HelpfulTracks

Interesting and timely thread.

My Venturing YPT expired last Saturday, so I needed to take it. My Boy Scout YPT shows as still valid until 2019, I retook it last Summer before Jambo. 

However, on my.scouting.org, the Take the Course link for Venturing is gone. So I searched through the training portal and found 2 versions of YPT. One said "Mandatory" the other said "Recommended". Since the recommended version said Status: Complete and the Mandatory version said Status: Incomplete, I postulated that the Mandatory version must be for Venturing, So I took it.

It was longer, I cannot say how much longer it should have been, because the performance was terrible, in fact at one point I had to start over. Hopefully that is resolved soon.

On Scoutbook (linked to Scoutnet) it Venturing YPT still shows expired. It is also that time of year (recharter) when things get wacky in my.scouting.org, where your apps disappear (it seems every year, during re-charter access to Commissioner tools, training manager etc, disappear for a few days to a few weeks).

There was no Venturing YPT option, and the current YPT does not include much of the material tat was in the Venturing version, so I am not sure if the new is supposed to cover both, (I doubt it) or if the new one is not up.

Oddly, this year I still have access to all my apps, but under Training Center:Requirements. IT shows I have no registered positions, not unit, district or council.

Looks like National is still working out the kinks.

13 hours ago, Oldscout448 said:

I've been  down this road twice in the last 30 years. There's a lot I could say but I need to go to a meeting in 10 minutes so to sum up.

We have adults here who think it's their Troop rather than the Scouts troop that's why they're acting like the world's oldest patrol leader I'm afraid your not going to change their minds.

If I were in your shoes I take my boys and as many of the other Scouts as I could and run there's just no point in beating your head against a stone wall. And let the other Scouts know they're what they're getting is not scouting it's just some old guys who enjoy being in charge and are going to stay in charge as long as they can unless you can get them thrown out

13 hours ago, David CO said:

Neither is correct. It is the Chartered Organization's troop. 

8 hours ago, Oldscout448 said:

I stand corrected.  

Allow me to rephrase 

We seem to have adults who think that the troop exists for their fun and benefit rather than the scouts.

No OldScout, you are correct, it IS the Scouts troop.

Saying it is the CO's troop is akin to me saying the new jacket my son purchased, with money he earned, is MY jacket. Legally it is mine and I am responsible for him, but it is HIS jacket. Or maybe that the group of people he hangs out with are MY friends, because I provide a place for him to sleep.

Just now, qwazse said:

Now, if the scouts built the camper themselves, they should count it towards camping nights!

Heck yeah, and probably a few merit badges as well.

They can use whatever they want.

The question is should they? if they do should it be counted towards camping nights? (and I am sure there are a few more questions).

I would say if they are going to be 3 days in a state park, they should pitch tents unless there are extenuating circumstances as to why not. I would add, that I would not count that towards camping nights.

I can see some situations where I would be in favor of a camper. For example, a group traveling across country to Philmont. If they are pushing very long days driving in order to get there, I can see a camper (we used gyms from hosting troops.) It makes more sense logistically. But not for an extended stay in the a State Park

2 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

The money raised at the last two fundraisers were designated for new equipment. In essence everyone agreed to it: scouts and adults. Scouts did the research into the new stoves. While I admit the stove they picked was not the one we got, it was very similar. Stove we got was a heavy duty version of the one they picked, and was on sale for $10 more than the one they picked. Originally the Scouts did not put the one we got on the selection list due to the cost. Scouts were surprised and happy to get the one we did.

As for the tents and other gear, the SM and ASM approved the purchase, with the rest of us finding out after the fact. I was in the minority. I thought the Scouts should have been involved. The majority of adults in the troop were all for the purchase. IMHO, this is a result of history of hands off committee and CO, with the previous SM running the whole show. Heck even a long time MC commented the late SM was a micromanager.

As for the stoves, I really don't have an issue with that, that basically got what the Scouts wanted but a more durable version for slightly more money. Had I been the Committee Chair or Equipment Chair, I would have come back to the PLC and told them that we suggest the more durable version because it will cost less in the long run. I am sure the Scouts would have agreed.

The tents on the other hand sound like adults just running off and doing what they want. That level of equipment purchase is not really in the hands of the SM and ASM, the CC and Equipment Chair should be doing the purchases of that size with the consultation of the PLC and Scoutmaster.

If an adult wants to purchase equipment with their own dime and give or loan them to the unit, more power to them. I purchased a number of Jambo tents after the event because the proce was so good. They are big and bulky, but good quality for dump camping at a great price. I loan them out as needed to the troop, crew and OA. But adults do not need to making unilateral decisions about equipment without the input of the PLC.

I wonder how the SM/ASM would react if all of a sudden the PLC and Committee started doing their jobs?

2 hours ago, gblotter said:

Same - but not for the reason you stated. Vandalized tents equal wasted money.

I would discourage Scouts from refusing to do fundraising because of vandalism. The PLC came up with a different solution for that.

But, as a Scout, if we are raising money for equipment, and not having a say in it, I would have a problem. If adults want to take the money the Troops has and spend it, then the adults need to be raising/earning it not the Scouts.

Who authorized the ASM to spend $2,500 of the Troop money? Sounds like a much larger issue. 

If we’re a Scout, I doubt I would be doing any further fundraising for the troop.

6 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Well Hooters did sponsor a Cub Scout Camp in Colorado, so I consider them friends of Scouting. 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-outraged-learn-local-hooters-sponsored-cub-scout/story?id=40325654

 

Yep, I know. I just couldn’t help but poke some fun. 😀

11 minutes ago, Eagle1993 said:

Wow. What next?  Bars, smoke shops, strip clubs?  

Hooters?

I’m confused, was the a gift to to the troop (you said the SM takes about the “ASM’s present” above) or was Troop money spent on it?

It’s all about the cookie 🍪 

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

@HelpfulTracks, we don't usually count Learning for Life members - as many of those participants aren't even aware that their school registered them in the BSA. Excluding that (as well as 18+ year-olds in Venturing and Exploring), we see steady declines in the traditional program - going back to the nationalization of the 18th birthday requirement for Eagle.

Fair enough and true. So I recalculated. But, since Explorers were effectively split (in this statistical report) with School/Career based Exploring moving to LFL and some staying under Exploring program, I removed exploring altogether. This was to compare apples to apples. Leaving Explorers in, but not LFL, creates an impression that there was a significant drop in participation rather than a reclassification of what was a member.

That said, the comparison of the 70's membership drop is still valid and between BSA and GSUSA and both still suffer very equivalent drops. Clearly there were factors in the membership decline beyond the program change, else GSUSA would not have suffered the same decline.

I am not saying the program change had no effect. Perhaps without the change, the decline would not have been as drastic, now way to know for sure. But it appears that other factors were also involved. It is not as simple as saying the program change was the reason.

I routinely hear that the drop in membership in 70's was caused by the program change. I can't say for sure, because I was not involved at that time, certainly not as an adult leader. So I went in search of some numbers. I found some here http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/443_boy_scouts_and_girl_scouts_membership.html

I decided to chart the numbers for BSA and GSUSA. The dates are a bit strange in the spacing 10 years, 5, 5 then one year increments after that. The gaps in the data can hide a few things like actuall peaks and valleys, but the general trend line remains fairly accurate. The data ends in 1999, so there are no status for this century.

A few things I noticed.
1. BSA and GSUSA both take a similar dive in numbers from 1970 to 1980. BSA's drop is marginally worse.
2. BSA's numbers recover more robustly - great gains than GSUSA each year following 1980
3. BSA's numbers eventually exceed the 1970 peak, GSUSA's do regain their 1970 level

That begs the question, if BSA's membership drop was primarily about the program change, then why did GSUSA's numbers follow an almost identical decrease trend?

On 1/31/2018 at 3:58 PM, AVTech said:

Barry-

No, failure is an appropriate term.

It is!

I also like crash and burned.

Once I said it to a Scout with out thinking really, it’s just part of my vernacular growing up.

I looked at him shaking my head and said “you really crashed and burned on that one.” I then wondered if that might not be appropriate for some reason. 

The Scout chuckled and said “yeah, I did.” Next thing I know the Scouts were using it and coming up with their own spins in it. Some were pretty funny.

I think it worked because it really gets the point across that they screwed up, but it doesn’t feel as harsh or judgmental as saying you failed. 

The best part was they used it as a friendly way to poke at each other and busted their tails they wouldn’t crash and burn again.

Just goes to show that sometimes the most effective things happen by accident.

This came across my news feed. I have no idea about the quality of this publication beyond reading the article (which clear has factual flaws), but I thought it was interesting.

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/02/01/northern-california-magnet-girls-joining-boy-scouts/

And another article came across right after that.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/02/01/girls-signing-up-in-droves-to-become-boy-scouts-in-northern-california-were-both-created-equal

Just now, Col. Flagg said:

In today's environment, I would never assume that. Someone, somewhere will get offended and make a stink and BSA will back down. That seems to be the process.

Oh, I agree, which is why I didn't say they wouldn't be offended. But using the cultural appropriation guidebook them being offended is of no consequence.

Just in case anyone isn't paying attention to the whole thread. This is all sarcasm.

11 minutes ago, fred johnson said:

We can argue and debate about good or bad aspects of communication and ScoutBook.  I have a more basic need.  Does our existing advancement person have to learn a new system just before we try to find someone new to take the role?  Or can we delay until the next person steps in? 

We can't plan until we know a turn-off date for BSA Internet Advancement web page. 

In the unit I'm referring too, ScoutBook is a read only utility.  It's not used to record advancement.  So the March 1st warning saying we can't approve advancement is meaningless as it's telling us we won't be able to use something that we already don't use.  

Scoutbook (Full) is pretty intuitive, even if it is light on functionality. I have not played with SB Light.

The following is about Scoutbook (full) but I am sure it applied to SB light as well.

Advancement (MB, rank, awrds) can be entered by the youth, their parents and adult leaders.

Merit badges are approved by their MB counselor (assigned by unit admin in SB)

An adult leader must do final approval for awards, advancement and MB to be official and recorded. (though I am not sure if awards will be recorded beyond the local level)

The unit SB admin assigns who can approve what and at what level.

Currently BSA is doing a nightly sync between Scoutnet and Scoutbook. My understanding is that is a miserable process because of legacy issues with one or both systems. So I am sure BSA would like to end that as soon as possible. That said, the last thing they want to do is shutdown online advancement before SB is ready.

Just now, CalicoPenn said:

  I wonder how many Troop leaders actually know what the mission of the Boy Scouts of America is. 

Having been a on the Council and District Training committee and done a good deal of training, I can say far, far fewer than I expected.

BTW - the Dr.s that started the program were both Venturing Scout volunteers. They were and are very much about Scouting and its ideals. They saw an opportunity to bring what they loved professionally into the Scouting world and pitched it.

Just now, Jameson76 said:

No room at all for expanding or massaging the membership numbers with that plan (what!! I'm registered with who??) ... just move along Citizen Scout, nothing to see here

Just now, RememberSchiff said:

Oh, should I have said    STEM scout units can partner with schools apply and receive government education grants. 

I don't know how the charter process works or even if there is one with STEM scouts. I was surprised the unit leader in my OP was running the unit from her house.

STEM Scouts are chartered by schools. They are called Labs.  The volunteers are registered with BSA and are required to have YPT. The youth are registered with BSA and you will see them listed on membership reports for district and council. They fall outside the "Traditional Program" when referenced in reporting.

Their uniform is a lab coat. They do several hands on experiments per year.

It is not an inexpensive program approximately $100 per Scout per year. The experiments use a lot of materials and all of the Scouts get hands on experience. In that regard, they are out pacing many troops I see. Due to the expense, there are a number of funding partners that offer grants and scholarships.

58 minutes ago, Jameson76 said:

Assuming this meets the mission

The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.

Wonder if the nice lady doing science experiments in her kitchen is aware of the mission, or the Scout oath and law?

I suspect we will be doing sports leagues next, though probably, somewhere, that is happening

It does. The Oath and Law are very much a part of STEM Scouts.

We have. Part of Varsity Scouts was starting and supporting you athletic programs. As well as other Troops and Post over the decades.

53 minutes ago, EmberMike said:

Is that also the mission of STEM Scouts? I ask because while I don't know a whole lot about it, my impression of it is that it is separate from the BSA program. 

It is. STEM Scouts is owned an operated by BSA. Councils that are doing STEM Scouts likely have a DE that is in charge of that program.

It was started in the Great Smoky Mountain Council by two PhD's  from Oak Ridge National Laboratory (which was created for the Manhattan Project).

It has been piloted across several councils throughout the U.S.

Having seen it first hand, it is a great program.

2 hours ago, Col. Flagg said:

Can we appropriate a myth? Won't someone get mythically offended?

Well, based on the current train of thought that the aggrieved party in appropriation are those who were subjected to colonization/subjugation, I think we are in the clear.

All of this is their fault, right?

39 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

Not very american that.

Nope, but apparently we are offending all of the Americans.

And since we already "appropriated" Scouting from the Brits I can't imagine they would be offended if we did so with the Knights of the Round Table.

But hey......... who knows.

How about appropriate Knights of the Round Table? Scouting started in England, kind of makes sense. Chivalric code and all.

From BP's Scouting for Boys

“In the old days the Knights were the real Scouts and their rules were very much like the Scout Law which we have now. The Knights considered their honor their most sacred possession. They would not do a dishonorable thing, such as telling a lie or stealing. They would rather die than do it. They were always ready to fight and to be killed in upholding their king, or their religion, or their honor. Each Knight had a small following of a squire and some men-at-arms, just as our Patrol Leader has his Second (or Assistant) and four or five Scouts. …  You Scouts cannot do better than follow the example of the Knights.”

15 minutes ago, David CO said:

Disapproving outsiders should have the last say on their own turf. If a unit asks OA to stay away, then OA should stay away from that unit. 

 

If the Scouts do not want the OA to come, they will not.

But if Scout’s wish to join, they should have that option.