consideration. My guess would be that at the Boy Scout level it wouldn't be called "Family Scouting". I don't know this for a fact, but it's a strong suspicion. I'm in favor of co-ed, generally speaking. But I would be concerned about something called "Family Scouting" at the Boy Scout level and I agree it could subvert leadership development.

What's the parent motivation for pushing for palms? I understand why some parents push for Eagle, to some it's a nice resume/college application item. But why palms? Most people outside of scouting don't even know what palms are, they don't have the name recognition that Eagle does.

That's not really the kind of business the BSA is in. Their business model when it comes to growth has historically (last 20-30 years) been to extend their reach to more youth who don't yet even know they want to be members. Or to communities that had little (or no) scouting program. I'm not sure why they don't do more to encourage greater participation from within already well-established scout groups and families. Maybe they view those groups as already at peak membership potential, so not worth the time. In any case, it just seems like they aren't all that interested in doing anything to offer anything more enticing to families that are already connected to scouting. Growth strategy in the BSA largely seems aimed at growing to new markets, new areas, and new would-be scouts and scouters with little or no existing interest in scouting. Not saying it's a good or bad strategy, just stating what seems to be the growth model strategy, in my opinion. And that I don't think it puts a lot of value on what existing members want. If it did, we'd hear a lot more about program ideas than we do about membership policy.

You have "a ton" of coed BSA-like programs closer to home? Or just a ton of coed programs? Because the distinction matters greatly, I think.

The letter from the Program Director was a bit dissapointing. Even taking the same stance that they did, denying any wrongdoing, they certainly could have worded it better. Implying that you were having this covered by insurance yet still seeking reimbursement was inappropriate. Surely the director knows as well as anyone else that quite likely your deductible would prohibit an insurance claim on $300. If it were me, and if I really did believe that the range setup wasn't at fault for the window, I still would have taken a different approach in responding.

I've never in my life heard an Eagle Scout refered to as "Boy Scout Eagle". I think you're injecting gender into the title unnecessarily.

No, I'm not saying that. I acknowledged in that post that going co-ed might not be a good idea. All I was suggesting is that I can see why National might consider doing it because of declining membership. Do you really think BSA is a "successful business model" today? I'm not sure I'd call these kinds of drops in membership year after year for more than a decade "successful".

I said that I think they will spend millions revamping the logo and literature. I don't think they need to change anything, but they will. Or the change could be gradual. I think it has to be, actually. But knowing how National operates, I think they'll want to fairly quickly roll out a name change and at least a text update to the logo if they go co-ed. If they're going to go co-ed, they'll want the benefits that come along with it, including a (hopeful) membership boost from girls signing up. They'll try to capitalize on that PR with some sort of announcement about the change and likely a name change at least to something more gender-neutral. Scouts of America or something like that. I don't think they'd mandate that everything change right away. But eventually it will, and it will all cost money at every step, every change in badge, book, document, photo, sign, etc.

I think you have the only scouts in the country who shower not just daily, but twice daily. I'm sure it's an issue for some camps and councils. Likewise, for others it's not an issue. Ever camp in my local council currently has the ability to accommodate male and female scouts and scouters. For every story of camps like yours where bathrooms and showers are inadequate even for the existing male memnbership, there are just as many stories not being told about camps that would have no problem if we went co-ed tomorrow. Maybe even more so. Horror stories about the less-then-stellar facilities we've all encountered at one point or another make for better conversation about the kids than the ones about the fancy bathrooms. My point was and still is, bathrooms aren't the issue that will break the bank is the BSA goes co-ed. We're talking about a massive re-branding of a national organization with millions of members who each have a pile of materials and uniform pieces that all say "Boy Scouts of America" that will have to be changed. Books that will have to be re-done. signs at offices and camps that need to be changed. Redesigning the BSA name and logo, website, all marketing materials, literature, building a whole new library of images and documents, etc. There is a brand guidelines book for the BSA that details every element of the BSA brand, and how it is all used. That book needs to be entirely re-written. This is the sort of thing that companies of similar size spend many millions of dollars on, tens of millions sometimes. I really think National could send crews around to every camp that needs bathroom upgrades and it would still cost less than a co-ed rebranding initiative. There are what, maybe 1,000 scout camps across the country? Out of that 1,000, there are probably fewer than 500 that would need help going co-ed in terms of bathroom and shower facilities. But for the sake of argument, let's say this would affect 500 camps to the extent that they needed to significantly upgrade existing facilities. Maybe even build an entirely new bathroom. At most, the cost should be $5,000. We're talking about extending existing facilities in most cases, tapping in to existing plumbing and electric, and using cheap materials. It's scout camp, they're not getting glass tile and brushed nickel fixtures here. If National said, "We decided to go co-ed, we'll pay for the camp upgrades," we'd be looking at a cost of around $2.5 million to spend $5,000 on 500 camps. Which I think is probably a high estimate. I really don't think there are 500 camps that would need help, nor do I think most camps would even need $5,000 in upgrades. But again, let's just say that maybe all of this were true. I guarantee you the cost of re-branding the organization and overhauling every piece of scout supply that would need to be changed to reflect the inclusion of girls will cost a lot more than $2.5 million. Are bathrooms an issue? Sure. Are bathrooms the most important and significant issue, as they seem to be when they're the most talked-about aspect of co-ed scouting whenever this topic comes up? No, they're not.

Does it matter? They had an option to not have girls in their troop at all. They didn't choose that option. I think that's the answer right there to how they feel about girls in BSA anyway.

I realize you said, "don't use the argument of increasing the declining membership...", so I hate to say it, but... At least in terms of addressing the question of why anyone is willing to change the program, declining membership is a fair place to point to for an answer. And you could apply that answer to any apect of the program, and any type of change, from program to policy and beyond. When the generation of kids entering scouting today could quite possibly be the last generation of boy scouts in America, I think that's a good reason to want to change something. Anything, really. If the rate of decline we've seen over the last 10 years continues, scouting might not have another 20 years left in it. Is co-ed the right answer to this problem? Maybe. Maybe not. But at some point we'll get to a place where something major has to be done, even if it's a longshot. There has to be a number at which, if we go below it, National hits the panic button and things really start to change drastically. Surely co-ed is on that list of things to try.