Col. Flagg

It makes things adult heavy only from the context of having more adults on the roster than necessary.  i didn't mean that it necessarily must lead to adult lead or anything like that..... but I'd guess odds are in favor of that.

I think adults that are willing to fill out the application have a desire to help.  A lot of folks that want to help don't do a great job of standing around with their hands in their pockets and their mouths shut....

Depends on how you train the adults. We let them know that their help is needed in background. We had a great SPL who was in to theater, so he presented regularly at our new parent meeting. He likened adult help to a play. He'd say, "Parents are like the stage crew. They are in the back working, not out front acting. You may see them between scenes moving stuff around, but the actors are the ones out front when the lights go on." He later revised that analogy to move the parents to the lighting crew only and making the Scouts the stage crew.

Remember, in the purest since of all of this, most of scouting could and arguably should run without adults in the room.....and when that adult is in the room, it's generally going to be the SM, who is merely there as an adviser or counselor of sorts.  Then, outside that room add in an ASM or three to the roster, and 4-6 good committee members and that is a full house for an adult roster.  So that's around 10 adults maybe....do you really need 10 more?

Yeah, it's called Venturing.

I get your point. But realistically no kid is going to run a 70+ Scout troop including all of the background logistics, etc. They can do the planning, execution and such, but payment, adherence to insurance rules, transportation, etc., is coordinated by adults. With a large troop that's where those idle adults during troop meetings come in to play.

I am the new Cooking MB counselor for my son's unit. After reviewing the worksheet, I am a little challenged on the worksheet and hoping for others input and advice.

• Is it me or does question #1A and 1B seem to be redundant questions?
• For a scout to respond to some of the answers on the worksheet there is no reference point to have them began the answer. Meaning usually you can find most answers in the MB books as they progressively read through the book. In this worksheet it looks like the answers can be randomly all over the book? Not necessarily answers to 1 in the beginning and so on. Would appreciate everyones thoughts and input.

My advice would be to:

• Toss out the worksheets. Develop your own curriculum for the badge based on the MB book.
• Use the MB book. It is pretty good and allows you to develop your own approach to teaching the course while adhering to the requirements.
• Meet with the PLC and see how they might be able to work in aspects of the MB in to their monthly program. For example, maybe they are doing a trail hike on an upcoming camp out where the boys can get in groups and cook for each other.
• Think of fun competitions the boys can do that are cooking related (e.g., TopChef competition, Dutch oven cooking competition, etc.).

All too often when the worksheets are used, the boys (and counselors) stick just to the sheets and don't explore beyond them. It becomes like completing homework rather than actually learning something.

To answer your questions:

• 1A and 1B deal with hazards in cooking and applying first aid while cooking. They may be somewhat similar in that the hazard requires first aid, but I would not consider them redundant in any way.

   

• The detail of each requirement is in the book. No, it is not laid out in order, though if one uses the index they can find what they are looking for. BSA likely does this so that boys don't race through the book filling out a worksheet like it's some school assignment and BANG they get the MB. BSA wants the boys to take their time, read, learn, show, demonstrate, explain their answers....not just fill out a worksheet.

I find this new GTSS section significantly more ambiguous than the old one.

Thanks for this. I read it and was having the same thoughts. It seems more vague than the previous version.

Is that all because of "the gay issue"? Are you saying "scouts isn't thriving"? Or "scouts isn't thriving because of "the gay issue"?

 

And 4000 out of what? 4500? 8000? 40,000? 400,000?

As I recall, the average rate of decline since the late 90s was 2-3% each year. Since 2013 the rate has increased to 6-7%. The gay issue was announced in 2013. Then the adult gay issue in 2015. Happenstance that the decline accelerated since 2013?

So this brings me to a question for anyone who can answer;  something I have been wondering about.

 

I believe that the Unitarian church recently has reaffirmed their relationship with the BSA after a period of self-imposed exile.  Since the Unitarians accept atheists in their ranks, does being a Unitarian satisfy the religious affirmation requirement?  Even if that Unitarian is an atheist?

 

Jim

Well, since Scientologists are accepted I suspect your question might be answered. 

I just let the boys decide, they tend towards age basis of friends. New scouts can hang together or join an existing patrol if there is room. Sometimes they go with older brothers, sometimes they don't. Patrol membership is totally the boys' choice. They can change membership whenever they want,too. I don't care unless it causes problems.

@@Stosh, not sure this works entirely well in larger units.

For example, that 10-boy group I know we will now be getting, I cannot put all 10 in one patrol. I need to break them up a bit. That said, we let those new boys decide who wants to stay together. Usually that means 2-3 groupings. Moms and dads usually weigh in too. Then we try to align them with existing patrols where there might be guys they know. If not they still get to choose. If things don't work they can move.

blw2,

 

    I don't know by whose authority your son's PLC dismantled the patrols. 

He posted the detail in another thread. It was the SM. He (the SM) seems to be a bit heavy-handed from some of the descriptions...or maybe that's just my read...and @@blw2 is struggling with how to help his son cope with these issues.

Your story of 10 scouts visiting and 10 adults joining.... makes me shudder a bit.  That has the makings of becoming very adult heavy.  If you're not careful you'll have adults standing around thinking they need to do something...  I think that is kindof our troops thorn.  We have several scouters that are very active and very involved

Hmmm. Not sure how the boys running everything and somewhat idle adults leads to "adult heavy". 

The one challenge when things are going well in the boy-lead department, is challenging the adults to do stuff at all. All too often they see stuff getting done by the boys and wonder why they need to be there at all. When we on-board the adults we are very clear on their role and the necessity of being their but not affecting things too much. 

We are like police: When things are going good you don't see us, may not even know we are there. If you do see us and are inclined to act up you may think twice. But if something goes wrong, we are there in full force, executing our training and capabilities. 

I don't call it nitpicking. We're working from two sides of the same coin.

Thanks to my venturers' shorter attention span. I just remind them, "This is a youth led movement."

 

Like I said, we don't have a lot of Eagles quit, so I've never felt we needed to voice this concern.

We have had a lot of older boys who haven't yet earned Eagle, but are slacking. Those are the examples we don't want the young ones to emulate. So, for example, the SM might encourage them to get involved in my crew. Hopefully, then, I can help them define more customized goals that may involve serving younger scouts or doing some good somewhere. This hazards them quitting the troop, but on the flip side, they aren't lounging there being a bad example.

I am moving to a Crew Advisor role later this year for a start-up Crew. I am learning a lot about the differences between what worked in Scouts and what works in Venturing. I learned pretty fast that the organizational capabilities of a 15 year-old girl outpace those of a 17 year-old Rockwellesque Eagle Scout given the right conditions.      

Our units sees it this way:

• Traditional Patrols (Mixed)
  • Boys get a chance to learn for the experienced Scouts.
  • New Scouts get a chance at leadership (scribe, QM) early.
  • They learn to rely on the boys, not adults.
  • Character development starts earlier. Scouts rely on the older Scouts and the older Scouts learn they can rely on the new Scouts.
  • Hits on the "methods" of patrol, outdoor program, advancement, personal growth, leadership development.
  • Troop Guides are still used as counselors, but help the PL deal with any "new Scout issues".
  • Adults are involved as always...from a distance.
  • Keeps adults from becoming a Webelos III leader.

In short: In our experience, having traditional patrols accomplishes the integration, development, growth and character development of our Scouts faster. We typically get 6-8 transfers in every year. A good 80% are from NSP troops where the incoming Scout was leaving because it was like Webelos III -- an adult was leading everything. Who wants that?

@@blw2, this is where I would have a short chat with the SM and ask him why he does not have that same conversation (the one he gave to the PLC) with his SPL, then let his SPL deliver the news and manage the PLC.

It seems to me the SM likes doing what he is doing. He may not feel he's being an SM when he sits on his hands and let's the boys do things.

We had a meeting Monday night. Had 10 Webelos visiting, of which we hoped to get maybe 2-3. My job was to meet with the parents while the Webelos attended the meeting. I spent an hour with the parents simply answering their questions. I invited them to go watch the troop do its thing. Nearly every parent was concerned that I was not running the meeting; that the adults were simply either running SMCs or standing around quietly assisting when needed. I reminded them that's how Scouts works. At the end of the meeting all ten wanted to sign up. Their sons insisted and the parents obliged.

Any chance your SM can be brought to see the light that is boy-led? Or is he just an existence justification freak?

Hey, I'm glad this thread popped back up....

I'm still thinking on this, and searching for ideas and options....

Lately, I have been reading about the Benton Mackaye Trail, which I had not heard of till only recently....

 

Anyway, i have been meaning to pull out the books and check....

what are teh mileage requirements for scouts.  I know there's things like the 50 mile patch....

& I know son had to do a 5 mile hike for his scout badge

but what sort of length requirements for distance are there?

    was thinking that IF i end up doing something with scouts, I'd hate for the group to plan around a 23 mile hike when they need 25 for something....

There's the Hiking MB and 50 Miler. The requirements are pretty straight forward. For TFC you need a five mile hike while using map and compass.

Not AT, but there are Historic Trails which have their own requirements. Don't think they are BSA required but there are awards you can get. BSA does recognize if you hike a few of these trails as long as they meet the BSA historic trails requirements. So you can get the third party historical trail award BUT you may not qualify for the BSA Historic Trail award unless you meet both groups' requirements. The link to the Carolina Trader site is one of the better ones with lists of such trails. Others may have a better site.

Happy trails!

First, the unit may not provide the stewardship opportunities best suited to the boy's talents. For starters, half his community (I.e., girls) may have had little opportunity to hike and camp independently with their mates monthly. Another example, his church youth group may have mission opportunities worthy of his time.

Nitpicking your answer just a but, but no disrespect intended. Stewardship as a concept needs to be taught by the adults to the Scouts. The "opportunities" for stewardship exist regardless of if one is trained or not to manage and address them. So the concept and opportunities exist, but the importance of one person addressing them is what the adults are for. We help the boys realize the importance of stewardship by illustrating what the LACK of stewardship can do (e.g., narcissistic culture develops, troop fails, etc.).

Stewardship of the UNIT is what I believe an Eagle owes back. It's fine he helps his youth group, does outstanding stuff for his band, helps organize food drives for his school. Great!! Anyone THAT driven can find some time to help his unit. No one is advocating he's chained to the oar ("What service have you seen, 41?") for three years to pay back the troop. But cutting and running after his ECOH without so much as a month's help afterwards is not right either.

Second, after providing First Class skills, the unit should not have expended much effort in getting the boy to Eagle. It's not like the unit provides MB classes. The boy could have had friends who weren't scouts working on his Eagle project. Aside from reviews and some paper pushing, the unit really need not be bothered with advancement to Eagle at all. And, maybe by distracting adults with reviews, etc ... the boys will be free to lead.

Finally, boys can be as much a drag on the unit by taking their good old time with advancement and sitting in the corner with their buddies, planning nothing of value. Getting those boys to move on may do the unit a favor!

I had to laugh about not expending too much effort after FC for an Eagle. Of course the unit does MB classes...at least we do. Why? Because the "colleges" simply hand out blue cards with patches attached it's that easy. We want our kids to actually learn Radio MB, not watch someone do it and get an MB at the end of a 4 hour session. 

MB classes, TLT, wilderness first aid training, Eprep activities, CPR/AED every two years, PLC advising, service project advising, counseling, additional leadership training, SMCs, BORs, recruiting, fund-raising administration, etc. All those things from which he benefits which fall outside of the Patrol Method, Boy-Led program he benefits -- arguably -- even more from AFTER First Class. Not to mention the counsel he gets during Life on his Eagle project. I won't even go in to the rides to/from meetings every week and to each event. Even with the boys leading, planning and doing nearly everything, there's enough going on behind the curtain that supports each Scout.

No, there's plenty spent on the Star-Eagle crowd. Less observation perhaps, but an equal amount of effort nonetheless from which he benefits.

HOWEVER, I am NOT advocating he pay THIS back. I am advocating that the concept of Stewardship helps to keep the boy side AND adult side of things flowing. Otherwise you end up with fewer and fewer people getting involved, fewer service projects, few fund-raisers, etc., because no one can be bothered. They think someone else always will do it. Our point is simply this: YOU be that someone else. YOU lead. YOU make the example and others will follow.

Now, if the troop is providing unique service opportunities suited to older boys, physical challenges suited to older boys, and fellowship opportunities suited to older boys ... things for younger boys to grow into ... then the few boys who quit will be of minor concern, as long as they aren't robbing liquor stores to buy drugs.

This is up to the PLC and the troop as a whole. But since this is boy-led it requires the older boys to have some skin in the game. One cannot complain about the lack of high adventure opportunities when they don't participate in program planning, PLC and event planning and execution.

To (grotesquely) paraphrase Col. Jessep, We have neither the time nor the inclination to put up with Scouts that complain about the activities that we provide, and then questions the manner in which we provide them. We would rather they just said "thank you", and next time help plan them,"

But here's the rub. That "sacrifice" that everyone puts on a pedestal is not required for Eagle. Master first class skills, earn a few badges, camp, be responsible for the life of your troop, serve your community. That's all we're asking for.

Respectfully, I know it is not required, nor do we make it so. That's not my point.

My point was teaching stewardship, obligation and self-sacrifice which is all part of character development. Giving back to the unit is how that is demonstrated IMHO, so we teach them early and often this concept so we don't get the Eagle-out syndrome.

If a kid fulfills the requirements, they did what they had to do. Some kids will put more effort into those 7 or 8 years of Scouting and give more to their unit and fellow scouts than other kids who put into 10+ years and just do the bare minimum all along the way. 

It's been my experience that the kids who get Eagle before 16 usually fall in to that latter category (highlighted). They check the box and move on.

Certainly generalizations are be drawn anywhere. My point is that we need to be teaching servant leadership, stewardship and obligation to these kids. If they can make Eagle at 16 and demonstrate these traits, then great. My experience has been that they usually don't show these traits until there has been some sacrifice on their part. This usually comes after 16 when they mature enough to know what self-sacrifice is.

Doesn't mean someone won't try, though. Expect to see the headline soon: "Girl petitions Boy Scouts to become first female Eagle Scout." It'll happen, probably sooner than we expect. 

Boy that didn't take long....

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/10/03/teenage-girl-fighting-to-become-a-boy-scout/21485308/

He's not talking about STEM.  The original poster was talking about an alleged co-ed Cub Scout pack, announced as a "pilot program" by someone from "district".

Wouldn't be the first time someone heard something at a district meeting and got it way wrong.

Did sections as a Scout way back when. Did 700 miles of it, mostly PA, VA, NC using this natty thing.

Requirements complete while a Scout apply to earning the MB even if Blue Card not signed by SM at the time the requirements were completed.  This has been discussed before. The SM does not control when a MB is being earned; the Scout does.  The "local scoutmaster" is misinformed - at best. "[A] a boy may begin working on a merit badge at any time after he is registered."  "For example, nights already camped as a Boy Scout, or coins or stamps already collected, would count toward their respective badges."  "A few merit badges have certain restrictions, but otherwise any registered Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, or qualified Venturer or Sea Scout may work on any of them at any time."   BSA, Guide to Advancement at pp. 43-44.

Isn't some of this up to the MBC? For example, if a Scout goes to Philmont and does the trail cooking in 2010, but does not request a blue card until 2012 and meets with an MBC for Cooking in 2014, the MBC does not have to take the 4 year old work if they feel it has been too long. Right? I could be wrong but I seem to remember somewhere that the final word was up to the MBC, no?

So, still asking, what council and district the "pilot" is in.   Would really like to know.    

Think he means STEM? Isn't that co-ed and a pilot program? That is the only thing I can think of that's pilot and co-ed younger than 14. Or am I off?

All of these issues bouncing back an forth confirms one thing, to me at least, we need to have more power/authority on the volunteer side of the organization.

It allegedly exists today. You have District Commissioners that are part of the Council Commissioners group (page 13). Both of these roles is supposed to "Represent all uniformed youth and Scouters". More on councils here.

I think where this whole system breaks down is three key areas. First, CORs are simply not involved in BSA beyond signing paperwork. I have seen very few CORs attend anything Scout related. Second, volunteers at the district and council level (to me) seem more focused on keeping the status quo, getting awards or checking boxes than really representing their units. Lastly, I think national focuses on money and missions or visions poorly aligned to what the units need/want. Those are my observations. Yours may vary.

Maybe the Scout could get other Scouts together and try to work with the SM to wrestle back control? Politely, of course.

Agree if the SM does not allow it or is otherwise disinclined, then leave. What they are doing is not Scouting so technically he's not leaving a boy scout troop. 

I was shocked that the expectation was that the format was to show the scouts a skill,  have them repeat it, then sign off on the related requirement.   The long time, highly respected scouter that organized the event shrugged his shoulders and said that although he didnt agree with it, that was just the way it was now.   I felt bad that I participated in a program that had little benefit to scouts.   At the same event, another MB counselor who was leading another MB workshop, bragged about how he had all the pieces required for a project prepared in advance, leaving a small section of wood uncut for the scout to finish, thereby technically meeting a MB requirement to cut wood for the project with a saw.

We try to steer our Scouts away from MB "colleges' or other such programs that do this. We have one locally that did First Aid in 8 hours of Powerpoint. One of our moms (a physician) picked up her son, heard the story and then got with out TC to hold a class for the boys who went. Each boy spent 3 hours with hands-on First Aid. It was better than the ARC basic course. That was the beginning of doing our own First Aid MB course. Colleges? Never again.

One issue I have seen with some scout websites, in many different countries, is that when I have seen their website the first picture you often see is of some kind of award ceremony with smartly uniformed youth or adults getting some kind of award indoors. Now that's all very well for the person receiving the award. They've worked hard and deserve some kind or recognition. But its preaching to the converted. In the 21st century if you want to recruit then the first thing a non member should see is a message for them.

Good point. At our winter district awards dinner, where we recognize the Eagles (among other awards), the event was so focused on the adult awards (and back slapping) that the Scouts were bored witless. Our Eagle Scouts were wondering why they gave up 2+ hours of a Friday night just to walk across a stage for 5 seconds and have a bunch of adults clap.

The adult awards? Must have been 40+ awards given out one...by...one; even if there were 8-10 of the same award. Message to Eagles: Take your girlfriend out or hang with your mates on Friday night instead of wasting it on this ceremony. That was the talk in my car among 8 Eagles on the way home....that, and $25 wasted on cold chicken fingers and runny mashed potatoes. 

 

I asked you for proof of that "pathetic track record of sticking up for the local units".  That would require that you give multiple examples of a unit being sued and the BSA failing to defend the unit in the lawsuit.  You haven't given one example.  Your first link doesn't work, and your second and third links involve lawsuits that have not been filed, but you think they might be.  Even if they are, it doesn't prove your point unless a unit is sued and the BSA leaves them hanging out to dry, which can't happen unless the lawsuit is actually filed.

 

Lawyers and special interest groups got involved in opening up BSA's membership policy in 2013. Outcome: BSA caves and puts the liability and risk on the local units rather than taking the heat at the national level.

Lawyers and special interest groups got involved in opening up BSA's membership policy in 2015. Outcome: BSA caves and puts the liability and risk on the local units rather than taking the heat at the national level.

Lawyers and special interest groups got involved in opening up BSA's membership policy in 2016. Outcome: BSA caves and puts the liability and risk on the local councils BUT the impact on the local unit is still yet to be determined. 

It would take too long to cite all the cases that were brought against the BSA over the years to show how the eventually caved in these three instances. 

I would call shifting the liability and risk to the local units in the examples above a pathetic track record of looking out for the local units. The local unit does NOT need to be sued for the BSA to have failed in their responsibility toward us. They merely need to shift the burden, risk and/or liability to the local unit for that to happen....and they have.