Eagle94-A1

38 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

The BOR is NOT the place to correct for years of advancement failures.  ... If a lower advancement standard has been used for years, then it's too generally too late. 

Trust me I know. I am lamenting the fact that units can care less about growing the Scout instead of growing the number of Eagles.

38 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

The SM (and his team) should have been watching.  

Sadly the SM was part of the problem. When he took over the troop, many Scouts transferred out to ours.  So it was known what was going on,  but nothing to be done about it outside the COR. 

38 minutes ago, fred8033 said:

AND, sometimes a scout (and his parents) game the system beyond the controls of the troop leadership.  It's ok to be sad for the scout, but not necessarily mad about. 

Both family and SM gamed the system. Family left our troop because we insured Scouts actually did what they were supposed to. They specifically went to that troop because they were "high speed low drag." SM picked summer  and winter camps known for giving away MBs. When discussing summer camp last year, the family referred to to summer camp as a place to "purchase MBs." 

It is extremely sad for the Scout. He has not really grown much over the years. He acts like a Tenderfoot still. And family is not helping as they are pushing and pushing to get Eagle. 

But I am mad that there is nothing anyone can do about the situation, i.e. just signing stuff off, except the COR replacing Scouters. And trust me the SM knew better; I trained him. 

And it is frustrating because if anyone needed Scouting, the Life Scout did.

24 minutes ago, Tron said:

Is it wrong that I am now picturing Beavis in a scout uniform after reading this? 

If I can find it, I will post a pic of my Beavis and Butthead OA flap from 1994 NOAC.

Challenge with that is each council is supposedly their own, independent, legal entity. All national can do is withhold charters if memory serves.

18 minutes ago, Tron said:

The reality is that BOR really are a feedback session. The board should ask questions to the scout to gauge their experience; so instead of "Here's a rope, how do you tie a bowline?" the question should be "Tell us about the last time you tied a bowline and why you did it?"

Correct, not a retest. But the GTA does still say  "  (The BOR's) purpose is to determine the quality of the Scout’s experience and decide whether the requirements for the rank have been fulfilled. (emphasis added).  That can be done by asking questions.  With the Second Class Scout, I have no issues, they actually know their stuff, and the delay has been swimming. Long story short, he was focused on having fun, and wasn't too worried about meetings all of the First Class requirements because he could not pass the swim test. Not that he has passed it, and done the water rescue, he got on it.

But my Life Scout is 100% clueless. He is so dependent on adults and others doing stuff for him, that he does nothing. No participation in discussions,  camp set up and take down, gametime activities, etc. His old troop went to MBUs that have a reputation for giving MBs away. And I should know; I got asked 1 time to teach a MB, listed what needed to be done prior to the class, and gave everyone partials because no one did the work prior to class. I was never asked to teach there again.

Only MBs I can say he honestly earned were the shooting sports ones. he is an avid hunter and can shoot.

So if current Advancement guidelines say the BOR "In most cases it should, instead, be a celebration of accomplishment. Remember, it is more about the journey." p55 GTA 8.0.1.1 Not a Retest or “Examination”, Then why have them?

Apparently that is the opinion of one troop that is still around, and another troop that has folded. Found that out tonite when I was talking to my Scouts. One of them has never had a BOR, and he is Second Class.  The other remembers a Tenderfoot BOR when he was in  the troop originally, but did not have one for Second Class through Life. Which explains how the Life Scout skipped through the cracks.

Very frustrated.

My troop folds at the end of the month. But we survived over 15 years without a Cub Scout pack because we focused on fun and adventure. Almost all of out scouts since the pack folded were either already members, or transferred from other troops. Those troops are now dead. The remaining ones got smart and started being more youth led and adventure driven, while focusing less on advancement. Basically they became more like us. Fun and adventure retains Scouts. And prior to national denigrating 18-20 yos, we retained  young ASMs.

1 hour ago, yknot said:

The increasing focus in scouting on earning more well marketed advancement bling in talkfest meetings vs. doing something active, preferably outdoors, is such a self evident turn off for youth. I cannot comprehend this perspective at all.  

 This is coming from folks with education backgrounds without any experience in Scouting. This is folks focusing on one thing that is easily trackable, advancement. Instead of asking Scouts what they want, they use their theories to create program.

The entire reason why Scouting took off was because BP created a program on the desires of the youth.

17 hours ago, Tron said:

The text book answer is: CORs, the District Key 3, Members-at-Large, People registered in function roles (advancement committee members, training committee members, etc ... ). 

I've never seen it done by-the-text-book though. My personal opinion is evolving into the opinion that DE's never even try to run it by the text book because they don't want a committee complicating their unilateral approaches to everything. 

Don't know about today, but back in the day DEs were told, at least in my council, to select folks who agreed with everything council wanted. I was told point blank to get rid of a bunch of people, basically the ones keeping the district together, because they were constantly questioning the council. One reason I was not popular at the office, I knew their value, and would not do it.  I did tell one volunteer they needed to pick 1 role, besides CM, as they had 4 district roles, and it was overwhelming her, and she refused to recognize it. 

3 hours ago, Tron said:

 I wonder if this is the fallout of the Nassau and Norfolk councils voting to not merge and then being forced to after all of Long Island scouting went bankrupt? There are a lot of councils just digging in and refusing to be part of the team right now. Is this a mechanism to remove the dissent at the various localish levels? 

Not necessarily. I know volunteers hate change, but I bet you its the pros running councils that do not want to lose their power. Fewer councils= fewer SEs etc. And My understanding is that everyone who was eligible for retirement has taken it. So they are fighting for their jobs. 

3 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

My extended guess... National wants to move more rapidly with consolidation of councils, and this will prepare the way...

Most definitely. Council consolidation in their bankruptcy plan was supposed to take 5 years if memory serves.

Why cant they do the SMC prior to the BOR? In many units I have been in, that has been the case.

Regarding my.scouting, 1. BSA's IT system sucks. I have had so many issues with it over the years, I and many others do not trust it.  2. Some areas of the country have poor to no internet connectivity (believe it or not there are indeed areas with no internet providers), that email is not viewed as a primary communication source. Heck we have folks begging for classroom YPT/SY training becuase of poor internet.

Stupid question, wouldn't the current CORs have to vote to allow this? And if they vote to not allow this, will they be forced to by National with the threat of withholding the charter? And is this in preparation of all the forced mergers headed our way as some council have contested the mergers already?

40 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. 

If you look at older BSA literature, @DuctTape is 100% correct. Troop meetings were designed to plan and prepare for trips, and well as competition amongst patrols. Patrol Meetings were where the learning was supposed to take place, with older Scouts working with younger Scouts. Prior to 1989, advancement was not the focus of Scouting, having fun and experiential learning was.

In 1989, the introduction of aged based programs, and especially OPERATION FIRST CLASS (sic), changed the focus to advancement. With aged based patrols, new Scouts were lumped into one patrol with a single older Scout as a Guide to teach and supervise everyone. Challenge with that was burnout because one Scout had to supervise everyone in the patrol, instead of having multiple Scouts mentoring the new guys. That led to adults taking over and turning it into Webelos 3. And the LDS model of segregating their 11 year olds into a separate patrol and having an assigned ASM to work with them, as in Cub Scouts, was the model for this.  LDS 11 year old patrols had a very adult led and regimented program which led to constant repetition of the program. But because the 11 yo Scouts moved to a traditional patrol at 12, they never saw the repetition. And the adults, not the Scouts, created a program designed to get them to First Class in a year. Scouts had no input.

But OPERATION FIRST CLASS was the main cause for the change of focus from fun and adventure, to advancement. BSA's research showed that Scouts who got First Class in 12-18 months stayed longer in Scouts. As a result National pushed advancement. But the research data had some major flaws IMHO. As an older Scout I commented that the data did not take into account how active a troop is. A "hiking and camping troop" with fun monthly outdoor activities will retain Scouts, and provide more opportunities for advancement.  And I learned later as an adult is that LDS troops heavily influenced the data. First and foremost, every LDS male was registered, whether active or not. And LDS units had a fixed 11 year old program designed to get them to First Class before joining the rest of the troop. Even doing only 4 camp outs and no summer camp at 11, they got First Class stayed registered, even if they didn't show up again.

 But maybe I am an old fogey stuck in the past. My troop has not focused on advancement, but fun and adventure. Our Scouts stuck around until they aged out, or went off to college. And two Eagles did activities with us in college and before aging out. We are now in single digits, and folding at the end of the year. We have not had a feeder pack in over 15 years, relying on word of mouth and Scouts dissatisfied with their original troops to keep our numbers up.  But several troops we would get Scouts from have folded, and the remaining ones took notes from us, and are doing more activities and being more youth led to prevent folks from leaving.  The last time we had Webelos visit, some parents didn't like the amount of camping we did, or our emphasis on fun and adventure; advancement is the Scout's responsibility. There is a quote attributed to Baden-Powell, " Advancement is like a suntan, it just happens in the outdoors."

3 hours ago, Armymutt said:

This has the potential to be severely damaging.  No females volunteer to go on an outing, it gets cancelled.  

National could remove the double standard, i.e. 2 females can take males youth out, but 2 males cannot take female youth out.

Just don't let the council know who the unit's sponsor is. They will go after them for FOS.

24 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

So as  Scoutbook uses a B troop for boys and G troop for girls, will F troop designate a family troop?  

Just now, InquisitiveScouter said:

I'd lay odds that BSA is dumb enough to do that

Concur.

Now I have " The end of the Civil War was near when quite accidently..." in my brain. Thank you so very much @RememberSchiff.  😀

I too hate the term.

13 hours ago, Jameson76 said:

And that is the real deep issue, they (BSA professionals, National Board, regional teams, et al) have never really fully defined the WHY in the drop in membership, they have never truly delved deep and gotten into the reason.  

IMHO, the membership was inflated for a long time. When I was a DE in the 1990s, I can tell you phantom units and Scouts existed. Anyone remember Ronnie Holmes and the Greater Alabama Council?  https://www.heraldnet.com/news/ghost-unit-scams-haunt-boy-scout-operations/. And don't think it was just Alabama. It was all over. If you tried to clean up the mess, your performance reviews were poor because you took a loss in membership and units. 

Also LDS units registered all eligible youth, regardless if they wanted to be a Scout or not. Heck one LDS pack was completely in name only, and the Scouts were meeting only to play basketball. 

Those two factors are why I think we are seeing a "rightsizing" of Scouting America today.

5 hours ago, scoutldr said:

I was an Explorer for 4 years and wore the square knot with dark green background.  The pocket had the patch shown in my profile pic to the left. I earned Eagle as an Explorer, so never wore the oval rank patch...which was OK with me.

 

Eagle Patch with Explorer/Venturing uniforms for 18-20 year olds were in the 1990s and 2000s.  I had it on my Explorer shirt in the early to mid 1990s. When I worked for National Supply, and a de facto Uniform Policeman since our uniforms has to be 100% correct. My employee showed my manager the policy in the Insignia Guide, and he was allowed to wear it on his Venturing uniform.

I think that changed when the old Venturing Bronze, Gold, and Silver awards became Venturing, Discovery, Pathfinder, and Summit ranks.

On 11/10/2025 at 12:08 PM, FireStone said:

Adults wearing Eagle rank patches. Not the square knot, the oval. 

And I'd personally let it slide for an 18 or 19-year-old, but I'm seeing too many 50-something men wearing an oval Eagle rank patch. 

Once upon a time, Explorers, and Venturers, before the Venturing ranks came about,  age 18-20 could still wear their Eagle on their green shirts. One of my national scout shop employees, age 19, wore the knot on tan uniform, but his Eagle patch on the green uniform, which was allowed at camp. This was 2001.

8 hours ago, fred8033 said:

For Eagle ... that was always done at the council office by the person who confirms the scout is ready for an Eagle board of review. 

That is incorrect. Councils verifying the records of the Scout prior to the EBOR is relatively recent in BSA's history. Like since the late 1990s/early 2000s. Maybe even later as my memory is going. But I do  remember I was denied my Eagle because the council records were messed up. Had to use my BSHB and the signatures in it to correct the councils records, and get my Eagle. Same thing happened to several of my friends, as well as several of my Scouts. 

And I do not know of any council checking Eagle project paperwork. In none of the councils I have been in, have Eagle Project paperwork. That has always been the responsibility of the EBOR.

Now paperwork is the responsibility of the council, and they do check it. BUT the unit leadership now has access to those records, and can correct them. In my neck of the woods, unit leadership usually double checks the records prior to printing the application, and sending it to council for their approval. Which IMHO makes council approval redundant now.

Sadly the Powers That Be (PTB) in their more public communications do use the term "celebration" as well as saying the EBOR is not a "interview. 

 https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2018/11/07/an-eagle-scout-board-of-review-isnt-a-job-interview-its-a-celebration/

While they briefly mention, "While part of the board’s responsibility is to ensure that requirements have been met...," they later state " This candidate is by all intents and purposes an Eagle Scout when arriving at the board of review...Therefore, make the Scout’s Eagle board of review a celebration of their achievement."

My question is, how can you "ensure that requirements have been met," but consider the person "an Eagle Scout when arriving at the board of review?"

Now, I know that by asking questions about their experiences in Scouting, you can see if they really did the work. 

YES!

If you can find an old 3rd edition SMHB 2 volumes, there is a very good plan to starting a troop with new Scouts.

Funny thing is, the best SPL i ever worked with was 12 years old. He was voted in, and beat older Scouts.

6 hours ago, AwakeEnergyScouter said:

We don't expect middle schoolers en masse to be ready to chart their own path. (Some are, but most aren't.) The lanes get wider and wider until you barely notice the Scoutmaster.

One reason why Scouting America doesn't cut off Scouting at 13 or 14, and makes Venturing the next stage, (emphasis) if you look at older, pre 1989 BSA literature. The middle schoolers look up to, and learn from the highschoolers. They will usually be the ones elected into leadership  roles. Traditional, aka Mixed Age Patrols, were the standard. Unless you were LDS which used aged based patrols. Patrols could actually do things on their own without adults, including camping.  Older members mentored and worked with younger members. Nowadays the lack of Scouter manpower, forces troops to focus on the Troop Method, and not the Patrol Method. 

IMHO, Scouting America has lost its way. Instead of focusing on adventure and fun to promote individual growth, the focus is now on MBs and getting Eagle. Instead of hiring and listening to folks with outdoor experience, Scouting America  is hiring "Educational Leadership" experts with no idea how Scouting is suppose to work, but a ton of theories on how to develop youth. The one I met had no outdoors experience whatsoever, no jobs outside of academia, and was appalled when I said they needed to spend time at a summer camp. Even then summer camp is turning into outdoor school.  And do not get me started on aged based patrols. I was one of the guinea pigs when it was beta tested, and shocked when it became the recommendation.

13 minutes ago, FireStone said:

We're in the early stages (working with CO and Council) to kick off a girls troop for a small group of girls completing their Cub Scout journey in March. I'm going through the SM training and trying to start to formulate a plan to hit the ground running in March despite having a roster of 11-year-olds and no older scouts to teach skills and lead younger scouts. 

While I would  "Be Prepared" to create a new, all-girls troop, February will be when the announcement on coed troops comes out. If I was a betting man, I would put my money on coed troops.

16 minutes ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

But, from BSA's own website ( https://www.scouting.org/about/research/the-scouting-edge-study/ ) , there was this, in a Scouting Edge Report  "These findings comprise results from two parallel studies fielded online in the United States by The Harris Poll on behalf of the Boy Scouts of America between November 29th and December 14th, 2023."  https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/marketing/pdf/Final-File-The-Scouting-Edge-8-5x11.pdf

I noticed the second page has a photo of Green Bar Bill on it. I wonder if he is spinning in the grave with what is going on at national?

Well the Scouters, save 1 who is out of town and really just keeps reregistering for OA purposes, families, and Scouts now know.

One family is extremely angry, they are legacy and wanted the Scout's name on the church's wall with dad. They were only focused on that, not the best interest of their Scout or the others.

The other two families, saw it coming, and appreciate we lasted as long as we did. One even commented on they were surprised we didn't fold last year.

The Scouts were completely different. The two Scouts were upset and holding it in by the looks of their faces. One broke down. The troop was his "safe space" where he wasn't bullied or insulted.

The question that really struck me was "where will you be going Mr. Eagle94-A1?"  I told them wherever the majority goes. I did not want to influence their decision, I want them to explore and decide on their own. But my gut tells me one troop will be a better fit for all four of the Scouts.