dkurtenbach

SP, I am still puzzled by this environmental politics thing -- did you have a bad experience with a tree? I was talking about becoming real experts in outdoor adventure, sports, and activities, and in the outdoors itself, and not getting any more political than the Outdoor Code and Leave No Trace already make us. And again, we currently do activities like the outdoors and preparedness NOT to become outdoorsmen or skilled in first aid, but to develop character and citizenship. That's fine, but fewer people are choosing that program for themselves. What I am suggesting is taking one or

It is easy to be satisfied that everything is fine just as it is, that Scouting has three million youth members in traditional programs, including almost a million in Boy Scouting and Varsity, and that Scouting is not going away anytime soon. It is easy to say that society has changed and youth have many more choices and Scouting will never again have the market share it once did. It is easy to be content, knowing we have a good and worthwhile program that works (never mind that not only is our market share declining, our real numbers are declining). It is easy to simply dismiss the idea of

Um, "nature worship"? Lost me there, SP. So let's put it in terms of a different area. Let me suggest that one way that BSA could demonstrate that it is "relevant" to 21st century youth (and families, and institutions) -- that IS the topic of this thread -- is to add a fourth Aim, Emergency Preparedness, to go along with Character Development, Citizenship Training, and Personal Fitness. Terrorism, hurricanes, mudslides, tornados, and other natural disasters have really pushed the need for plans, procedures, and preparation to the forefront. Every American is asked to make sure he

Sierra Club? Political activists? Where did that come from? =Grin= When we recite the Outdoor Code, we take a position on certain issues concerning the environment and the outdoors and how they should and should not be used. When we practice (or try to practice) Leave No Trace, we take a position on certain issues concerning the environment and the outdoors and how they should and should not be used. When we offer programs and merit badges in things like canoeing, backpacking, wilderness survival, cycling, nature, mammals, environmental science, etc., we take a position on certain is

I think the short answer is that a Venturing crew could do *some* of the things I'm talking about in an indoor/hobbies/sports/life skills Scouting program. So could a Boy Scout Troop, or a Varsity Team. Certainly one approach toward relevancy to "indoor boys" is to sell those elements of existing programs. We might also limit a parallel program to the middle school-age group, and graduate them into Venturing crews when they complete 8th grade. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

Don't know much about Learning for Life, but the website, www.learning-for-life.org , seems to indicate that there are two parts to the program: in-school lesson plans in areas such as critical thinking, social skills, ethical choices, careers, and leadership; and Exploring, the co-ed workplace-based program for youth 14 (and graduated 8th grade) through 20 that focuses on career opportunities, life skills, citizenship, character education, and leadership. LFL serves 1.4 million youth (about half of the number served by traditional Scouting programs). Neither piece of the program looks lik

The Venturing program might serve well as an advanced/alternative version of the parallel/"indoor" Scouting program I suggested, just as it can serve as an advanced/alternative version of Boy Scouting. I apologize for not getting into more detail previously. I see an alternative "indoor" or "life skills" Scouting program as covering the same range as Boy Scouting -- 11 (or 10 1/2 + AoL or graduated 5th grade) through 17, and being "boys only." Venturing's minimum age is 14 and graduated 8th grade, and crews can be co-ed. I also see the "life skills" Scouting program using as much of the Bo

OldGreyEagle wrote: ---------- Does anybody see how a Arts and Hobby, or a Relgious Life, or Sports Venturing Crew with youth 14 to 21 would work with the parallel BSA program? ---------- I suspect that it would work pretty much the same way that Outdoor Venturing Crews work with Boy Scouting -- hit and miss. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

A few thoughts on this. (1) I have often thought that it might be worthwhile for BSA to develop a second program for 11- to 18-year olds, to run parallel with Boy Scouting. The program would be, in essence, an extension of the Cub Scouting activities framework that focuses on building life skills and pursuing interests in a variety of areas -- sports, science, health, crafts and hobbies, mechanical skills, arts, etc. In short, Scouting that is not outdoor-centered. Imagine a patrol of 15-year-olds tearing apart lawn mower engines or forming a garage band. Instead of a lot of the outdo

Easy. Marines -- tan shirt, green pants, similar cut (no epaulettes) (of course, you want a Boy Scout model who is well-groomed, skinny, muscular, and ramrod-straight for a fair comparison). The Park Service uniform has a very similar cut, but different colors (though the same relative shades), and of course cloth patches and smokey bear hats. Lots of county sheriff's offices and state patrols have similar uniform cuts as well, with cloth patches and smokey bear hats. The Scout unform does not really resemble Army or Air Force dress uniforms, and the Navy's tans and whites don't have the c

Bingo, John D! On the topic of uniform design (as opposed to the larger issues of how uniforms work in Scouting) -- the uniform design reflects BSA's public image priorities. As we know from the slogans and marketing campaigns of the last several years, those priorities are character and values. To illustrate those priorities, you need clean-cut youth in sharp-looking military- and police-type dress uniforms (the citizen-soldiers of tomorrow, defending the flag and freedom); not dirty, sweaty boys in muddy t-shirts and baggy pants. If BSA's priority was, for example, to be seen as the prem

Yes, you have it right. Dan Kurtenbach Fairfax, VA

It's pretty simple, really. Most youth of middle school age are very attuned to the ever-shifting social "norms" of their age group: what's cool, what's not, who's cool, who's not. Most are highly aware of those distinctions. Most boys of that age -- Boy Scout age -- have not yet developed an independent identity for themselves strong enough to ignore or defy those "norms" without social penalty(that comes later, around age 16 or 17). So for most boys, it really doesn't matter if they like Scouts or like the uniform; they will act in accordance with their social norms. Those norms genera

I think there are really two questions there -- (1) Do we take the game of Scouting too seriously? and (2) Do we take ourselves too seriously as Scouting "pundits"? As to (1), there are a lot of fun, recreational pursuits that people take very seriously, such as baseball, books, and music. I see no problem with taking seriously something we are passionate about and want to improve and preserve, as long we (a) keep it in proper perspective relative to all the other things in life, and (b) keep the elements, including the FUN, in balance with each other. As to (2), yes, sometimes.

Bob White wrote: ---------- Selecting good adult volunteers from the outset is the key. What you need is to seek and find adults willing to learn and follow the program. ---------- /Bob Agreed. And yes, we already have good practices and procedures written down and readily available that tell us how to find and select good people. We know how to do it -- that isn't the problem. The problem is that we have a lot of Scouters, and units, and districts, and Chartered Organizations who can't/won't/don't follow those good practices and procedures and don't select good volunteers

A couple of thoughts on this. First, I don't think it should ever be one or the other -- build on strengths and simply "control" weaknesses, or work on weaknesses and simply maintain the status quo on strengths. There have to be efforts across the board. A brand new leader comes in to the unit with no Scouting skills, knowledge, or experience, but lots of enthusiasm: Do you just build on his strength -- using his enthusiasm? Do you just work on his weaknesses -- getting him to training? Of course not; you engage on both fronts. Second, there is a real difference between "groupth

Oh, the line between (well-deserved) criticism of juris's ideas and criticism of juris himself (his claims about himself and his experience, his writing style, speculation about whether he is the latest incarnation of past personalities on this forum) was crossed long ago. This forum, like others, has its advantages and disadvantages. One of the advantages is the ability to "ignore" certain posters. Imagine my surprise to when, in turning on the "ignore" feature with respect to juris's posts last evening, I learned that I was the only one to have do so. One of the disadvantages of this

Proposition A: If the BSA "model" program and recommendations were consistently used and followed, many common problems in Scouting would be eliminated and the average quality of our programs would be higher, with a consequent growth in membership. Proposition B: The main obstacle to accomplishing "A" is an insufficient number of good solid adult leaders -- too many Scouters are untrained, undertrained, untrainable, unenthusiastic, uncommitted, or enthusiastic but lacking skills, knowledge, experience, or ability to work with youth; the quality of adult training and mentoring is uneven;

I sincerely hope it is not the case and that you have a good group of adults -- including some of the current leadership -- who recognize the need for improvement and are open to the changes necessary. Best wishes. Dan K

CNYScouter, I don't know what the situation is there, and I don't want to be pessimistic, but be aware that one possibility is that, with these assignments, you're being set up to fail -- You'll do a lot of work and make a presentation that will be politely listened to before being rejected out of hand, with the result that you'll be so frustrated and disappointed that you'll shut up or leave. That may not be an open or even conscious goal of the leadership, that's just a common way for groups to deal with "the new guy" who wants to make a bunch of changes. Dan K

CNYScouter, following up specifically on your last post -- By all means, study how the Methods interact all you want; certainly it will help you grow in understanding an appreciation of the program, and will certainly help you to persuade some folks. However, with the crowd you describe, I think you need to do something in addition to developing a well-thought-out, rational argument and plan for following the Patrol Method. You need to know and understand why they don't do it now. Those "reasons" may have nothing to do with the intellectual framework of the Scouting program and th

A follow-up to my last post on this issue. Just my opinion, of course, but it seems to me that the underlying reason for most problems implementing the Scouting program has nothing to do with the program itself; rather, it is simple human weakness. We don't like the uniform pants, so we don't wear them. The SPL and the Patrol Leaders have pretty busy schedules, so we don't have regular PLC meetings. It is hard and very inefficient to sit back and watch boys goof around, not get things done, take forever to do simple tasks, and fail, so the adults plan and run things. Our adults

I would suggest that you don't have to spend time and energy figuring out _how_ the Methods work together. You just have to make sure that each of the Methods is in place. If they are all "plugged in," they work together automatically and the "machine" runs smoothly. It is when a component is missing or broken that you get the clanking, vibrating, and whining. Where a lot of units get into trouble is when they assume that one of the components is not necessary for the machine to run smoothly, or that a substitute piece (either from another manufacturer, or jury-rigged by one of the lea

My troop has never had troop tents in the several years I have been involved with them. Of course, we've always had a few adults leaders who are gearheads and always have/had extra "loaner" equipment on hand -- tents, backpacks, sleeping bags. Most of the boys have acquired tents of their own -- most good, a few not very good, but no real problems. Never, in my experience at least, any complaints from the Scouts or families. However, with several new Scouts joining the troop the last couple of years who don't have equipment, I've actually been considering purchasing a few troop tents.

Beavah, an excellent point that I concede -- Yes, we've also been working on the program since Baden-Powell's time and have not come up with a "leader-proof" program that everyone can follow successfully. Nor do I dispute the economics. I would suggest only that tinkering with the program is a whole lot easier than trying to find more leaders and develop higher levels of commitment and training, because the program is just the program, but "better leaders/better training" goes right to people's lives -- their time, their values, their personal schedules, etc. But again, I don't disagree