DuctTape

Yeah. So much of the training misses how to get the Scouts to do things for themselves. I remember sitting in on a SM specific training and they went through how to do an annual calendar. They literally trained the SM to do it without the Scouts. The closest they came was the phrase "with scout input". Later, when I spoke with the person in charge they replied, "we have them in a group like the PLC so they can experience the process just as the Scouts will". I have heard this type of response in similar trainings. The end result is adult scouters thinking they do all the work "with scout input". The entire training framework from basic, IOLS, up to Woodbadge needs re-working.

4 hours ago, BetterWithCheddar said:

Local councils and districts should host more events (like day camps or merit badge clinics) that are staffed by professionals and experienced volunteers. Strong units can continue with their existing program, but marginal units can piggy-back off these events to help deliver a more consistent, polished product to the youth they serve. The cost to participate should cover all expenses associated with that day's program (plus a small buffer). Most parents are willing to spend money on a good product.

In approximate order of importance, factors influencing a family's participation in Scouting are:

1. child's interest
2. quality of the program
3. family calendar / scare time
4. cost

While I agree in principle, at least in my area the council and district mB events are not staffed by qualified counselors. For example, the district person in charge of an event a few years ago asked me if I would counsel the Camping merit badge at an event. She pushed for (in her words) scouts with little experience to get the badge in a 2-hour session. A group of 20+ mind you. After I explained the requirements, and the impossibility to work with scouts and test them individually in that short time frame, not to mention the camping nights requirement. I said I was happy to do an "intro to camping" seminar with demonstrations and hands-on activities and leave the scouts with my contact info. Her reply was, "if you do the seminar can't you just sign off their blue cards?" Grrr. I said no, scouts need to personally demonstrate each requirement as written. In short, they found someone else. The system is broken. 

Often in Scouting the answers were part of the program; the growth opportunities for the scout. Adults (meaningful) over time have diluted the program and these growth opportunities. Cost being discussed is just one example. The concept of cost was (should still be?) a learning/growth opportunity for scouts. "A scout pays his own way". A simpler program without bells and whistles for which a scout can earn enough with odd jobs, chores, allowances to pay for it. Adults intervened and created troop fundraisers, camps exploited the fundraising and built dining halls and other amenities to summer camps (in contradiction to living under canvas). Costs rose, parents ponied up, to only ask about ROI. Fun and adventure was not enough, merit badges earned became the metric. And the downward cycle continues. 

BP, West, GBB, etc... understood how all parts of the program were in concert fundamentally held together by the concept of not doing for scouts what they can do for themselves. That glue is what ties the program together, even more than 100 years later. The systematic replacing of that glue by adults to make things more efficient, or more modern or more "xyz" is why the program cannot hold itself together. 

Adults asking about cost/value is a symptom of the systemic failure of adults in Scouting to adhere to the basic tenets of program delivery in an attempt to increase efficiency, or market share or other business terms. The answers are and have always been in the program delivery; Scouts learning to do for themselves and others.

I would rather a troop not have a "meeting" if they are doing a different activity that week. Meetings are there to support the program; most of the program exists (or should) outside of those meetings.

IMO Scouting has dropped off b/c there is too much focus on the meetings, and classroom stuff and not enough in the out of outdoors. When scouting is too much like school with some weekend field-trips then it isn't scouting. Retention and engagement metrics in an adult-led, classroom style program is bad data.

Yep.

3 minutes ago, Tron said:

This isn't correct at all, not from a doctrine standard nor from a practical or rational reasoning method. 

The doctrine in the Troop Leaders Guides Vol 1 & 2 is that advancement is part of the routine meeting methods. 

From a practical and rational reasoning method you don't send someone into a "field" environment without baseline training. Rank advancement is baseline training. Baseline training happens in weekly meetings. Outings are where mastery occurs. You can't someone on a campout without knowing basic baseline knowledge: basics of setting up a campsite, first aid, basic meal planning and cooking, etc...  Within controlled environments such as weekly troop meetings your PLC should be transferring baseline knowledge to the rank-and-file scouts, then at the outings the mastery of such skills should occur. A patrol shouldn't take 3 hours to cook a meal because they had to spend the first 2 hours learning how to start a fire. God help the troop that doesn't teach first aid until an outing and an injury occurs. 

I do not think we are in opposite corners here. My primary focus is on the patrols and their activities (both meetings and outdoor activities). The PLC is NOT the conduit for transferring those baseline skills. This is done by the individual Patrol Leader (possibly with assistance from an Instructor). The PLC is the conduit for organizing the Patrols. Regarding the specific examples, those are a result of a failure all around. My main point is he Patrol is the fundamental unit, the PLC is a coordinating team to assist the patrols within the troop.

5 minutes ago, Tron said:

Yeah, super fast. Never seen national respond to anything this fast in my entire tenure with this organization. 

That's where the guardrails need to come into place; PLC should be deciding what's going on but not to the detriment of the program. EG: PLC decides they want to do everything but advancement which circumvents the policy that every scout should have the opportunity to advance to 1st Class and Star soon there after within 12-18 months of joining. If routine and basic rank advancement items are not making it onto the calendar the adults have to step in to remind the PLC what this program is and what HAS to happen. They don't have to do First Aid every meeting but they do have to hit those rank requirement items at least once every 12-18 months, and maps, and etc ... right?

I am not 100% sure I agree. Advancement is a method and the responsibility of the individual scout, it is not the responsibility of the PLC or adults. That said, if a real scouting program was ocurring with real outdoor patrol based events then the opportunity for advancement is inherent. Meetings are mostly for planning the patrol events, games (which practice scoutcraft). In patrol meetings, the PL (or better yet the APL) should be checking in with each member's advancement status and desires and use them to help plan the patrol events. Also bring the needs/desires to PLC to help plan troop games and/or coordinate with another patrol on an outdoor event.

Sure some advancement particulars may take place like a scout asking to be tested on a specific requirement and/or having his PL sign off on one completed at the campout. In general if a meeting has "advancement" as the agenda item, then IMO this is problematic; this says to me the patrols are non-functioning. 

To summarize, a well planned patrol based scouting program will have opportunities for advancement baked in; the individual scout is responsible for his own advancement (encouraged by PL and SM/ASM).

Focus on well functioning patrols, then the PLC and troop meetings will improve. Too many troops fail at this improvement by attempting to start with the PLC and troop instead of the patrol.

1 hour ago, Armymutt said:

Here's where I see trouble with this model - from the files posted: 

We should ensure no Scouts are excluded from events due to lack of appropriate adult volunteer leadership. If, despite best efforts, an event or outing lacks appropriate adult volunteer leadership, it should be canceled rather than excluding any youth.

This has the potential to be severely damaging.  No females volunteer to go on an outing, it gets cancelled.  The boys blame girls for being in the program and causing them to miss out.

I did not think of that. Good point.

Perhaps a push for more Patrol outings instead of troop focus is in order. Depending on patrol makeup, this might mitigate the problem.?

One of the purposes of a BoR in the early days was for the scout to gain familiarity with the job interview process. The BoR committee was made up of influential community people, and/or business leaders. It was a chance for the Scout to learn and grow at promoting themself and answering questions from unknown adults. I think it would be great if we brought this idea back. Conceptually it would not change current practice (or GTA regs), but it would provide both the committee and Scout a slightly different focus and perhaps make it more meaningful.

Hmmm. Thinking out loud for you AM...

-change PLC location (and time)

-change PLC construct to "patrol planning meeting" vs troop planning

-physically separate PLC into PL/APL buddies to plan their patrol

-have SM conferences with each plc member to hear from them and mentor

-reign back SPL to serve as resource/help to PLs (mentor SPL)

-roses/thorns the PLC meeting

-suggest menu planning NOT as a whole patrol, but done by grubmaster/assistant (if each patrol member does not have a specific role, start there)

-planning by group is difficult, split into subgroups each plan small parts. (Both Patrol and PLC planning)

You probably thought of many(all?) of these already which should serve solely as validation of your ideas. As mentioned I was thinking out loud, so feel free to ignore too.

It may be kind of dated, but the original Fieldbook (from late 1940s-50s) is basically a step-by-step manual of activities (called pow-wows) for a fledgling patrol (or troop of patrols). 

Table of Contents page 1

One could easily modify it with more modern equipment and skills. I bet a good prompt into ChatGPT while uploading a PowWow would be an easy way to do this. Then hand the newer version to the PLs.

In addition to all the excellent points made by I. S., I will add that is the reason for Patrol based scouting instead of troop based. By shrinking everything to a patrol it is easier for scouts to imagine and plan for their own small group as they utilize, develop, and grow those skills. 

I would use the campout as the learning and practice ground for the skills, and then the folloeing meeting to individually "test" for the sign-offs. Especially considering all the other activities of a campout.

As you know, the individually testing of the scouts takes some time.

After which, mention to the scout that you also counsel the orienteering mB, and if they are interested to see the SM for a blue card.

3 hours ago, SiouxRanger said:

Can't a BOR be scheduled outside a unit meeting?  

Yes. A majority of our BoRs are done  on the night of the committee meeting. It is rare for us to do them at a troop meeting. 

The main purpose is for them to have the activitity of looking at their actual trash, having the discussion and thinking critically. It is not about answering the question. 

My advice, have them list the specific trash and then brainstorm the 3 Rs for each item of trash. Also list different options which would produce less trash from the onset. 

ReReading my advice is just having them DO the requirement. So yeah, focus on that.

48 minutes ago, Tron said:

I don't think this matters. If seascouts can use nights slept on water why can't other scouts? Why would there be a double standard? 

I do not know about SeaScouts requirements/interpretations/exceptions. I have no experience with Sea Scouts. I only know the specific wording of the Camping Merit Badge as it pertains to Scout Troops.

What are their sleeping accomodations at seabase? This is the most important detail.

2 hours ago, Armymutt said:

  For example, the filming scene where they go through many iterations until reaching perfection, only to find they ran out of film. 

We always called this one "purple pancakes" as the scene was a chef preparing purple pancakes.

If the program does not continuously use the skills from T-1st, then the program itself is lacking. Reqs are only one-and-done when the program is lacking. 

If the SM is signing things off, thrn there really isn't anything that you can do. It is to bad the adults are denying the scout a real growth opportunity. Only thing you can do is become SM yourself.

Edit: perhaps talk with the SM about having the PLs teach their patrols some of the second class skills. The SM and ASMs will only observe.  Have him watch this scout. 

Encourage patrol v patrol games using the skills.

2 hours ago, Armymutt said:

That's kind of what we did.  We covered 12 Second Class requirements on that hike.  First aid discussions while walking.  Demonstrations during rest stops.  I'm offering orienteering next month.  A large portion of the troop is off on Monday the 10th while their parents have to work.  Trying to get a contingent together to hit our council camp to give the young ones something to do.  Signing off a First Class requirement helps.  

Cool.

My main point was to increase attendance by not marketing the side quest as advancement, but instead market it as a fun time to play like a Patrol kickball game. The advancement just hitches along for the ride. Even if no advancement happens, it builds patrol identity and cohesion.

Perhaps the "side quests" could start as just fun stuff to do. Find the advancement opportunities hidden within. For example: Get the patrol to just go the local park to play. While there notice the different trees, plants and signs of animal life. 

2 minutes ago, qwazse said:

From the moment National rolled out the ODL field uniform … why not the same tan shirt for Explorers (but with green epaulettes) and Sea Scouts (but with white epaulettes)?

That would certainly make the epaulets more function than form.

Curious as to others scouting pet peeves (not failures of adhering to program, or safety, or other regs).

I'll go first: the use of the terms "Class A" or "Class B" when referencing the field or activity uniform. 

I recently saw it used in an email from Council. Grrr.

I know it is not a major issue, just irks me. 

Anyone else?