EmberMike

I was talking about a specific case, not the broader context Surbaugh was addressing. I was referring to a high school kid. Do you really think high school girls are going to join the Boy Scouts? We can't get high school boys to join.

I guess part of my issue with this is that I don't know that we can say any of these boys would really rather get out. In one of the responses to being asked about co-ed scouting that someone posted earlier, the boy said something about seeing girls in band practice every day, and he wouldn't want to see all the same faces in scouts too. Realistically, though, that probably would never happen. How likely is it that a group of girls from a specific activity this boy does are all going to want to join at this stage in their lives (which I'm assuming is high school if they're in regular band practices)? I'm just imagining that some of the reasons kids might quit as it relates to the co-ed discussion might not really be good reasons to quit. If someone has a strong personal conviction that makes the BSA simply unbearable if girls are allowed in, I get that. But if it's just some unlikely event, like the idea that too many people you know will want to join, I'm just not convinced that these boys are making these decisions with this issue adequately laid out in front of them to consider. I guess I'd just rather see everyone, scouts and scouters alike, take a more "wait and see" approach before deciding anything drastic. I would imagine that a boy who quits over the idea of girls in his troop would regret that decision years later if no girls ever actually joined his troop in the time he would have been there. If he was taking a stand for something he believed in, then I'd be wrong about that. But if he did it to avoid seeing girls from school, I think most boys would come to regard that decision as a mistake.

Surbaugh spoke directly to wanting COs to have the option of single-gender units. It was in the presentation visuals as well. I suppose he was vague on the details of it, but I do think it answers the question of whether a local option is on the table.

Surbaugh's presentation. I'll try to quote it as best I can: "Consider a proposed structure that would have a mechanism for bringing in family cub scouts of boy dens and girl dens, also packs that are single gender, boys and girls, offering that as an option for COs and parents." I take that to mean it will be a local option to have a single-gender unit.

Ok, let me rephrase my previous response then... Some troops will see girls join as soon as possible, some won't. Not knowing what the structure will be (local option, partner program, seperate patrols, etc), I think it's premature for any boys to be thinking about quitting when some of them could age out of the troop before even one girl shows up. If their troop will even accomodate female scouts. I think it's crazy for a kid who is close to Eagle to be thinking about quitting over this. What a waste to throw away years of work, over something that might not even directly affect them at all.

Local option is on the table. There's also an option to make girls at the troop level a parallel program, and also to have them join a partner program if one can be found that matches up closely enough with BSA. I think finding an adequate partner is a long-shot. If one existed, there wouldn't be this discussion happening at all.

Sure it's speculation, but based heavily on what we've heard so far. Likewise it would be speculative of me to say that it's unlikely most troops will see an influx of girls once the co-ed initiative launches, but we all know that's probably true also. There was no influx of gay scouts when that change happened. It's going to be a long time before most troops have girl members. My point was just that I hope boys aren't making hasty decisions about their future in scouting based on simply the possibility that a girl might want to join. As much as we'd all like to see a huge boost in membership, the reality is that it's not going to happen overnight, and I speculate it won't hit most troops for many years.

This change isn't likely to happen until next year, and it sounds like it will start at the cub level. Anyone concerned about their sons at the troop level, your sons will be adults by the time their troops could see a girl join. I think it's worth including that in the discussion anyone has about whether to continue on in the BSA because of the co-ed changes. Personally I think it's a little sad for any kids to quit over something that likely won't affect them directly, especially kids who are aiming for Eagle and/or are close to it. Don't give that up just because this.

I don't think we're going to see much political division on this point. I'm a proud democrat and I agree the survey appears designed to drive toward a particular outcome. I said in another post that I don't get why they even bother with surveys. If they're not steering them towards a desired result, they simply ignore the results they do get anyway.

Just saw this interesting video from Jambo with Surbaugh talking about girls in scouting:

I'm with you on this one. "Adventure" is all over the BSA marketing materials, the social media posts, the YouTube videos, in the books, it's everywhere. And rarely do we deliver on it. At least relative to the emphasis placed on it when we're trying to get kids to join. It's hard to do, no doubt about it. And to do it frequently and consistently especially. Delivering some kind of adventure every week? It's almost impossible. But I think if we're all honest with ourselves about it, we fail at delivering adventure even when the opportunity is right in front of us. I cringe whenever I see kids at camp sitting in a mess hall doing citizenship requirements or some other entirely book-based learning. Meanwhile the woods are right outside the door. The kids could be making their own adventure if they wanted to, but instead they're sitting indoors at a table with a leader reciting some paragraph they had to memorize. Surely we can do better to at the very least not inhibit adventure when we're in a place that facilitates the very opportunity for the kids to find some kind of adventure outside. So I was with you on the adventure stuff, but then on this point I'm lost. Like Rick, I also think it sounds like you're saying that if a girl can do it, it's now somehow watered down the activity and made it worthless.

I hate to say it, but what if the BSA doesn't care if they lose some people for good? I know, it sounds terrible. But the BSA knew it would lose members when they opted to let in gay members. For sure they knew it would happen, zero doubt about it. Some people would very fairly view that as a mistake. But maybe it's not a mistake from the National perspective. Maybe it's part of some (possibly crazy) plan to reform the BSA into a different organization. It's a huge gamble, for sure. If this is indeed what they're doing, they're betting on a progressive demographic to replace a more traditional one. But they've sort of been doing that throughout their existance. BP would probably flip his campaign hat if he saw skateboarding at a jambo or STEM activities. The BSA today operates way outside of the traditional scouting practices that were established in the early days of the movement. And it's a fact that people have left the BSA all through these years of change because the BSA continuously moves away from traditional scouting and towards a continually modernized version of the program. But just maybe, this is the way National wants to go. Maybe it's not a mistake to them, but a way forward with a broader long-term vision of what the BSA needs to be if it is to survive and eventually thrive in this century. From a business angle, is it really that crazy to abandon your flagship product when the ship is sinking? New Coke is a terrible comparison, by the way. A lot of consumer negativity around that was due to marketing influence, both on the part of Coke and also because of well-timed advertising campaigns by Pepsi to create skepticism about New Coke at launch. They also faced backlash from manufacturing partners who were already suing them over price disputes. And Coke was never in as bad a position as the BSA is in. Coke and Pepsi were the top cola brands, just competing for that #1 spot. Whoever was in 2nd was still doing extremely well. Coke could have done nothing and still lived on as a healthy company, even if they weren't running next to Pepsi anymore. The BSA isn't at war with another mega company. And there is no 2nd place for the BSA. It's either they figure out the membership problem or it might be all over.

I know we can argue endlessly whether co-ed will help the BSA with membership numbers, and there are as many opinions about this as there are members of this forum. So I'd rather not re-open that can of worms. But one thing I think is worth keeping in mind is that the BSA was and is fading away fast already. Some years losing over 100,000 youth members and 20,000 volunteers. And they repeat these numbers sometimes several years in a row. Is co-ed the solution? Or will co-ed increase the rate of decline? I think we're going to find out because it's happening whether anyone likes it or not. But let's be real about this. The BSA is already fading fast, and I think we'd hit a critical low membership level in 10 years if nothing else changes. There has to be a number at which it becomes problematic for National to even function as-is. I personally don't know enough about GSUSA to know if they have any desire to change their program, or if it would help them. But based on what I saw in the Surbaugh presentation, the Girl Scouts do seem to share the common problem the BSA has of declining membership. Surely they must be thinking, like the BSA, about how to change their trajectory before they too face a critical low membership number. My niece quit Girl Scouts last year. I was bummed that it happened, but in talking to her mother about it I get why she left. It sounds like the program is out of touch with what modern girls want to do. I think they could reform their program and better serve their membership. But again, I have no idea if they want to do that.

I think there's some fun in getting the chance to try something you might not ordinarily go out and buy or otherwise have an opportunity to use. Or making use of something that your research might not have led you to.

I agree. I've seen kids who have trouble making friends and appear to be outsiders stick with it for some time, but eventually they always leave. If they don't have friends in the troop, retention is extremely difficult, even with kids that otherwise would do really well in scouting.

Thanks, I did eventually find them. Took some creative googling, but once I found the full title of the survey I was able to pull it up. It does indeed indicate that BSA ignores survey responses from existing members when making policy changes. It seems they followed the survey advice from the combined group of members and non-members in how the policy change turned out. I don't get why they do this then. What's the point? Is it just to create the illusion of having a voice in the organization? Clearly they're going to make decisions based on how they perceive it to affect future membership. They did exactly that in the previous policy changes, going along with the non-member viewpoint, presumably to cater to non-member families and give them incentive to join. Ultimately I'm happy with how these changes turned out. I supported these changes. But the way the BSA handles these surveys is disturbing. The Eagle Palms one, there wouldn't even be any outside perspective to weigh in on that, and no membership incentive to capitalize on. So how could they go against the survey respondents on that one? The gay membership survey was at least close. And it did indicate a shift towards a more progressive viewpoint on the issue. So I can kind of see how National would go rogue and do something with a more long-term goal in mind. But then I ask myself again, what's the point of surveys then if they're still going to make these decisions internally? Just do it then, don't even bother with the surveys. Tell us they're making decisions that they feel are in the best interest of the organization, and we can either take it or leave it. Don't treat us like fools and pretend that our opinions really matter at all.

Anyone have any data on past survey outcomes that contradicted the eventual path the BSA took on membership policy issues? I keep reading about this "ignore what the majority wants" idea but I've personally not seen the data to support this. Just wondering if the data is out there to view somewhere.

I don't get that mentality, that "let's just make this go away" notion. If someone is driven more by maintaining a terrible status quo than they are by protecting the boys, they need to seriously reassess whether scouting is the place for them. I don't care if the SM is some local big shot surgeon. People need to stand up and do the right thing, no matter how uncomfortable it makes things for them personally. Confrontation isn't easy. But I'd imagine that doing nothing and waiting until this SM seriously hurts a kid will result in a feeling of guilt that is way worse than however uncomfortable it would have been to just speak up earlier.

https://scoutbox.us Anyone ever tried it? Looks pretty cool. I like the Summer Camp box idea they did, where you can order a box to be shipped out to a scout while at camp.

This SM is out of control and needs to be removed from the Troop. How is Council not all over this? You're doing the right thing. I think your sons need to be in a different troop because they'll never be treated fairly. Certainly not if this SM remains, and even if he is removed from his position it sounds like too many people in the unit are sympathetic to the SM. At the very least, no one else is standing up to this SM as they should be. At least one other adult saw this incident. As well as your older son and I believe you mentioned camp staff witnessed it as well. But you're doing right by the other boys as well. They all deserve better than this SM. You could just have your boys transferred and move on with your lives, but you're also looking out for the interests and safety of the boys that remain in the troop, and I think it's great you're doing that. Even though it's obviously not easy to do. Stick with it. Someone needs to see this through.

If National is sincere in their motivation for this being to make scouting more accessible to families and creating an environment in which the whole family can participate, it doesn't make much sense to only do that at the cub level and then split up a boy/girl family after cub age. Kind of defeats the purpose of the plan. I suspect this is National's way of easing into co-ed at all levels. They know that most concern about this is focused on the troop level, so maybe they're trying to start off easy and work our way up to co-ed troops in a couple of years. The problem with this strategy would be that you could have girls join a pack at age 9 and then National didn't really buy themselves a whole lot of time to think through the troop problem. But I guess they're hoping it will mostly be 6 and 7 year old girls signing up at first.

Thanks everyone for the responses so far. That's as much of a description as I was hoping for. Thanks. I know this is a deep issue, and I was looking for general overall ideas about it, which you covered well. Interesting point about Cub level burnout, and not from the kids, from the adults. I always looked at it as 5 years being too long for the kids to stay enthusiastic about the program. Never considered it from the adult perspective. Hope I can avoid that burnout.

I've thought about this since I was old enough to realize that not all packs/troops are the same when it comes to kids wanting to stick with the scouting. Or what makes a unit capeable of keeping their numbers up and staying "in business." More recently I've been realizing that I really have no idea what makes the difference. I've seen troops that I thought were incredible (great leadership, great group of scouts, great program and activities, active parents and committee, etc) end up folding, while troops that don't seem to have their act together and/or are in disarray end up surviving for years, decades sometimes, and with huge groups of kids. So I've been thinking about this in terms of the scouts themselves. Ultimately they determine the fate of local scouting. If they are enjoying it and stick with it, the unit thrives. When the numbers start to drop off, kids don't cross over to the troop, or quit, eventually a pack or troop can end up fading away. I used to think that great leadership made for a healthy unit and a group of kids who wanted to show up every week. But over the years I've seen units with phenomenal leadership still end up closing, while units with mediocre or poor leadership somehow survive, and sometimes thrive. Any thoughts on what it takes to get kids to want to stay with Scouting? I know it's a big question, but are there any general commonalities among successful units that have kids that stay with it? Is it something else? The program? Leaders? Parents? Scouts and their friends? Just random luck that kids want to keep doing it?

I'd go back to to the council, and bring it up as a Youth Protection issue. As others have stated, this seems like a YP issue that definitely needs council involvement. Go up the chain if council still wants to defer to the committee to sort this out. As mentioned by allangr1024, calling National might be a way to get the council to act. This seems like a bigger issue than something that should be left to the committee, who in this case sound like they're not going to do anything about it. Go higher, and keep going until you get someone to take a real look at this.

You can build whatever case you want, but if this Scoutmaster remains in the troop, your son is only going to have a harder time going forward. This SM sounds like someone likely to hold a grudge. If things get bad enough, he might do everything he can to slow or prevent advancement even further, possibly even making it much harder for your son to pursue his Eagle Scout rank. Is the Scoutmaster liked by others in the troop? You might have a strong case against him, especially for the physical contact incident. If your goal is to see him removed from his position, that's possible. But consider how life in the troop might be for your son if the SM was liked by others. You might trade one unpleasant situation for another. I agree with Back Pack, look into finding another troop and making sure you bring your son's records with you. If your son has aspirations of reaching Eagle, and both he and the SM remain in this troop, I think his odds of reaching Eagle are greatly diminished. Moving to another troop might be the only option. Edit: I posted my reply before reading your follow-up. Sounds like this Scoutmaster is causing problems with other scouts as well. Camp staff had to hold him back from your son, other kids won't go camping with the SM, etc. Sounds like he's unfit for the position.