HashTagScouts

4 hours ago, an_old_DC said:

The hitch historically is that girls cannot earn First Class as a Boy Scout, and the only way for males to earn First Class is through their troop, which is where males would have been elected.  so crews cannot hold OA elections because their members do not meet eligibility requirements. 

Yes, understood- the OA could have put some type of "equivalency" of a minimal Venturing (ie: must be Pathfinder).  

1 hour ago, Buggie said:

I've been interested in seeing if my daughter (age 8) could join a pack somewhere, but there's nothing on the council site lookup for troops in the area that shows a girl pack anywhere. We looked into GSA in our area, but we were told that the yearly dues were around $100 something.  Which was way too steep for us. I don't know if it was for that one GSA group or if it was for all of them in the area/state (Oklahoma). But it sort of rained on our enthusiasm. We encounter way too many groups (baseball, softball, band, etc) who want to charge hundreds of dollars for a kid to participate. It really leaves us out of the picture most times. 

Well, I hate to think it's just us, but our troop dues are over a $100 a year now - between the National membership dues, insurance, and required council activity fee, that is about 2/3 of the annual dues.  The rest is what pays for the advancement materials and class B.  We fundraise, and far more than many other troops, but it's a financial reality that we can't lower the annual dues.

The pack is pretty much approaching that same level now as well, and considering that Cubs have way more advancement swag than Boy Scouts, I can't think it is not reality they are going to have to surpass what we charge very soon.  

14 hours ago, Eagle1993 said:

I thought girls wouldn’t be in OA until 2020 but was told that Explorer and Venturing would start OA elections next year.  Has anyone else heard of that change?

Exploring isn't an outdoor focused program, so not sure why they would be included? Venturing would make sense- technically they are not allowed today, because the OA membership requirement on camping nights specifically states "troop or team", no mention of crew.  The adult requirement also states that adults are eligible if they follow the same camping requirement, but I have seen plenty of 18+ females that are in Venturing (and not dual registered as ASM in troops) in lodges.

From what I have heard from various sources, it was shared amongst the Lodges this fall that a decision was being prepared to cease the use of regalia in answer to "many requests" for the BSA to be more culturally sensitive to Native Americans.  I was told that this would impact AOL crossover ceremonies callout ceremonies, as well as Eagle COH ceremonies (basically, any activity that has non-OA members present).  My understanding is that the desire was to start immediately, but an official announcement would come at NOAC.

Remember, "making Eagles" is not the aim or goal of the program.  If the scout is having fun and enjoying the other aspects of the program he is involved with, then let him be.  If he understands that to go to the next step of rank advancement, or eventually be eligible for things like Order of the Arrow, that he needs to complete the requirement he will need to overcome the fear once (emphasis on that point- he only really needs to jump in one time and then never again as he can complete hiking or cycling and emergency preparedness MBs to get to Eagle) then your job is done.  Hounding him or making him feel he is less of a Scout because the other guys have done it is not good either.

It isn't all that abnormal for there to be kids who have the same fear.  For some, completing the requirement in a pool is an option they are more comfortable with if their fear is they can't see the bottom of the pond/lake.  You can't, however, change the requirement.

I just finished running my first merit badge class.

 

It started last Saturday at our district camporee.  I had 45 minutes to work with groups of about 25 on a couple of requirements for the radio merit badge and ended yesterday with Jamboree on the Air activities which included covering more requirements and those who addended both and did requirement 8 as homework (research a career) the would leave with a signed blue card.

 

1. Blue cards: Why does the concept of the blue card seem so difficult for scouts?  I ran into this at the National Jamboree too, so many scouts really did not know how to fill them out.  Also, one troop had their own blue card form, that was weird.  I learned why many counselors at merit badge classes clearly state that the cards should be filled out completely and numbered, because when you have a large stack of cards, it starts to chew up real time filling out cards for scouts. 

 

2. Big event classes.  At the National Jamboree, scouts knew they were giving up 1/2 of their program day to take the merit badge, so they were generally interested in at least earning the badge, if not the subject matter too.  At our camporee, over 200 scouts rotated through the station.  Most of them were not interested and didn't want to be there, and that was not helpful to anybody.  

 

3. I'm getting a reputation, good or bad, as someone who won't let you attend the class and not participate and still get a sign off.  If the requirement says discuss or explain, each scout will discuss or explain.  Many of the scouts seemed perplexed by actually being expected to discuss or explain, as if it is the first time they have had to do this for a merit badge before, even some of the older ones that I know to be star and life scouts!  

 

4. I really enjoyed helping 13 scouts earn the radio merit badge though, and getting them on the air communicating.

Don't cave- the requirements are the requirements, and that is the way it should be administered.  I do agree with others that there is a hangover effect of what some Scouts may experience at summer camp.  I personally observe many staff members who truly want to do things the correct way and hold a standard, but not all do- I just remind myself they are still kids too.  

As to blue cards, yeah, it's especially frustrating to me when I am working with 3rd or 4th year scouts who struggle to even remember hat district they belong to, let alone fill in every area that asks for their name.  I suggested that the Troop Guide should spend one of his first meetings with the new patrol on what the purpose of a blue card is, how to complete it, what to do with it after it is returned to them, etc. but the idea was shut down ("he already has too much on his plate, and I should be doing that" was the reply from the AC- ignores that he hadn't done his job very well that I had to suggest something different).

I thought blue cards were required??

Not every council ever wants to see them or require the Scout to present them at the BOR.  With Scoutbook becoming the future, many camps are now requiring MB signups be done online BEFORE camp, and the results are given back as spreadsheet for partials and completes entered into SB.  

Hmm. I don't know whether our council has that or not, but when I see the word "free" my alarm bells go off.  What it sounds like is that they are charging everybody for use of the council camps whether you are using them or not.

You got it.

Council registration fee?  I have never heard of a Council requiring and fee on top of the national registration fee. 

Many councils in the Northeast have them now.  In our council, every scout has a charge (some councils I have heard it applies to adults as well).  Part of the "benefit" is that have tent camping for free at council camps on fall/spring weekends.

I'm assuming that these adults are not paying their own registration fees.  This isn't a practice I agree with and what I would work to change.  A scout pays his own way, the scouters should be setting that example.

 

I wouldn't take on this role as the scoutmaster though, this is more of a committee chair job.  Refer the parent's to the committee so you can focus on your SPL's program.

Absolutely agree.  If anyone who wishes to be in a position that potentially alters a young persons life or gives them the inspiration to be the best version of themselves squawks over paying a ~$30 a year, they need to check themselves in the mirror and ask what they are doing in that position.   A Scout is thrifty, and that starts with the troops own funds. 

 

Im trying to figure out:

-Who is required to be chartered (outside of the required positions)?

-What is the difference between a registered and nonregistered leader?

-What benefits do registered leaders receive?

 

Who is required outside of the required positions? No one! 

What is the difference between a registered and a non registered leader? Those who are not registered are not actually troop leaders, and shouldn't consider themselves as such.  Frankly, even the parent who is only going to teach a MB over two troop meetings should register. Much of that is tied to:

What benefits? For the adult  A) the insurance coverage, but most important B) the ability to demonstrate to the scouts that you are in it with them.  For the unit, the  most significant, especially now the National has actually made the policy more clear, they need to have YPT at the time of registering.  The reality is that this is not a family camping organization, and I get that not everyone can be at 75% of the events, but for many that still register even ears after their kid is out it is because they feel the benefits of supporting the next generation of young people to receive the same direction and mentoring that they/their child received.

I do understand that there will be those that balk, but they need to think about all the parents that are there now or will be very soon that have probably never even seen them at a meeting let alone an event.  You do want the CC onboard though.  As the SM, you really are the one who should decide who is essential as ASMs, no matter how big or small their part is.  

I'd hope Eagle would not be under discussion.  It's already bad enough that boys in Venturing can earn Eagle, but their equally registered female members can't.  

 

IMHO, not allowing girls to earn Eagle would just continue the pain.  The best change is done structured and planned, but relatively fast.  Drawing these things out just continues the damage. 

It never really had to be that way.  It's only my opinion, but the BSA frankly never did enough to really make the awareness of the Venturing Silver Award was (and even less so since changing ti the Summit Award).  The Silver Award was, again, my own opinion, even more of an accomplishment than Eagle for what was involved, and the Summit Award is still a pretty darn big accomplishment.  

Accessible for families does not equal family camping.    

It doesn't officially pout that stamp on it, but it also does nothing to make it not become the reality.  If the whole conversation is about accessibility, and not having to have parents "be in two places at once" (my summary of everything Mr. Surbaugh presented), then yes, you will have units making meetings and outings joint between male and female troops, and then you will have all the pressure of "why not allow my younger children to come" or "if my younger children cannot come, then how can both parents really participate?". As I posted on other threads on this topic, the unit my son belongs to already does this half the year because of the pressures, and now the flood gate will open.  I've been very cautious of even discussing all of what is going on with my son, but he already is ready to finish eagle and jump ship simply because of the "family camping" aspect- Scout outings no longer feel special, and feel constraining to him because the family outings have to be set up such as the whole event has to allow for inclusion of all ages/abilities.  The coed piece is less concerning to him- he has no problem with joining a coed Venturing unit that is all about adventure and cares little about Ventuing advancement.

Adults who are excited with the program typically have the energy and enthusiasm for developing a creative fun program that keeps the scouts excited even through five years.

 

I was told by experts in the field of human behavior that the average volunteer of any volunteer organization gives about 20 months before burnout starts to set in. That is not even two years. The real problem if you get into the meat of it is that burnout sets in just before Webelos. And the Webelos membership increased drop out rate shows it.

 

Barry

I agree 100% with your earlier assessment.  "Advancement Mill" mentality generally makes a troop look great from a distance, but my experience says that after 13/14 when the kid has hit Star (or at least on paper has done the requirements) and realizes that he now has to do the work all by himself, it is gut check time.  And when you factor in that he needs to do that work AND have to be a babysitter/instructor, there is little time left for fun and Scouting begins to be a drag.  They may still come to some meetings/events, if the theme is of true interest to them, but by and large their 'love' of Scouting has waned big time.

My own son flourished under such a system and hit Star by 13, Life by 14 and is now knee deep in his Eagle project at 14 1/2 (with 49 MBs, including all of his Eagles).  His interest in the troop is way down, but thankfully he is heavily involved this summer as a CIT at summer camp, got really involved in the OA (joined the Chapter & Lodge ceremonies teams, goes to all Ordeal weekends, went to Section Conclave), went through NYLT this past winter and interviewed for and was accepted to NYLT staff for next winter.  I don't have reservations on him getting to Eagle so young because he has showed me that he figured out that Scouting is far more than about advancement (also factor in that I was there along the way to make sure when his troop was signing on requirement X, that he actually could do requirement X, even if it meant going in the backyard and him demonstrating to me he knew it).  There are absolutely others out there like him, but far too few can figure it out at that age that they can still experience Scouting without feeling trapped.  I like to think that he learned some of that from me, because I was him at 14 as far as advancement, but Iwasn't fortunate enough to figure out there was more than just my troop to be had and was out of Scouting by the time I hit 17.   

I deal with women ASM's and SM's and OA guys in our OA chapter all the time (and a few Sea Scouts as well). The issue that should even be "a thing" is disheartening. 

I don't really see it as a male/female thing.  For the OA membership guidelines, male Venturers today cannot be elected to the OA unless they are also dual registered in a troop or Varsity team at the time of their election.    

In part, the majority of Venturers I've interacted from LDS and non-LDS, troop-based and non-troop-based, high adventure and non-high adventure crews have all been in the program because the genuinely want to be in the program. They didn't join the program on the promise of awards. They joined it on the promise of sharing experiences they wouldn't normally be able to do with their peers.

 

My $0.02.

This is pretty much my experience as well, they are two very different programs.  Crews have options on advancement, if that is the crew culture they want to develop.

I agree @@Stosh. What my unit has done is to announce each month who the top campers and service hour workers were. They are posted on the troop bulletin board and everyone can see each month who has what. Before elections, each candidate steps forward and their camping nights and service hours for the two year cycle, plus total camping and service hours, plus years of service are announced. That way the voters can see who the good campers and service provider are, not guess.

 

This approach really turned the elections on their head. Popular guys with low camping or service were not getting elected. Quiet, less popular kids with MEGA camping and service were getting elected in landslide votes.

 

THAT'S how to beat the current OA system. I agree, the criteria should be more strict and subject to a quantitative evaluation.

it certainly is one way to change the culture.  I also tend to lean more on the OA members in the troop should be deciding on who is eligible (using the current criteria) for the election.  

@@Scourge

 

I know after talking to a couple of the commissioners that there was a good many councils who "put greenshirts on Boy Scouts for the week and called them Venturers". So, I don't know how serious the opinions taken during the town hall will be taken?

Sadly, I find that a great many "Crews" are nothing more than older boy Scouts who have split from a troop(s), or in fact are just the older Scout Patrol of a troop.  I've also found a number that do not do any of the Venturing advancement program, but just do the same track as a troop.  So, take it with a grain of salt when we hear Venturing is all for integration on whos voice is actually being heard.  

While I see both sides, I would prefer a new Venturing honors program.  It seems as though any boy can get into the OA without any outdoor or leadership skills whatsoever.  Some members that I see in it would've never in a million years qualified thirty years ago.  As an outsider looking in, the Order of the Arrow looks like a hollow shell of a former great organization.  Why?  Because standards dropped and everything was dumbed down.  An exclusive Venturing honors society would be much more high speed and something I would be interested in joining. 

I would have to agree that a great many in the OA today do not belong, and do nothing to contribute to their Lodge let alone to the sections/national.  

We also have to remember that Venturing is not so much focused on the overnight outdoor experience in its' advancement program.  I would absolutely like to see the standards raised for the OA, but can't see how Venturing can fit into that picture unless it becomes a requirement of Venturing to have tier II and tier III adventures have minimum # of overnights (or more focus on increasing the # of tier III versus tier II overall).

I don't see how that is going to be tenable in practice.  On paper, sure.  But if the premise is "accessibility" then having the boys do one thing while the girls do something else isn't going to cut it.  They might be separate troops on paper, but it's going to be co-ed in practice.

If there are enough adults who want their daughters involved, then nothing stops them from having the COR charter a female troop and keep it separate on paper, but coed in practice by having both units share meetings and outings.  Whether the BSA is declaring the program is not coed, it will be irrelevant as units will force it to be so.

There's nothing stopping anyone from going to the scout store and buying any patch or rank badge, except for eagle.

 

To be honest, I'd be interested in a modified venturing. Ranks up to first class, 11-21 (but split into two age ranges) and more emphasis on outdoors and leadership/teamwork and less on advancement. Call it retro scouts.

Not entirely true- you need to have a valid Advancement Report to purchase merit Badges and Rank patches.  It's often subverted, but there is supposed to be that valid check and balance from the local Council.

Not really.  I have quite a few BSA units I drive by to get to my unit.  Why?  Because the council saw a need for a unit in a large part of town that wasn't covered geographically.  3 units of Cubs an no Troops. I said yes and that was that.

 

So if BSA goes co-ed, it becomes generically the same dynamics of any other co-ed group.    To answer your other post by blw2 it does make a difference to me whether or not the program is all-boy or co-ed.  I guess I wouldn't be half upset as I could be, Venturing was co-ed and I had a crew for 13 years.  But with Cub and Boy, the program has not just going co-ed, it's just a half step to Family Scouting and I work just with youth.  Helicopter parents officially in the program don't really appeal to me at all.

 

By the way, boys really won't mature and build character with the parents hanging around interfering with their progress to adult independence.

Stosh, appreciate your feelings.  I am struggling with the same thing with my sons troop now, even before the BSA gives a bona fide blessing on this.  The troop has always done summer trips that are 99% adult run and open to families, a Thanksgiving campout that is the same, and now making two other campouts in the coming year "family campouts".  It takes the boys out of leadership learning and makes the concept of registered adult leaders irrelevant.

 

EDIT: From my daughter...who is in our Venturing Crew..."Why don't they just lower the Venturing age? Who wants to be in the same unit as their BROTHER?!?!?"

 

If only BSA listened to their members and their potential members, they might actually meet people's expectations and needs.

Agreed- why not do this? I hear many of the arguments about not wanting Eagle to become something that both boys and girls can earn, to which my reply is that the BSA has dropped the ball in a major way of promoting that the Venturing Summit Award (and even more so when it was the Silver Award) is every bit as significant of an achievement as Eagle. This is what the BSA needs to be focused on is putting far more energy into building up the reputation of Venturing.  Stop the nonsense of putting resources to Varsity and Explorer.   

Within the council i am in, Crews are by and large just 'older boy patrols' of BSA troops.  They do little to capture anyone outside of the boys already in Scouting, and when they do go outside that circle it is really only to siblings of the Scouts.  I can think of only two Crews in the whole council that didn't start from the efforts of the troop or from a splinter from a troop. 

As to the OA suddenly being supportive of the measure of coed- REALLY?!?! Then why have then been so mute on allowing Venturers into the OA for so many years?! Today, only those boys dual registered in a Crew and Troop are eligible for election, so female Venturers are excluded entirely.  Only when a female turns 21 can they be nominated as an adult for OA.  How about fixing that issue first? 

My sons troop goes to a camp outside of our council for summer camp (he also works staff for that camp), so I am on their newsletter feed.  I received the same type of invitation from that council SE, though it was more overt and mentions ongoing discussion and studies about the addition of girls to the non-Venturing programs.

I am not in favor of making the whole program coed, simply as I believe that both boys and girls need to have time to be with other boys or other girls.  It has nothing to do with limiting the activities that girls can be involved in.  Honestly, it is a crying shame that the Girl Scouts have allowed their program to become so awful, and I totally understand the perspective of girls from our area that "want to do the same things the boys get to".  To me, it doesn't mean they have to do in one group- though I don't have a problem with there being opportunities for both BSa and GSA troops to do shared events such as hikes or even campouts.  I've had boys in my sons troop talk to me on this topic, and they don't favor their sisters tagging along, and want their time away from their family dynamic.  My fear is that for all the "additions", we are also going to see losses and will have sacrificed the very institution.  Looking at other countries that are coed, I think my concerns are founded in reality.

Let's say, as an example, a professional Landscaper gets paid handsomely to do yard work for a client.

 

He asks for troops to help in a "conservation project" of raking leaves and removing them 

This, to me, does not qualify as a 'service project'.  if I was asked to do this for my unit, I'd ask for a share of the $$$ and consider it a fundraiser, but not a service project.  I also don't consider fundraising hours as service hours, but I can say that not every other troop out there thinks the same as I do.