DuctTape

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?

16 hours ago, FireStone said:

I'm struggling a bit with the "Do Your Best" part of this, too. On other things it's easy enough to say a Scout came to the Den Meetings, they worked on the requirements, if they came up short on 1 thing despite trying we could still say that they did their best. 

Not attending a campout is a little tougher to apply "Do Your Best" to if they don't show up at all. I have a large den and I'm hopeful they will all take advantage of the several camping opportunities we have planned the next few months, but realistically speaking i can imagine a couple of scouts maybe won't show up to any of them. I don't think I'd pass a Scout on AOL and award them the badge if they don't even come to a camping trip, or they don't go to a Troop meeting or any of the requirements that basically mean you have to physically be somewhere. I'm not asking for a lot, I don't think, just show up. If you go to a Troop meeting and have to leave after 10 minutes, I'm not super happy about that but it's much easier to sign off on that than a scout who never set foot in a Troop meeting. 

Is that excessively harsh? 

Not harsh at all. "Do your best" does not mean "did not do".

Yeah. The site has been super slow to connect for a bit. While other sites and forums will connect and load almost instantly, scouter.com spins. Emptying cache yielded no change.

4 hours ago, Tron said:

Generally speaking in all non-profits when you complain you are really volunteering. There is certainly a nicer way to say it, but sometimes you just have to tell these mouthy parents that if they want change they need to step the-f-up or shut up. 

Agreed. Though often I do not want their "help" as they do not understand the program hence their complaints. 

Agree with staking to the ground. Making tent pegs is a great way to use the saw, axe, knife  skills on a regular basis. Often we complain about one&done, or advancement reqs as separate from program. This is how to incorporate it. If the books&magazines don't show it, the adult patrol can certainly model it.

Scout: wow mister, how did you set up your guys tarp without any tent stakes or line-locs.

ASM Smith: look here, we made a couple pegs with our hatchet & knife. Tied the tarp to them with a taut-line hitch. Each of us made one peg, so it only took a few minutes. Mister Peabody never made one, so I showed him how. 

Scout: Neat Mister Smith, can you show me?

ASM: I could, but better yet  how about Mr. Peabody shows you while I watch. Then you can show the rest of your patrol while Mr. Peabody watches.

Scout: Swell. Can I get my assistant patrol leader to come watch too?

ASM: certainly. We willbe right here.

2 hours ago, Tron said:

Scouting is becoming more expensive but it isn't super expensive. One of my units recently got a family back from sports. They had pulled all of their kids and pumped them into baseball and after a year of the costs of organized baseball they came right back to scouting. 

I think the expensive part of scouting is hidden by bad units and units that are too reliant on district/council based programming. One of the troops that I help with is getting ready to do its big fall campout and the cost for a weekend is currently at $70 a person. I'm struggling to understand why, with our state parks and how cheap it is to camp in them the cost should be more in line with $20 a person (for a 2 night 3 day campout). 

The council fees are ridiculous. Michigan is $85 a person which is the highest in my neck of the woods. I look across the council line and I have no idea what they are getting for that $85 that we are not getting in my council and we're barely paying a council fee here. 

I agree. I also would add I have no idea what any of us are getting for the $85 membership fee that goes to National HQ. 

Sorry if I sound jaded with HQ as of late; I am.

Resurrecting a slightly older post instead of creating a new one.

I have noticed in the last couple decades more and more eagle projects with plaques attached with the scout's name and troop number.  While I appreciate knowing a project was done by scouts, I have begun to wonder about the creep from joyful service without recognition or reward to emblazoned plaques. I can see the benefit to the movement of recognizing the project as that of Scouting. Perhaps I am just being a fuddy-duddy or perhaps I am seeing how this named recognition decreases a main purpose of scouting of building character through cheerful service.  Perhaps it would be better if there were official plaques from HQ stating simply, "Scouting America Eagle Project <year>" and more forcefully promote the "without recognition" part of service. Of course the scout is recognized by the troop, council, and HQ for their achievement of Eagle.

Perhaps it is time for National HQ to write a "Scout Parents Handbook" for us to give to each parent.

Certainly a few here who could write it.

3 hours ago, Tron said:

What we need is fewer councils. There's a lot of executive staff that can be eliminated and their salaries can be used to fund program. In this age of telecommuting and cloud computing I am not sure if we even need council HQ buildings anymore; just shift that maintenance line item to camps and let everyone work from home in the communities they are supposed to serve. 

I do not disagree, there are certainly savings to be found. However we can say that even louder for National HQ. 

National HQ needs to fund the councils. 

That's not swimming then, it is floating. 

???????

As long as the troop is using the methods of Scouting and following the "rules" regarding youth protection, guide to advancement etc... I see ultimate leeway. The council and district events are not necessary. Whether or not the troop is actually providing a true scouting program via the methods is a different question altogether.

I am not a lawyer, and have not read about the case. So with that, please correct me if I am in error.

I thought a "hate crime" was an elevation of a criminal act not a criminal act in and of itself. So burning an (israeli) flag is not a crime, but a crime involving the flag and the expression of the alleged perpetrators could raise the crime level to a "hate crime".

Is this correct?

Use the method of adult association via scoutmaster conferences to help the youth leaders achieve scouting's aim of making ethical choices within their programming decisions.

One way to encourage the scouts to have their handbook for signoff (As an aide from the cell phone issue) is to have them present it when they "request to be tested".. This also helps with the issue you presented in the other thread abput when do they get signed off. I am with you that it without botes, or assistance. The scout learns, practices, then is tested. The sign-off occurs with successful passing of the test. 

59 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

I agree, to an extent.  I don't think it's acceptable to have ten patrols of two Scouts or seven patrols of three.  The 1942 Handbook for Scoutmasters has a good guide for re-establishing patrols.  Essentially, the boys vote by secret ballot on who they would want to be in a patrol with.  The SM takes the results and creates the patrols.

My 1968 SM handbook also says the same as your 1942. However, I did say the SM should be counseling the boys to help them make decisions. There is also nothing wrong with parameters of the patrol size as per the handbook to mitigate the unlikely result you posited. Also by giving them the authority it begins the process of them making the troop decisions, also when something goes wrong within a patrol they cannot look to you as the culprit. Thus I still suggest having them make the patrols with your guidance.

Adults meddling with who is in which patrol rarely works out. I'd suggest giving the authority back to the scouts to create their patrols. SM conferences with SPL and other (youth) leaders consistently to help them make good decisions. 

1 hour ago, Armymutt said:

One of the points he brought up is that none of the patrols have an identity.  These kids are amazingly observant beyond where we were in the early 90s.  I don't think you'd have found a single one of us making that observation.  We have four patrols.  Patrol 1 has one Star who randomly appears, 1 2nd Class, 1 TF, 3 Scout, and 1 no Rank who has been there for about a year.  Patrol 2 has 1 1st Class, 2 TF, and 4 Scouts.  Patrol 3 has a 17 y/o Life who actually wants to help lead,  1 1st Class, 1 2nd Class, 1 TF,  and 3 Scouts.  Patrol 4 has 9 Scouts with Ranks from Life to Eagle, 3 of which actually participate.  The active ones ditch the rest at their table and walk around to help the younger Scouts.  The other four who generally show up, treat the meeting little differently than hanging out at some other place.  Honestly, if those guys quit, there'd be no net loss in leadership or productivity.  None of those four want to go camping or participate in outings, Eagle projects that aren't their own, etc.  

All that is to say that it's clear this troop has been pretty close to Webelos 3+ for a while.  To jump start things, I recommended that our campout this weekend focus on advancement, or at least be planned with an eye to advancement for the 1st Class and below.  One of the requirements for Tenderfoot is to assemble a personal first aid kit.  I identified that as something that needed to be done as part of prep and sensitized the SPL to that point.  The acting SM asked me if we should bring a bunch of first aid supplies out to the campout for the Scouts to use to assemble kits.  To me, that's not the Scouts assembling a first aid kit.  That's the Scouts selecting materials from those provided by the adults.  I want to encourage them to actually open the handbook, read through it, think about what cases they might encounter, make a list, and then procure the items.  

How were these "patrols" created in the first place? 

34 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

This occurs in units where the youth leaders are not contributing to unit performance. Most of the time the adults are assisting the leadership to the point that they are preventing bad decisions from interfering the activities. 

Ambitious Scouts will rise up into leadership positions in units where the scouts are held accountable for program performance.

And also where SMs abdicate their responsibility to have regular SM conferences with the PLs and SPL to help them grow as servant leaders.

A high quality SM or ASM knows how to listen, ask questions to help the leaders reflect on their patrol decisions.

Yes, focus should be on patrol activities. As far as adults, transportation etc... the numbers still work. 2 cars to transport a patrol is 2 adults. 

I firmly believe the slow methodical demise of the patrol method is the demise of scouting to truly achieve its aims. It is within the patrol, as a functional member where the lessons which develop the scouts character are born, bred and raised.