DuctTape

An natural shelter which is completely LNT would be in winter and making a snow cave, quinzee, or igloo.

I would take it again only because I met several great resources I would not have. Otherwise' date=' I consider it mainly a rite of passage.[/quote']

 

 

Yep, definitely a rite of passage, but the passages that it opens up are not for everyone and not always desirable.

Nice idea packsaddle. I would add, if the beaded ones start to talk about WB, mention you have a badge made of wood too; you carved it out of hickory. Then begin to talk about more scoutcraft.

Used a timber hitch last year' date=' interestingly for its designed purpose. We needed to move some logs for a lean-to we were fixing and the timber hitch was the perfect choice to tie on to the human mule powered line. I have never used the sheepshank. Even its designed purpose is "dumb" IMO.[/quote']

 

Sheepshank isn't one of the 6 scout knots. The sheet bend is, and it's great for joining two lines of different thicknesses (or the same thickness for that matter).

More often than not (no pun intended) I use a double sheetbend for the extra holding power.

I would leave the Troop and find another. Who knows whatelse is afoot within the Troop.

I was thinking the same thing as the final option on the continuum of options. Less than full resignation from the troop and failure to convince the SM to change, a scout may register jointly with another troop and participate with them as well. This may provide the opportunity for recognition into the OA as well as other potential opportunities.

If the CC won't step in your only choice is the chartered org, who may not have any idea what's going on (or care to) either.

 

If the PLC got the troop to present a completely unified front, would the SM still stand in the way?

The SM should be deferring to the boys, to that I completely agree. However, the idea of going to the committee to over rule it appears to be a slippery slope. I disagree it is a BSA policy decision, unless someone can point to the BSA regs which require the SM to hold the OA election. What is the purpose of the SM signature on the blue card, or the SM signature on the OA election? It is BSA policy the decision is to be left to the SM. As I said, if the decisions he is making do not fit what the charteing organization desires, they can find a new SM.

If the CC won't step in your only choice is the chartered org, who may not have any idea what's going on (or care to) either.

 

If the PLC got the troop to present a completely unified front, would the SM still stand in the way?

Is it just me, am I the only one who thinks if the committee over-rules the SM, it is over-stepping its bounds in this regard? The committee isn't supposed to micromanage the SM's decisions. The committee's responsibilities are to support the SM, not to over-ride (except in the case of safety or policy of which this does not appear to be). If the Chartering organization has an issue, they can find a new SM, but they also shouldn't be micromanaging the decisions. This seems like a slippery slope to me.

Although I dislike the helmet rule, as I grew up without it my son was fine with it having grown up with it.. But, what I hated was the rule to ride with traffic.. I always argued the rule and taught my son bad habits.. Sorry, I grew up where there was no rule and so my mother taught me to face the traffic and I had a friend killed shortly after they started pushing this rule, because she followed it and rode with traffic and never saw the car behind her that mowed her and her bike down.. Yeah at intersections and driveways, you have to take precautions because driver may not look for you.. But, I prefer being in control of my safety then handing the control over the unknown driver in the cars.

Sorry to hear about you friend. The riding with traffic rule isn't just a BSA, it is a State motor vehicle rule (at least here it is). While a bicycle is not a motor vehicle, if one is riding on the roads it is considered one and thus riders must follow the laws for the MV including the direction, signalling and traffic control devices.

While I would not say SM is correct in his decision as I defer to the youth leadership to make the decisions, I would also not say the SM fears are unfounded either. In my experience, and likely the SM, there are many cases where the OA is a popularity contest and the arrowmen do not live up to nor fulfill the purpose of the OA. This is not the SM, nor the boys fault as it is the fault of the individual odge who does not do a good job of promoting and ensuring the purpose of the OA is being met. The same is true at the troop level if a troop is not fulfilling the mission of the BSA. Many discussions on here already about Eagle mills and non-camping troops already. if it happens at the troop level, of course it happens at other levels. Thus the SM fears are not unfounded. They may be inaccurate for a specific lodge, but they do have a foundation in reality. I would invite the SM to visit with boys from the lodge and learn how they are fulfilling the mission of the OA in their own respective troops. Perhaps these boys would be willing to present to and help your troop with their own elections to ensure it isn't a popularity content and also so that the candidate understands the honor and the expectations of the order.

Sadly the US education has not only had a bad repuation for the past 3 decades or so ... it really is that bad (outside Ivy League/Private Schools)

When I went to school in California as a foreigner I got the highest scores on spelling bees o_O and english was only my 3rd language ....

I took all the CTBS and PSAT/SAT stuff. The entire system of learning is so different in the US.

A 12 grade US High School Diploma is comparable to 10th grade in germany (Abitur is 13 years).

German exchange students who spend a year in the US usually repeat a year unless they are straigh 1/A.

And dont even get me started on how bad and dysfunctional the german school system is, they didnt do that great on PISA either ...

 

And you end up with politicans with the knowledge of Sara Palin *shudders* ....

My dad lives in Germany. The german system is entirely different in its structure. Students are tracked into different programs from about the 5th grade. IIRC, about 25% of German students go to the university prep school (was that the Arbiter exam?) Another 25% go to the realschule (did I spell it right?) In the US the schools are intermingled. Except for private prep schools, there isn't a tracking system in which students may never switch. The Gymnasium, Realschule, and the vocational are integrated into one system which students are not identified, and tracked into a predetermined outcome. Thus the 12 grade HS diploma earned by each student is very different depending on the classes they took. The observation that a german 10th grade diploma is equivalent to the the US 12th grade diploma is accurate only because the US doesn't grant the diplomas early (except in rare situations) and students continue to take classes for college credit in their 11th and 12th grade years. They graduate after 12 years, but the official course of study is based upon 10th grade level. For example, in my HS 40% of the students are taking college level classes (and receiving college credit if they pass the exam) in their 11th grade year and beyond. Since the US design has all the students in the same school it is difficult to compare. Which design is better is a matter of discussion.

There was a two-page paid ad in the WSJ last week by the CEO of Exxon. He was encouraging the adoption of the Common Core standards in our schools and the importance of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math). The new Common Core standards, adopted by 45 states so far, will make schools more challenging and more productive. Students will be learning at higher levels in English and math with an emphasis on critical thinking. Of course it isn't without controversy. Conservatives see it as another Obama power grab by nationalizing the educational system.

One problem with the NAEP scores article you posted and the 40% proficient... There are four levels of which the bottom level is the only one considered "failing" as it is below the basic competency. The proficient is the name of the second highest level. Reporting that 40 % of the students achieved a proficient level or higher is akin to saying 40% of the students received B's or higher.

 

The system isn't perfect, and there are certainly specific areas which need some help. However the current meme that the system is fundamentally flawed is false. It is much better than the perceived perfect system of generations ago when we supposedly ruled the world. There are pockets of areas in the US which are struggling academically because of other variables and they aren't the curriculum, schools or teachers.

The linked article reports US PISA scores are lower than scores in a handful of foreign countries with combined populations less than the US population. That's not compelling evidence that Americans don't think education is important.

 

The pattern of international and racial gaps in PISA scores isn't new. Past study of these gaps has suggested that "U.S. schools do about as well as the best systems elsewhere in educating similar students." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010904011.html

The article began with a statement of "fact" regarding US students. My initial post was in response to that opening line.

There was a two-page paid ad in the WSJ last week by the CEO of Exxon. He was encouraging the adoption of the Common Core standards in our schools and the importance of STEM (science, technology, engineering and math). The new Common Core standards, adopted by 45 states so far, will make schools more challenging and more productive. Students will be learning at higher levels in English and math with an emphasis on critical thinking. Of course it isn't without controversy. Conservatives see it as another Obama power grab by nationalizing the educational system.

The CC and the other "reforms" are attempt to fix something which isn't broken. It isn't the educational system which is broken...

The unfortunate part of the article is its initial premise. The "it's long been known...", is the narrative many would like us all to believe. Fortunately that narrative is extremely misleading. More info: http://www.epi.org/blog/international-tests-achievement-gaps-gains-american-students/ What is most unfortunate are the education policy decisions being foisted upon us by non-educators who believe the narrative promoted by those who have profit motives.

1911 BSA handbook; "And then the final and chief test of the scout is the doing of a good turn to somebody every day, quietly and without boasting. This is the proof of the scout. It is practical religion, and a boy honors God best when he helps others most. A boy may wear all the scout uniforms made, all the scout badges ever manufactured, know all the woodcraft, campcraft, scoutcraft and other activities of boy scouts, and yet never be a real boy scout. To be a real boy scout means the doing of a good turn every day with the proper motive and if this be done, the boy has a right to be classed with the great scouts that have been of such service to their country. To accomplish this a scout should observe the scout law." (ideals trump skills)

 

I think its reasonable to say that character and ideals have always been in the stew, not thrown in as the result of a 1960 memo or 1970 "improved scouting nightmare". We need not agree on this point and probably won't.

 

I don't require constructive suggestions or ideas on character development that meet with my satisfaction. I merely asked members of the forum to contribute constructively. If you clearly feel that character development is a waste of program energy, then why not simply move on and let those of us who feel differently try to help boys as best we can? (...because you disagree with our approach and think we're damaging the youth...OK, we get your point....)

 

Not every troop works the exact same way, nor should they -- this is the underlying benefit of diversity and tolerance -- enabling multiple approaches to flourish and create synergies that innovate when results suggest that the approach was beneficial and testing confirms that it can be replicated (it wasn't a fluke). Of course, we could also just troll around and boo-hoo anyone who tries to do their best to serve the youth in a way counter to our personal preferences, too.

 

I'm just trying to live out the eagle oath "I promise to make my training and example, My rank and my influence, Count strongly for better Scouting" but that would be an ideal, not pushing a ball through physical space, right? Oh well.

I still disagree with your contention that "Ideals trump skills". Even the quote doesn't make that claim. They go hand in hand. The ideal to observe the law and do a good turn require the boy to have the skills necessary. To be prepared to do ones duty is to have the skills for "any old thing". One cannot fulfill the ideals without the skills. Neither ideals nor skills trump the other.

Been in a hammock almost exclusively for quite a few years now. Cold is an issue just as it is in a tent, but is easily overcome with some skill. I hammock in subzero F all the time. Lowest was in the negative twenties F. I use ccf pads in these extreme temps. Inflatable pads are not the best to use. While hennesy hammocks have a big marketing presence, there are many other options available. One last comment about protection from bears; a thin layer of nylon provides no additional protection from such an animal. I have had bears sniff around my tent in the past and also sniff around me in my hammock.The idea the tent will somehow protect someone from a bear is laughable IMO.

Have heard that one before. Still funny though.

Been in a hammock almost exclusively for quite a few years now. Cold is an issue just as it is in a tent, but is easily overcome with some skill. I hammock in subzero F all the time. Lowest was in the negative twenties F. I use ccf pads in these extreme temps. Inflatable pads are not the best to use. While hennesy hammocks have a big marketing presence, there are many other options available. One last comment about protection from bears; a thin layer of nylon provides no additional protection from such an animal. I have had bears sniff around my tent in the past and also sniff around me in my hammock.The idea the tent will somehow protect someone from a bear is laughable IMO.

There is a difference between being an Eagle Scout and wearing a patch. There are Eagle Scouts who never got the patch' date=' and patch wearers who aren't Eagle Scouts. [/quote']

 

A mother once said this to me when she found out that I am not an Eagle Scout. I appreciated the sentiment, but, no, there are not Eagles who never got the patch. I made my choices, I live with them.

Mike Rowe takes on the issue in a similar way, but with a more grounded message: Never got your Eagle? "[You're] in excellent company . . . I've got two brothers, neither one of them made it to Eagle. My Bother Scott was a Star Scout and way leads on to way . . . one night at home . . . Scott had his first job working as a lifeguard . . . the son-of-a-gun saved a guy's life. . . More than anything I remember the section in Boys' Life, Scouts in Action . . . they weren't Eagle Scouts, they were Tenderfeet . . . it's not the award, it's action . . it's their mettle, not their medals."

 

We don't need to be Eagle Scouts to have been great scouts, or to be great adult leadership, nor do we need people to tell us we're some kind of spirit Eagles to somehow account for our good service. I hit Star, that's what I am, and I'm in good company.

I hope I didn't come across as providing accolades in an attempt to make someone feel better. My point was more about the many who never fulfilled the requirements but were just signed off . It isn't the scouts fault, it is the adults who subtracted from the requirements.

I'll argue the other side just because I like to argue....

 

While I agree knots are an important skill and have some long tradition in scouts, they are a bit of an anachronism. We don't teach kids today how to type on typewriters because they'll never use one. Kids don't use the card catalog in the library because there's a computer. Kids don't carry quarters in the pockets anymore because they have a cell phone for emergency calls. Kids are starting to leave text books behind in favor of e-books. Kids don't care about map and compass because they have GPS and phones. Kids don't retain knots because there are bungy cords and Velcro and webbing with friction buckles and/or come-alongs to take the place of rope for many tasks. Kids just don't see the value in knots. And they won't until the cute girl needs to move and they can tie-down something in the back of their pick-up.

 

Some of the knots the scouts teach, like the bowline, seem to be falling out of favor. We're sponsored by a fire department which teaches their members to use a figure 8 w/follow-through or a figure 8 on a byte to put a loop in the end of a rope. That's also the knot the scouts learn at the local climbing gym to put the belay rope on their harness. The logic offered by the FD is the figure 8 is easier to tie correctly, creates less load-bearing reduction on the line when tied, and is easier to untie (I do question the last point). When one of the "big" knots is questioned by other professionals as less than appropriate, it puts a huge dent in the rest of the knots program.

 

Finally, I'd argue that some folks do get obsessed with the means (knots) over the ends (character). Ultimately, we can plot character and competence on a two-dimensional chart to measure any scout. Sure, we'd like for all the scouts to be in the upper-right (high-competence/high-character) quadrant. However, I think we can be equally successful when scouts end up in the low-competence/high-character quadrant simply because the character part is the ultimate goal here. I'd certainly take a scout in either high-character quadrant over a low-character/high-competence scout any day. Even the Army is questioning where they are on the character vs. competence grid (http://www.stripes.com/news/army/chandler-emphasizes-character-commitment-in-talks-with-troops-1.242931)

 

Now, queue the responses about how I'm a wood badge loving management type. I can take it. .

 

I think I see where our disagreement lies. It appears you are operating under the premise that the goal of scouting is to develop character. I don't disagree with it as a goal, I do not think it is the only goal, nor even the primary one. Scout virtues as defined by the Oath and Law provide direction but do not supplant the goals of Scouting. I take my direction from the "Aim of Scouting" penned by John L. Alexander, "The aim of the Boy Scouts is to supplement the various existing educational agencies, and to promote the ability in boys to do things for themselves and others. ...The method is summed up in the term Scoutcraft, and is a combination of observation, deduction, and handiness, or the ability to do things."

I'll argue the other side just because I like to argue....

 

While I agree knots are an important skill and have some long tradition in scouts, they are a bit of an anachronism. We don't teach kids today how to type on typewriters because they'll never use one. Kids don't use the card catalog in the library because there's a computer. Kids don't carry quarters in the pockets anymore because they have a cell phone for emergency calls. Kids are starting to leave text books behind in favor of e-books. Kids don't care about map and compass because they have GPS and phones. Kids don't retain knots because there are bungy cords and Velcro and webbing with friction buckles and/or come-alongs to take the place of rope for many tasks. Kids just don't see the value in knots. And they won't until the cute girl needs to move and they can tie-down something in the back of their pick-up.

 

Some of the knots the scouts teach, like the bowline, seem to be falling out of favor. We're sponsored by a fire department which teaches their members to use a figure 8 w/follow-through or a figure 8 on a byte to put a loop in the end of a rope. That's also the knot the scouts learn at the local climbing gym to put the belay rope on their harness. The logic offered by the FD is the figure 8 is easier to tie correctly, creates less load-bearing reduction on the line when tied, and is easier to untie (I do question the last point). When one of the "big" knots is questioned by other professionals as less than appropriate, it puts a huge dent in the rest of the knots program.

 

Finally, I'd argue that some folks do get obsessed with the means (knots) over the ends (character). Ultimately, we can plot character and competence on a two-dimensional chart to measure any scout. Sure, we'd like for all the scouts to be in the upper-right (high-competence/high-character) quadrant. However, I think we can be equally successful when scouts end up in the low-competence/high-character quadrant simply because the character part is the ultimate goal here. I'd certainly take a scout in either high-character quadrant over a low-character/high-competence scout any day. Even the Army is questioning where they are on the character vs. competence grid (http://www.stripes.com/news/army/chandler-emphasizes-character-commitment-in-talks-with-troops-1.242931)

 

Now, queue the responses about how I'm a wood badge loving management type. I can take it. .

 

I would say high character and low competence is far from equally successful as high in both. Secondly, just because a few professionals choose a different knot for their specific need, doesnt mean the original bsa knot is never used by anyone else for a different specific need. I agree with you that the figure 8 on a bight is NOT easier to untie than a bowline especially after a significant load was applied.

Asking at every BoR "What does the Scout Oath and Law mean to you?" is a great idea.

Agree - its a step in the right direction, and i appreciate your input on an important topic affecting personal growth, adult association, advancement, and character development.

 

I also recognize that this type of discussion is part of T-2-1 requirements and is typically handled as the last step of advancement, and done during the start of the scoutmaster conference. (i.e. Tenderfoot #11 -- Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath (Promise) and Scout Law in your everyday life. Discuss four specific examples of how you have lived the points of the Scout Law in your daily life.)

 

When do we (older scouts, adults, handbook, etc.) present the scout with the information needed to process, understand and master a requirement like Tenderfoot #11? I suspect that some troops could easily fall into a trap of simply expecting them to figure it out for themselves. The trap is that we wouldn't expect them to figure out plant identification on their own, or how to dress a wound on their own. Further, there's more about those topics in the current handbook than on the oath and law.

 

Hmmm.

 

I've seen this happen early in my 'adult" participation in the program -- while serving on a BOR, a boy is asked about meaning of oath and law, shrugs his shoulders and stares at his shoes, mutters, 'ummm, I guess the oath is something we say to remember to be good scouts" and gets a hearty congratulation from the BOR leader. I attempt to ask a follow up questions, and get shut down by the BOR organizer. The boy was passed and I had a long discussion afterwards with the BOR team. Eventually, we got better, but they were afraid to send boys back from a BOR over "idealist" issues when they were progressing in knots and fires. I ended up having to take these concerns to the direct contact leaders as a concerned father. It can be an uphill battle when it ought to be seamlessly included in the presentation of the program. That's why I'm searching for ideas on how to better incorporate character development.

The reason for no discussion is to allow for the story to sit in the mind of the scout and allow them to reflect upon it internally. A discussion at this point would take away from that. There is a time and place for discussion and when someone isn't being scoutlike, that would be an appropriate time. Discussion of the yarn will happen organically, it does not need to be forced. The SM minute is not a school lesson to be dissected, discussed and evaluated; it is a parable for the individuals to reflect upon internally. If the goal is ensure they are "getting it", observe their actions. If they are acting scoutlike, they are getting it.

Asking at every BoR "What does the Scout Oath and Law mean to you?" is a great idea.

Agree - its a step in the right direction, and i appreciate your input on an important topic affecting personal growth, adult association, advancement, and character development.

 

I also recognize that this type of discussion is part of T-2-1 requirements and is typically handled as the last step of advancement, and done during the start of the scoutmaster conference. (i.e. Tenderfoot #11 -- Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath (Promise) and Scout Law in your everyday life. Discuss four specific examples of how you have lived the points of the Scout Law in your daily life.)

 

When do we (older scouts, adults, handbook, etc.) present the scout with the information needed to process, understand and master a requirement like Tenderfoot #11? I suspect that some troops could easily fall into a trap of simply expecting them to figure it out for themselves. The trap is that we wouldn't expect them to figure out plant identification on their own, or how to dress a wound on their own. Further, there's more about those topics in the current handbook than on the oath and law.

 

Hmmm.

 

I've seen this happen early in my 'adult" participation in the program -- while serving on a BOR, a boy is asked about meaning of oath and law, shrugs his shoulders and stares at his shoes, mutters, 'ummm, I guess the oath is something we say to remember to be good scouts" and gets a hearty congratulation from the BOR leader. I attempt to ask a follow up questions, and get shut down by the BOR organizer. The boy was passed and I had a long discussion afterwards with the BOR team. Eventually, we got better, but they were afraid to send boys back from a BOR over "idealist" issues when they were progressing in knots and fires. I ended up having to take these concerns to the direct contact leaders as a concerned father. It can be an uphill battle when it ought to be seamlessly included in the presentation of the program. That's why I'm searching for ideas on how to better incorporate character development.

I think you touched on the solution earlier. The SM minute and the boys leading by example. Both are a result of the SM. First the SM minute should be a yarn about how a boy demonstrated a scout's character. No discussion, just a story with an ending like "A Scout is Trustworthy". Kind of like Aesop's fables.

 

The boy led example is also a result of SM actions through PL training. The SM trains the PL's by leading by example. The PLC meetings/outings should model how the PL can make more explicit the living the scout oath and law. An easy way is to expect a reflection minute at the end of every meeting/outing for the PL to explicitly acknowledge a time when one of his members acted scoutlike. Ex: Tommy demonstrated Cheerful when he was on KP duty and he not only did the job but did so without complaining and with a smile on his face. He could also encourage the other patrol members to acknowledge their peers at this time. When patrols report at flag, they could also include one "living the scout oath" acknowledgement.

A patrol is a gang of boys who do scouting things together. Too often we focus on numbers or ages instead of who the boys want to be with and what they want to do. If a troop has many instances of little participation' date=' perhaps it is the activities being planned that is the problem? I have no problem with a patrol in which 2 boys show up for the campout. However, I would start with encouraging the patrols to plan activities, camping trips etc... that they want to do instead of what the adults have planned as a troop. I am not suggesting that ones troop isn't boy led, but it may not be patrol based if all the activities are done at the troop level.[/quote']

 

So if only some boys are going on campouts,

and a patrol is a gang of boys who do scouting/outings together.

That means the boys that go on campouts the most should be in patrols together, doesn't it?

so maybe that's the problem, the patrols are based on who likes to hang together in the regular meetings, but the meat and potatoes of scouting occurs on the outings, so the patrols should really be formed on a campout, with those boys.

The ones who ONLY go to meetinngs, well maybe they should be in a patrol together, or reevaluate why they are actually in scouting if they don't like outings.

Outings are not exclusively camping. If possible I would like to see meetings be held out of doors too. Here in NY, the climate isn't really conducive for it. I don't think a patrol that likes to camp should necessarily exclude those who do not. If the boys like to hang with others who don't camp when at meetings, that is fine. The patrol is doing scouting things together, just not ALL things. I am assuming they are doing scouting things at the meetings. Perhaps the non-campers will eventually want to attend a campout if there buds are going. This increases in likelihood as the patrols do other outings together besides just camping.

Used a timber hitch last year, interestingly for its designed purpose. We needed to move some logs for a lean-to we were fixing and the timber hitch was the perfect choice to tie on to the human mule powered line. I have never used the sheepshank. Even its designed purpose is "dumb" IMO.

If reading the pamphlet included the information you need to complete the process, you would have a point, Base. But how much of the real, actual approval is left up to the local districts and councils to implement. Hell, the process here has changed two or three times SINCE the new workbook came out.

 

We have long had a couple ASMs and myself who work with the Scouts on their Eagle projects. Before the new workbook came our, ours was a council that had a two page checklist of required touch points proposal were required to contain -- one of which was a copy of the completed checklist cross referenced with the page numbers where each item could be found. One of my ASMs is a black belt Six-Sigma instructor and he thought the process was insane.

 

Now that the proposal process has been streamlined, we don't have to focus so much on paperwork and BS. One of my ASMs is a draftsman and helps the boys with the plans for their projects (typically earning Drafting MB along the way). For a number of reasons (mostly tradition) our guys tend to do projects which include some sort of construction, so there is a fair bit of ejamacation the scouts need. -- when in your Scout career are you taught to build a picnic table or lay brick for a fire ring?

I hate the workbook. I hate the standardization. Too many professional BS'ers attempting to improve something which needed no improvement. No coaches should be needed to hold the scouts hand. There should be no hoops to jump through, no standard forms to fill out for the project. The only form that should exist is one filled out and signed by the SM when the Scout has completed all requirements and needs his Eagle BOR. /rant

Moosetracker' date=' I cannot imagine why, if there were an online database of merit badge counselors, they would not even want their email addresses revealed. That makes no sense to me. If a MBC does not want to be contacted, what is the point of him being a MBC?[/quote']

So, I take it that if you were a merit badge counselor you would have no problem with putting your email address out there for the ENTIRE WORLD to see, and send junk mail and/or porn to?

 

Merit badge counselors CAN be contacted. It is up to the District/Council Advancement Committee to keep a list of current counselors. Some will publish it openly on their District/Council website. Some have a "locked" space on the website that only folks with the correct code can access. Some only have hard copies that can only be gotten from the Council offices by the unit leader (Scoutmaster).

 

I suggest you contact the Advancement Chair for your District (or Council of the DAC does not help) and ask for names of counselors for the incorrectly completed summer camp merit badges. I would explain the reason behind your request as well. Better yet, because they might be leery about giving that information to a parent (not knowing if the parent is trying to pull something shady or not), and because it really is not the parents who should be looking for, and contacting counselors, have your SON, the Scout, contact his District Advancement Chair with the request, and explanation.

 

Just a note - Nowhere, in any merit badge, is there a requirement that the Scout MEMORIZE the material in the merit badge so that he can spit it out verbatim a year later. That is not how it works.

 

BSA requires the Scout to complete the merit badge requirements - AS WRITTEN. NO MORE - NO LESS.

 

I would have no problem giving my email address out to anyone. I already get spam but my hotmail filter gets rid of most of it before I even see it. Also, email addresses listed on a Scout website could easily be disguised to avoid spammers as in bobwhite at yahoo dot com.

 

Also, I am aware that there is not a requirement for boys to be able to recite verbatim his merit badge material a year or anytime after receiving the merit badge. I only mentioned it because I believe that many boys cannot tell much of anything about what they quickly crammed into their brain just a few weeks or months later after his merit badge class. I think it is up to the boy and his parents to make sure he LEARNS the material and does not temporarily memorize it. I guess I am suggesting that boys self police themselves on this. The last thing you want is a surgeon operating on your brain who temporarily memorized his med school curriculum, amen? You want him to know it well enough to teach it. Many merit badges worn by these boys are worthless to the boy. When an Eagle Scout cannot even tell my son how to tie a rope around a tripod group of sticks for the simple camp gadget, something is really wrong.

Or the knots/lashings can be part of the program the older scouts deliver to the younger scouts on a regular basis.

Or each scout could have a scout staff as a hiking stick and the patrol would have quite a few when at camp.

Or the patrols could start to venture away from the picnic area campgrounds and explore other areas to camp like in the woods where plenty of sticks can be found.

There are many ways to allow for the practice and they involve the scouts doing scouting things and not checking off boxes.