FireStone

Is there any documented maximum allowable time from when a SM conference is requested to when one of given to the Scout? I'm not aware of anything but wondering if it's written somewhere. Like "a troop must make a conference date/time available to the Scout within no more than 60 days from request" or something like that?

EDITED TO ADD: Upon further information provided, my concern is invalid.

That was never rational, not then, not ever. And you're talking about abuse. What we're discussing here is not. No one is saying "what happens in school stays in school." Our teachers are being directed to not out kids when it comes to gender identity and sexual orientation. It's not their job to do so, and it's overstepping into territory that they have no business in, specifically that of making life-changing declarations to parents about their kids when those kids aren't ready to face their parents with yet. They can talk to parents about whatever name their kid has asked to be referred to. They can't say "Your kid told me they're gay/trans/whatever." I think I'm in the same role. It's not my role to potentially out a kid. I'm not saying "what happens in scouts stays in scouts" either. But I'm not jumping on the phone to mom and dad the minute a kid confides in members of the pack or troop something about their gender identity or sexuality. Here's a crazy idea. How about the first person we talk to about this is, oh, I don't know, maybe.. the Scout? And I'm not suggesting an awkward YPT-landmine conversation either. But at least the courtesy of simply asking the Scout if it is alright with them that I discuss the matter with their parents.

You really believe parents would be the first to know? Most kids find it hardest to come out to their parents more than anyone else. There is a myriad of data and information out there about this, and piles of articles about helping kids come out to their parents, for the very reason that is is so intimidating, stressful, and challenging. My wife and my mother (also a life-long teacher) have had students confide in them about their sexuality long before they were able to do so with their parents. No one is saying make the parents last to know. Just not to put Scouting volunteers in the position of being the ones revealing these things to parents when it's not our place to do so. Kids should decide when and how their parents hear these things, not us. How is that extreme? I thought we were disagreeing agreeably. Until you declared that any opinion contrary to yours was not "normal" or "rational". Some old allegory about a black pot and a kettle comes to mind...

It's not how it's done here, but hypothetically if the student were present, the same rules would still apply for the teacher. Don't disclose anything about gender identity or sexual orientation revelations by the student. Simply say that Johnny has asked to be called "Pat", and that staff have respected that request.

A student wouldn't be at a parent/teacher conference. But if it comes up at a conference that Johnny is referred to as Pat, teachers are advised to simply inform parents that they abide by students' requests to be called a different name if requested in earnest. They don't need to say anything about any other specifics, any revelations the student may have made to that teacher, to other students, etc. In fact, the directive from administrators in my wife's school district is that they are forbidden to disclose anything about that stuff with parents, like any disclosures about sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. They advise the parents discuss the name identity subject directly with their son/daughter, or they can refer them to the school's counselors if additional questions arise.

What if the kid hasn't come out to their parents with their gender identity? Their sexual orientation? Is it our place to potentially "out" a kid to their parents? I don't think we should have any role in that dynamic between a youth and their parents. That's a monumental moment for people, revealing something like that to their parents. Many kids come out to friends, teachers, other adults before their parents because it's such a stressful and intimidating thing to do. Who are we to reveal that info to parents, even if it is inadvertent? And save it with the "normal" and "rational" comments. No one here isn't "normal" for having a differing opinion. Certainly not when it comes to areas of discussion that neither of us are experts/professionals in.

That's not what the mental health pros are saying, not in the training they are providing to teachers in my area, so I'm going to go with them on this one.

I'm kind of assuming here, but my understanding is that you're not a mental health professional, is that right? Because what you are calling "abuse" is actually what mental health professionals are advising teachers here in NJ to do with students who identify as a gender other than their birth gender, and is prescribed as the best course of action for a student's mental health.

I just asked my middle school teacher wife, her having just gone through a whole training session on gender identity. She was told that legally (here in NJ at least) teachers are required by law to refer to a student by the gender that they identify as. They do not have to talk to the parents (it's in line with "outing" a student and teachers aren't allowed to do that), or if a parent asks that they refer to their child as one gender and the student asks to be referred to as another gender, they have to defer to the student's wishes. Now that's public school, not scouting. But an interesting perspective on this issue.

Weeks, preferably. A month is even reasonable. I was referring specifically to the "must be done on a camping trip" requirement when I mentioned adding time, which if adhered to could add months, sometimes several months, to a Scout's advancement path. As is the case in the original poster's son's predicament, not being able to get a conference until November under this policy. What if said Scout gets sick the week of that November trip? Now it's December at best, if the Troop camps every month. If they don't, January? February? See where I'm going with this? If there is flexibility in this policy, I'm ok with it. But it sounds like there isn't. SM conferences must be done on camping trips in this particular unit. That's too restrictive. In theory it might sound ok, but in practice it will cause a lot of problems.

I don't see the need to "lighten up" on something that arbitrarily adds time time to advancement. It's not about any disrecpect of the SM's time. That's why the clause is there for ASMs to take conferences, when the SM can't do it. If an SM wants to hold conferences outside of meetings, make more of a thing of it, fine. But tying it to a specific event, one that could be at least a month (or in some units a few months) away, that's not right.

So hypothetically, what happens when a Scout misses their Eagle deadline by a couple of weeks or months and then in looking back through the records it is noted that a SM conference was delayed for some time because of this unusual unit policy? Seems like a position I wouldn't want to put myself in as a leader to possibly have had a hand in that. Scouts are responsible for their own timeline and keeping track of the calendar for advancement, making sure they give themselves adequate time to advance. Arbitrarily throwing in an unofficial policy that will delay advancement is not something any unit should be doing. I know every unit is unique and everyone does things a little differently. But units go too far when it is something like this that can mess with everything that comes after, possibly adding several months to the timeline and potentially costing a Scout their intended rank.

He already did, it was denied.

We're doing the same here, using the new "Scout Me In" stuff in local stores, libraries, etc. In trying to maximize exposure with limited budget, doing a short print run of color flyers that can be posted in public places puts a lot of eyes on our Pack info without doing a 1-flyer-1-family ratio. We targeted local places with high traffic and/or high numbers of kids and parents, like the community center, libraries, ice cream shops, supermarkets, etc. We're putting up posters in schools (5 schools, 5 posters, it's fairly inexpensive), digital flyers are send home through the school district "virtual backback" system, and we do a lot with social media and facebook especially.

He had to know going into the project that his chance at the Eagle rank was going to hinge on the appeal process. It was a gamble all the way through. Some choice wording in the article, the author's bias is glaring. "Technicality derails Eagle bid..." You can't derail a train if gets started off the track. Is it still a "derailment" if a scout joins up at 16 and can't make Eagle? Is it still just a "technicality"? "It seems there's a rule requiring Eagle candidates to hold the rank of Life Scout for at least six months..." It seems? No, it's written, clearly. It's not some hidden language or ambiguous requirement, and it has existed for a long time. I have no issue with a scout doing a project and going through the appeal process in an attempt to earn rank. As mentioned, I suspect he knew all along that this was a risk to take. The appeal process exists to ask for clarification or a ruling on something. He kind of alluded to that in the article. But I do have issue with the suggestion by the author (and those seemingly in agreement in the scout's local community) that he was somehow "derailed" or otherwise unfairly treated.

I was (possibly mistakenly) under the impression that the updated uniform pieces for Cubs would be out by summer (June). I briefly saw the new red Wolf neckerchiefs online, but then they were gone just as quickly. The only thing I've been able to find so far is the new solid-color-cover handbooks. Anyone heard anything about the uniform pieces? I was kind of hoping to tell my Wolf den we'd be wearing red in the fall, but right now it's not looking good for that to happen. I'm thinking I should plan to tell parents to buy the yellow hats and neckerchiefs.

I view adult uniform patches with utility in mind. How useful are they, and do they communicate something of value? There are patches that (I hope) instill a sense of trust in the parents of the kids in my Den. "Trained" for example. I realize it doesn't take much to get one of those, but I like that it suggest that I did something other than just buy a shirt and show up to be in a position to attempt to teach your kid something. Den Leader, Cub Master, etc., patches seem useful. Makes it pretty clear what each leader does, and any parent can just take a glance at your shoulder to know what you do. I view square knots as talking points. Kids ask about them sometimes, adults on occasion as well. And I welcome any opportunity to talk about what potentially lies ahead in Scouting for kids that stick with the program and work hard.

I'm kind of amazed that water guns and laser tag are subjects worthy of so much discussion. It has never occurred to me that either would really be all that important in a Scouting program. If I look back at my 12 years as a youth in Scouting, I don't think I'd ever have the thought that I missed out on anything by not ever having the chance to play laser tag. Also in thinking back on my youth Scouting days, I remember my Troop ditched our Council camp for many years because of the poor camp program. The issues expressed in the original post here sound a lot like problems/concerns I heard expressed in my youth (1990s), and I'm guessing are far from new. Or normal, thankfully. Because today, just like back then, it was a simple matter of finding a better camp, and both back then and today I know that good camps exist in our area. Maybe dull/poor camp programs are more common today, but certainly they're not the new normal.

The one case we know of in Scouting, the NJ boy, my understanding of that case is that the only reason anyone found out is because the mother informed leaders, and word spread to a parent who took issue with it. On appearances, no one could tell he wasn’t born a girl.

I agree civics is lacking in this country, but is Scouting the best venue for teaching it? Seems like we're picking up the slack where schools should be doing a better job. Personally I'd be fine with seeing all Citizenship MBs gone.

Amen. Scouting is far from doomed, because of the local effect. Scouting is thriving here in my town as well.

I can't help pointing out the contradiction in this statement. What if a scout's "own pace and time" is to reach First Class in a year? I always find it odd that we applaud a certain timeline (a longer one) for advancement while criticizing another (shorter) one, even though neither are encouraged or discouraged by the rank requirements. The time between ranks that occurs because of POR requirements is the only deciding factor. So why do we judge one choice vs. another when neither break any rules or adhere to any BSA standard best-practices? One of the most dedicated Scouts I've ever known (and now a highly involved and dedicated Scouter) was a 13-year-old Eagle. This idea that some minimum age beyond the requirements should be arbitrarily applied because of what some people "believe in" is ridiculous.

Love this idea. Definitely going on my list of suggestions. I know the town has a pretty rich scouting history, some names on the original charter are family names that are still around town. Probably could find a good number of people in the area with past affiliations with the unit, alumni, etc.

It's a little tricky to figure out from the article, but it basically sounds like this woman has issues with events taking place on the church property, which she lives adjacent to. So her response, with kids present, is to fire off a bunch of rounds in what seems like a deliberate attempt to scare children. Classy. 🙄