DuctTape

That workbook, etc... is awful. 

Just this week I was helping a scout with it. What a disaster. I recall writing a project report not trying to fill in boxes.

If I could do one thing at BSA it would be to 86 all workbooks. Scouts is not school. Even in school we don't use workbooks. It isn't 1982 anymore.

1 hour ago, RichardB said:

Please help me understand what part of this is not clear?  

• Cub Scout pack unit coordinated camping is limited to single overnight experiences. 

I see lots of discussions on calls for justification not a lack of clarity.   

Interesting to see that when there were cry's of inconsistency and those are removed, it is Orwellian. Specifically, updated LOS inconsistency for additional clarity (there are likely others in the wild) does not equate to Orwellian practice or gaslighting.   

As to why, the limitation on Pack and Webelos / AOL Den camping of one night as an age appropriate guideline.    This has been in place for a long time - can query on this forum back to 2019, your own posting of the chart, BALOO training, Cub Scout page, etc.   Really similar to the limitation of shooting sports do not occur at Cub Scout unit level, only the council level.    Or @Eagle94-A1 favorite Dodge ball is prohibited.   

Couple of good broad why's:  https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/safety-moments/is-it-scouting/ and https://www.scouting.org/health-and-safety/safety-moments/unauthorized-restricted-activities/ 

  

 

"cry's of inconsistency" -Using a straw man fallacy.

"age-appropriate guideline" -Is a claim. Lacks evidence. A circular argument.

"been in place for a long time" -An appeal to history.

"really similar to" -False equivalence. Incomplete comparison.

"broad why's" -begging the question

Still zero rationale for why a two-night campout is inherently more unsafe than a single night to the level which necessitates its prohibition.

Grading this essay for my 8th graders would get a failing mark.

Grading the GTSS as a whole would get at best a C-.

What is missing is a rationale for the prohibition. Absent a clear concise reason, the prohibition of a 2-night campout appears arbitrary. Coupled with the volume of other clarifiers, the abitrary nature makes it difficult for folks to interpret how to implement. More "clarifiers" is NOT the answer. If us volunteers knew a good reason why a 2 night campout is prohibited for some, we could apply that rationale to help understand any appearance of conflict between different areas of the gtss. Because the rationale either does not exist, or at the very least has not been clearly communicated, us volunteers see the prohibition as arbitrary. 

How does a webelos den attending a 2- night campout put them at such an increased safety risk that only one night is allowed?

Show us the receipts.

I think more importantly is "why not?". For the GTSS to have real buy in, all restrictions should have at their core articulable rationale for all restrictions. All restrictions, rules etc... must be written succinctly to not require a 19 page FAQ attempting to explain how to follow them. 

If any appear to be arbitrary (or worse) then those tasked with implementing the gtss will  ignore parts they decide are arbitrary, "up for interpretation", or just plain ridiculous. This makes the gtss ultimately just a list of suggestions. This failure is owned by those who penned it without meaningful buy in from those tasked to implement it. 

One possibility is to have some sort of "invitation to become an ASM". 

3 hours ago, RichardB said:

Does anyone have any comments about this councils efforts to prevent injury and illness via SAFE Checklist use?     

Yes, I made my comment earlier.

33 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

I honestly don't know.

I believe that if BSA did not cover some volunteers, and word got out, there could be a mass exodus of adult volunteers.  I believe this is a great fear they have.  So, in many cases, they choose to settle it under insurance, and maybe pay a little higher premium, than have the program collapse for lack of adults.

But, legally, if you were not following the G2SS, I could see where the insurance company and BSA could say, "You are on your own..."

I believe that the insurance is for the BSA and not for individuals. When sued, insurance covers the BSA. The question at hand is whether volunteers and/or staff are indemnified under the policy as well. One can be certain that a lawsuit will name everyone and everything and let the court sort it out.

My #1 gripe is using the term "leader" vs Scouter or "Adult Supervision".

The scouts should be leading. The adult Scouters are there for supervision and safety NOT to lead. (Except for cubs).

And YES this matters.

The reason I do not use pointers for astronomy is to provide scouts et al better opportunity to appreciate the greater cosmos, and to become a guide themselves and not simply an audience.

Imagine using descriptive language and the stars as pointers as the main guide. The purpose is to have viewers not just see a particular object, but see it within the greater cosmos. Also the joy experienced by a new sky viewer when they finally "find" the stellar object themselves. Sooner or later they then begin to describe to others how to find it. This creates a cycle of not just pointing out specific items, but for the participants to begin looking for other objects and guiding others to them as well.

17 minutes ago, mrjohns2 said:

That is a quality unit. Quality units deliver a quality program. A unit that does not deliver a quality program is not a quality unit. 

Yes. That is what I would preserve, and wish national and councils would advocate for instead of chasing quantity.

I think the focus on membership numbers (ie collecting dues for national) has allowed a corruption of the program. I would rather see national and the councils focus on promoting quality programs instead of quantity of units. It may be true that youth desire other activities, however there are some who still desire a quality scouting program. We should aim to provide that instead of trying to change the program to attract others. I would rather we have 10% of the current membership and units delivering a scout led, patrol method, outdoor based scouting program than increasing membership numbers ten-fold having an adult led, webelos 3, classroom based advancement day care.

3 hours ago, Leehoden said:

Sorry should have typed Scoutbook's. We noticed that that wasn't being done. The boys would focus on a skill then not sign off in the Scoutbooks. 

The next step of the process is the scout being tested. They would go to their SM (or whomever the SM has granted authority. I prefer the PL) to be tested on the skill they practiced. The sign-off occurs when the scout successfully passes the test. The sign-off is NOT from the practice or the skill building activity, it is a personal test. 

In most cases it seems to always boil down to programming at the troop level, vs programming at the patrol level.

Example:

Troop decides to do district camporee and half the patrols/scouts do not attend because they have done that camporee multiple times.

vs

Patrols decide individually their campout some choose the camporee some do a different campout.

Some argue that there aren't enough adults to do separate patrol activities. This could be true, but unless the troop is using a bus or multiple 15 passenger vans, they will need 1 adult to drive (at most) 4-5 scouts which means 2 adults automatically per patrol just as drivers. There is your 2-deep.

Hit or miss. Same with boys.

For those in stand-alone troops with a quality Scouter who understand the program, then yes. However what I have witnessed is these rare cases are the SM is a successful scouter and created the troop for his daughter. Now that the daughter is out, he is as well and the troop is suffering from a leadership and experience vacuum. This happens in boy troops too.

The more common girls experience is a "linked on paper only" and typically joined a dysfunctional boys troop with a poor quality program and the introduction of a girls patrol made the bad situation worse.

I think there is a difficulty in recruiting and more importantly training ALL adult leaders. Moms and dads are asked by the unit b/c they are there, but there is zero recruitment at a national, council, or district level to recruit Scouters who would be beneficial as SM, ASM, or TC for individual units. If the BSA was serious about Quality this is where they would start. A nationwide campaign focused at the council/district level to attract, and train unit leaders to  facilitate a quality program at the unit level. 

Awesome!

I was trying to be brief without getting into all the technical aspects of filtering, purifying, etc... 

If there is a water source, I advocate for filtering. Only carry water for dry camps.

The concept of linked troops was good on surface and if managed well, likely quite successful at the sharing of resources.

In my experience, the implementation of linked troops was not even close to the ideal. The reality I have seen is co-ed troops instead with adults using linked troop verbiage. These troops struggle with the implementation not because of the introduction of girls, but because they did not have a strong (or even basic) understanding or use of the patrol method. Basically the girls troop implementation was less than successful because they joined a boys troop which was not successful in its own right. All the problems associated with a boys troop which does not use the patrol method, and other issues were amplified with the introduction of girls into their mix. The adults for the girls troop learned from bad examples.

So, the implementation area which could be improved is in defining the linked troop structure, with more guardrails, oversight and adult training from outside the established boys troop to ensure success of the girls troop (and improve the boys troop).

In our area students all take a course in HS called "Participation in Government".

40 minutes ago, skeptic said:

Speaking of singing; I just rediscovered my 1913 Scout Song Book with very early scout songs and others.  It is, as far as I can tell, the first one published.  Many of the songs I have never heard, and until I find someone to read the notes, most I cannot sing.  Also some interesting patriotic ones I have not seen.  

 

Your post prompted me to go look at the date for my Songbook. Much more recent 1966.

6 minutes ago, Scouterlockport said:

We are not talking about a individual skill like cooking though. Citizenship is one of the most important parts it shows up in the scout oath. Cooking does not.

The actual equivalent would to the topic of citizenship is the topic of outdoor skills which has a total of 4 badges also in first aid, camping, cooking and hiking/swimming need for eagle.

The cooking example was just that, an example. I am not trying to dicker around about what badge(s) are more important than others. The example was illustrative that any badge can be broken down into multiple badges with a more intense focus.

It is my opinion that citizenship as 4 separate badges is grossly over-represented in the mB line-up. I have no intention to argue over my opinion. You have yours, we disagree.

1 hour ago, Scouterlockport said:

Not all merit badges are based on being active alone. There always has been a few book learning (American heritage, Law) ones and to act like that hasn't always been true is a lie.

To only have 4 or 5 of them be eagle required is not a crazy amount, no matter how much our older forum members complain about.

We are talking about less then a quarter of the badge required for eagle?

Even if the mB is more knowledge based, the reqs IMO should have the scouts do something with that knowledge whether it be during the acquisition of the knowledge, and/or after the fact. 

Almost 25% of  mBs in one topic is too much IMO. I would also not like it if they had 4 mBs for Cooking. Cooking for family, Cooking on open fire, Cooking International Recipes, Cooking for a Patrol all as different badges.

Some scout activities are not for every scout. We should not force a scout to participate in activities which they do not enjoy. If the patrol want to sing, and one scout does not want to sing, the patrol could find another role, such as "hold the flashlight as a spot light on the patrol". 

As an aside, I have been playing with the openAI bot. Here is my latest prompt and the AI response. (This thread was the catalyst for the prompt).

2 hours ago, nolesrule said:

This topic can't really be done effectively via Powerpoint. 

IMO, no merit badge can/should be done via powerpoint. If it *can", then the badge is really no more than reading a condensed book. IMO not worthy of a mB which should require scouts to DO more than just "repeat".

Second, the mB program is predicated on adult association as a method. A mB reduced to a ppt presentation more often than not has little/no adult association. (It is extremely rare that a mB counselor is skilled enough to use ppt and provide meaningful adult association, mostly b/c if they have the ability they would not choose to use ppt in the first place).

Just now, TheGreenWizard said:

Would be great, except the time it would take to complete would be outrageous.

Well, I would not have kept every single requirement. 😬