Col. Flagg

8 minutes ago, cocomax said:

What is the name of the new BSA girl's program?

Venturing. 

3 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Those are good terms.  

I'm confused though.  I've not heard of a "familization" change for Boy Scouts.

My term. 

There's been an on-going debate here and elsewhere about the impact "family" will have on Scouting as we know it. BSA has made a concerted effort to push the family issue across all their publications, and as part of their narrative for going coed in Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts. As you can see, even BSA has not really defined what all this means. The GTSS talks about "family camping" and it being allowed at all levels of Scouting...but what does it really mean? Can my 4 year-old go with me on troop outings? Can my wife and 10 unregistered 10 year old go?

I thought this thread was discussing the impact of the emphasis of BSA on "family" on how units will operate.

1 hour ago, ItsBrian said:

Yeah,  a 3million dollar compensated unpaid volunteer 

Not sure he's making $3m. That would be excessive even for BSA. Brock only made 1.2m or there abouts.

1 hour ago, EmberMike said:

The new family-oriented scouting effort that we know as "Family Scouting" has not been defined for use above age 10.

This is where I think we are talking past each other.

I thought when this thread was discussing "Family Scouting" as a generic term, we were discussing the "Familization" of Scouting. Meaning that family camping (as defined in the GTSS which I cited previously) will be allowed at all levels of Scouting. Thus mom, dad, Life Scout and 4 year old sister will be able to go on camp outs with Life Scout's troop.

You seem to be discussing "Family Scouting" which is the opening of girls to Scouting at the ages of 6-10. No one is disputing that coed Scouting will happen. I think we may be mixing the definitions a bit. There is a clear difference between "Family Scouting" (making Scouting coed to a degree) and "family scouting".

Since @Eagle94-A1 started the thread he should likely be the one to define what he was going for.

57 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

*changes location to Alaska*

You must be in my district. 

32 minutes ago, EmberMike said:

You're reading something in what I've said that isn't there. I mentioned Family Scouting in the context of addressing your concern about parental influence in activity choices, parents possibly wanting all-ages family-friendly activities, making it harder to do the kinds of trips you mentioned, backpacking, whitewater, climbing, etc. 

I mentioned Family Scouting and the documents I referenced to point out that Family Scouting caps at age 10 and so would have no bearing on Troops doing more adventerous activities. 

But that's just it, family participation in Scouting is NOT capped. The fact sheet your reference specially addresses the integration of girls in to Scouting program and how that will work. It mentions the age groups merely to point out that Cubs run from 6-10 years old. It does not address the issue of "family camping"; which is a different issue altogether. The GTSS is the only document I can find that addresses "family camping".

The way I read it, the documents you are referencing discuss "Family Cub Scouts" (their term and not defined), which I take to mean Cub Scout Packs that are coed.

This is different from what we've been discussing which is "Family Scouting", which I took to be defined as "Family members of all ages (one of which is BSA registered) attending either Cub, Boy Scout or Venturing activities as part of a unit-based event." It is this issue which has, and will continue to, impact family pressure on units to have more inclusive activities.

1 minute ago, EmberMike said:

I didn't reference any documents that outline "family camping". 

2 hours ago, EmberMike said:

I might be wrong about this, but the stuff I've read about Family Scouting has it capped at 10 years of age. Unless that changed since the BSA release their literature on the subject. I was under the impression that the family program was not for the older programs. So if a parent is showing up with their 15-year-old asking for Family Scouting, I'd just refer them to the various documents the BSA has put out outlining what the Family Scouting program actually is. 

You mention "various documents" that "outline(ing) what the Family Scouting program actually is."

We've been discussing family camping. Are you merging "family camping" and "family scouting" (the later being the recent coed move?

1 minute ago, EmberMike said:

In the link I posted, see under Program and Membership, click the Factsheet. It shows the Family Scouting program being at the Cub level only, ages 6-10. 

I saw that. Then I saw the GTSS say that it allows Cubs, Boy Scouts and Venturing to have "family camping" but gives no real guidelines.

So you reference these "documents" that outline family camping. Can you point these out? Because that fact sheet gives even less (and conflicting) information than the GTSS does.

41 minutes ago, fred johnson said:

IMHO the debate on "should it be a sensitive topic" is separate.  It's too late.  There are groups waiting to pick fights.  OA members (new and old) already cringe thinking "is this in bad taste?"  "Will I be accused of being a bigot?"

I think it's best if OA drops the Indian mystic.  It can offend people and it is a sensitive topic.  Plus scouts are elected because of their example.  Inserting them into a different folklore is a distraction.  IMHO, it's best to stick to be heart of the idea.  We serve.  We help others.  We share fellowship.  The rest is a distraction.

Sadly, I do think ceremony is important.  I do think tradition is important.  

Sadly, I also think we damage our understanding the past as we separate ourselves more and more from using the past.  But so be it.  That's modern day politics.  

I agree that there ceremony and mystic is important. I also think tradition is important, and I agree modern politics is making holding on to this tradition difficult.

But I don't understand why we should give up without a fight. It's not like we are lampooning native culture; we are honoring it. Many lodges painstakingly research and make their regalia to match their local indigenous cultures. It's not like we have a "redskin" on a helmet or anything. I also consider it no different than any other "dress up" activity such as re-enacting. 

At some point we have to draw a line and call-out those being overly politically correct as being ridiculous. It's not cultural appropriation, it is honoring a culture.

I know you know all this...I am just venting.

2 hours ago, Sentinel947 said:

Wow. I don't trust Buzzfeed much, but if this is true. That being said, I honestly think it's fake. The grammar and word choice seem very off for a Corporate executive, even in an informal email.

After 25 years with a Fortune 100 company, I can tell you that c-suite executives are as fallible and poor with diction/grammar/spelling as the rest of us.

He (Surbaugh) hasn't held a job outside of Scouting, has he? If not, that means he was brought up on the disjointed, systemic mis-management which is Scouting. We shouldn't be surprised that this whole roll out is being bungled like it is.

17 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

With my troop, that is why call the whitewater trek a "family camp out with each family responsible for themselves," so they can do Class IV rapids.

So I am curious, the way I read the GTSS you would still need to apply the age guidelines for activities even to a family camp out, no?

I keep hearing about "family camping" rules (or whatever we want to call them) and I cannot find anything from BSA that says "If you call it 'family camping' then the GTSS and age matrix are out the window and it's essentially a bunch of families camping."

Am I missing something?

13 hours ago, Chadamus said:

Yes.

His parents? Doubtful.

Point being they are few and far between. Mostly because the average 11 year old does not have the strength to carry a pack with 35lbs, let alone carry it for 20 miles.

1 hour ago, Hawkwin said:

For Troops that already have a helicopter parent problem, that problem very likely predates the use of "family camping." In other words, those Troops have a problem with that program that doesn't having anything to do with this relatively brand new term that has yet to really have any implementation.

For Troops that don't have a problem with helicopter parents, I see no reason why this rather ambiguous term should result in the destruction of the core fundamentals of how the programs works.

 

As I said, the problem of family camping is not new. The argument, however, is that the demand will increase because of BSA's over-emphasis on the subject. If you look at their whole marketing and use of the term, they keep talking about a one-stop shop, family-inclusive events and units. In fact, that concept is the basis for the whole girls-in-Boy Scouts issue; giving the modern "busy" parents a single place where they can drop off their kids. Check out the articles in Scouting and on the "Family Camping" page posted above.

So my argument would be that the demand for family-friendly activities will increase because the incoming parents -- presumably pulled in by all this family marketing hype -- will pull out the brochure and point to National saying, "See, says right here 'family-oriented'" and expect Boy Scout and Venturing units to offer that up. The savvy new parent will pull out the poorly worded GTSS and point to page 22-23 for back-up.

1 hour ago, an_old_DC said:

I am hearing lots of concern from CMs that parents will think BSA stands for “baby sitters anonymous” and Mom and dad will drop off all the kids and go on date night. It already happens to some extent but the concern is it will get much worse and all the kids will get dumped. Then pack and den meetings will be disasters, nobody enjoys it, and boys, girls and adult leaders will quit.

We all be that now, and I agree it will likely increase. The irony I find is that the "busy mom" or "busy dad" will drop their kids off at a Cub meeting, then go hang out at Starbucks and read a book or play Candy Crush until the meeting is over. Why? They need their "down time" while you and I keep their kids entertained for an hour or so.

Is that the majority of people? No. But in the last 15 years of Scouting I haven't seen a stampede of people to volunteer either. Usually it takes recruiting. Usually they are older parents or even grand parents. It is rare to see the late 20 or 30 year old who steps up.

1 hour ago, EmberMike said:

I might be wrong about this, but the stuff I've read about Family Scouting has it capped at 10 years of age. Unless that changed since the BSA release their literature on the subject. I was under the impression that the family program was not for the older programs. So if a parent is showing up with their 15-year-old asking for Family Scouting, I'd just refer them to the various documents the BSA has put out outlining what the Family Scouting program actually is. 

Hypothetically, even if Family Scouting extends to the trop level, we don't know that incoming "families" (why the quotes?) will want all-ages activities exclusively, any more-so than previous families did. And as long as leaders set expectations for parents the same as they do now for families with two or more boys in a troop, with the undertanding that the older boys may do things the younger boys can't, then it shouldn't be any worse of a problem than it already is. 

The only reference to "family camping" I see is in the GTSS  on page 22. It does not give much detail on how that type of event is managed. It mentions that Cubs, Boy Scouts and Venturing can do this "family camping" but does not detail what is/isn't allowed. I'd be interested in which documents you keep referring to. Other than the GTSS -- which does nothing to really define family camping -- what other documents are you referencing?

32 minutes ago, EmberMike said:

https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/family-scouting/

I must be missing it. I don't see anywhere on that page, or in any of the links, where they talk about capping the participation age at 10. The only official reference I see is in the GTSS  on page 23 where they note that any Pack event where non-member siblings participate that the event must be "structured accordingly" to accommodate them. I can only assume that this means that the official age guidelines for Scouting apply since they offer no other citation to follow.

1 hour ago, mashmaster said:

OK, I need to get a copy for myself.  Which version should I look for?

Think he is suggesting this one.

http://www.inquiry.net/adult/methods/3rd.htm

1 minute ago, EmberMike said:

Why does "inclusive" mean less backpacking? 

In this instance it may be because the incoming "families" want more activities that everyone can do. Ever see an 11 year old with a 35lb pack go on a 20 miler? Me neither.

Or what about if they want to go caving? Only the older Scouts can go. Opps, nope, now you can't do that because the younger Scouts are left out. Same with water treks above Class III, certain climbing activities and a few other things.

Does this already happen in some units? Sure. But I believe the "family camping" will precipitate this even more. There will be pressure to have events and activities the whole family can do. That will reduce the list of potential activities even more. Just check out the age appropriate matrix BSA puts out.

So what if a unit wanted to use regalia to hold their own tap outs or do AOL crossovers? Who exactly is going to stop that from happening?

43 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

I must be missing something major then as I don't feel, as a parent, that I somehow have more skin in the game than I did a year ago. If anything, I feel as though I have less as I have better learned about the Patrol method and how Troops are different than Packs. I learned this because the leaders did a good job of training us parents as to how Boy Scouts are different than Cub Scouts - and for some of us (myself included), we were told more than once.

None of that has relation to the use of the term "family scouting." I've not heard the term used locally at all and absent this board, would not even have a heightened awareness of how the term may be misinterpreted.

My experience, and what I can speak anecdotally about our Troop is more like what Col Flagg stated, drop them off on a Friday and pick them up on a Sunday without any more parent involvement (unless you are a required driver) than that.

I suspect the increase "skin in the game" will go something like this:

• Scouting has been playing up the "family Scouting" angle.
• Units that have a more traditional Scouting program will feel pressure to have more "inclusive" programs and events. Simply said, less backpacking, more plop camping.
• Parents may treat troop committee meetings more like pack committee meetings, where they (mistakenly) think that the committee drives what the boys (troop) do.
• The parents will push their kids to have their (family Scouting) voice heard, or will volunteer as leaders and attempt to take over boy-led programs and activities.

While I could see this happening, it is already happening when some parents join, so not a new issue. Will it increase? Who knows. As @Eagledad said, some parents think the amount of clout they have is related to the number of kids they have in the program, or how many WB beads they have, or how long they've been a volunteer.

I actually think what will happen will be the drop-n-dash, leaving their sons (and now, daughters) at the new BSA one-stop-shop for youth activities. What impact THAT has on an outdoor program is anyone's guess.

1 minute ago, Eagledad said:

It's inevitable. The motivation to put your son into a program for building character is different than what ever motivation for the whole family joining.  There are plenty of helicopter parent stories to support that reasoning.

Barry

That's just it, I don't think the families want to join. Most parents now a days want to drop their kids off at one spot and pick them up later. This is where I think Scouting is making a huge mistake. For every one family that joins en masse, I think you will get 4-5 that just sign all their kids up and drop them off like it's day care.

We already see enough of that now. Parents park their kids at Cubs or Boy Scouts and drive off, only to come back (late) to the meeting to pick them up.

26 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

I'm pretty stupid I am sure I could beta test. 1st someone needs to break it open.*

* now @Sentinel947 I accept this as a spin off for a new topic.  I think we need the flashing "segue way" signs like I saw on a Monty Python episode.

Those weren't "flashing" signs, those were "flasher signs" (not dirty, btw) in the segue ways.

What we really need is this...

Let's give this topic to National to figure out. They can spend millions of dollars and come up with a training module (that costs $50) that defines when and how to use the "trophy" versus the emojis versus the "heart", as well as the true meaning of the "up" and "down" arrows.

15 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Are there other programs where boys make their own decisions for the purpose of learning from the consequences of the decision?

Girl Scouts?

Got the survey and completed it. No surprise, my response was fairly similar to yours. 

I did acknowledge that family camping was important at the Cub level, but that by Webelos those Dens should focus more on unit camping (a la traditional Boy Scouts). I offered that family camping has no place in Boy Scouts as part of the regular program, but I did see a place for it once a year if units so wanted.

15 hours ago, NJCubScouter said:

"Some might say" that, but I think they would be incorrect.  I am not a huge fan of the "down arrow" and I don't think I have ever used it on purpose (under the old software I gave accidental arrows in both directions, and you couldn't change it.)  But the use of the down arrow does NOT imply an "attack" on a person or group. 

Well since there's not definition of what the down arrow means, I suspect most people will take it as an affront (see what happened above as an example) if it is used. So, yes, one could argue that it is un-scout-like given there's no clear definition as to what it means. I didn't say it was an "attack" on anyone, those are your words. I merely said it could be construed as un-kind, ergo un-scout-like. 

I have only used it once or twice and in the manner you suggest...to disagree with someone. Though usually if I disagree I will simply quote the person (as I am doing now) and state my disagreement. I don't feel the need to "neg rep" them, which is what many might take that down arrow to mean. That's actually what it means in most other fora.

2 hours ago, jjlash said:

THis is exactly my concern.  On the one hand training needs to break even.  On the other hand training needs to get more leaders trained.  I anticipate folks to respond with "why would I pay for that when I can take it for free online".  My answer is "then why haven't you taken it online already?"

Oh, I totally agree that the free online content (all the basic stuff) should be taken right away after joining. I've said in other threads that my unit requires that of all ASM and TC members. That way everyone has the same level of training. All ASMs are required to have the same training as the SM too. Again, this allows for continuity of leadership.

With full disclosure, these are my biggest problems with district/council training. This may just be a local issue, but these are recurring themes I hear from my peers:

• Poor Timing:
  • They usually wait until the last minute to announce the events...talking a week or two notice. Why they cannot plan in the summer (June) and then get the word out to everyone during the summer is beyond me. Most units plan in the mid summer months and it would be good to know WELL ahead of time what the district/council plan to teach.
  • They don't check calendars. My PLC uses the school, religious and other local calendars to plan our unit activities, but it seems this concept escapes my district and council officials. All too often the double and triple book a weekend with OA or training activities. I get sometimes this is impossible to avoid, but when it happens too frequently it is more a matter of poor planning. Having Scouting for Food, for example, on the same weekend as a three-day weekend in February is ridiculous. Most units take advantage of that extra day to go camping.
  • IOLS and other required courses are only offered in the fall and only once a year. Miss it and you are out of luck. Oh, it is also usually scheduled for the most inconvenient weekend in the fall. Been that we since 2005.
     
• Use of Resources:
  • As you noted, we can use a council service center for free. It is central to most and easy to get to. Yet for some reason they like to pick the most distant of our four council camps to hold an 8 hour one-day class. They do it because the training is usually required and therefore has a captive audience that need that training to be certified. 4 hours round trip, then 8 hours in a class is a bit much to ask of volunteers. Add to that the cost of the class and you've just poured salt in that wound.
  • Copying. Both district and council are horrid at wasting resources on copying things that have no business being copied. Nearly everyone has a smart phone, home computer (with printer) and is smart enough to figure out how to print out what they need. Why in God's name are we printing off stuff in 2018?!?!? Also on the copying issue, it appears they don't train DEs how to use the double-sided copier at HQ. The LNT people would have a field day with my council on that point alone.
     
• Content:
  • Much of the material in a few of the modules is so dry and boring that it would put even the most devout Scouter in tears. It shouldn't be up to the volunteer delivering the module to pep up the training to make it interesting. BSA has money which could be spent on updating the modules AND making them engaging.
  • Also, the training is very top-down. By that I mean it is an ivory tower view of what unit leaders should do. It does not address the "in the trenches" viewpoint that SHOULD be addressed. 
  • Standardization is a problem too. Much of the BSA "train the trainer" materials are vague at best. I don't recall the module (might be ILST) but there was a section on "Leadership Styles". Then there's a three page explanation on how to delivery the content...but there's no content to delivery. It simply says "Now discuss the various leadership styles" without detailing the various leadership styles in the first place!!! No where in the book does it give any detail. It would be as if I told you teach networking, then said "Now discuss the different types of multiplexing"; but didn't give you any details on what multiplexing was or the different types.

Sorry, I look back and didn't mean to pontificate. It's just frustrating when you have a council of such vast resources and we cannot seem to find our backside with both hands and a flashlight when it comes to something so important as training. Thankfully, the council just to our west has a GREAT program, well-run, well-promoted and managed. Most people in my area go there for training.