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 more existing aspects of our program to another level, as a way to make it easier to sell Scouting to people.

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

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 doing anything differently. It is easy to stop being a Movement.

Obviously, Scouting is not in "survival" mode. But we are experiencing a time when our role in society is under attack and our ability to _influence_ society is diminishing. The "good" image that people have of Scouting is Scouting as it was 50 years ago; the "bad" image of Scouting that some are selling to the public is Scouting as it is today.

The "relevance" question is NOT about whether Scouting is an inherently good program that can do good things for people who participate. It is, and we know it is. In fact, lots of people out there in the world know it is; yet they aren't involved with it. Lots of really good things have fallen by the wayside because people have choices, and they chose something else (sometimes for really bad reasons). The "relevance" question is NOT about whether Scouting is a good program; it is about whether Scouting is a program THAT PEOPLE WILL CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES to participate in. In short, the relevance question is a marketing question. And on that hangs the ultimate determination of how influential Scouting will be in our society and in our American marketplace of ideas.

I can understand that some folks are afraid of actually engaging with the real world. Personally, I don't think Scouting is a fragile, delicate thing that is so perfect that we can't touch it or it will break. Over a century of many, many changes, and the addition of many new programs, and adaptations to changes in our culture and technology, Scouting has proven itself quite robust -- and has never lost sight of its Aims.* I think we would be pretty safe taking an integral part of our program, such as the outdoors or preparedness, and using that program element to our own advantage. We could use it to show the world that, IN ADDITION TO building character and citizenship (which MANY other organizations and institutions do), Scouting provides something that is real and concrete, that is easy to see and understand, that has value to them, and is unique.

I think Scouting is tough enough to handle the challenge of being "relevant."

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

*Well, actually, it has never lost sight of two of its three Aims, Character Development and Citizenship Training. Personal Fitness, however, is pretty much ignored. I'm sure that if I suggested that BSA fulfill its commitment to that Aim by implementing real, substantial, ongoing health and fitness programs and advancement requirements for Scouts, someone would say that I am mistaking Scouting for Gold's Gym, or am promoting "body worship."

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 or she is prepared for some emergency by having supplies at home and escape plans and such. BSA could demonstrate how it contributes to our society by training youth in how to prepare for and deal with emergencies. BSA would begin a new initiative to make the Boy Scout motto really come alive by strengthening its advancement requirements and the first aid and other skills it teaches. The point would be to show that Scouting has a real, substantive, valuable role and mission in modern society. That is, we would show that don't just dress boys up in antiquated uniforms and teach them "values." In addition to our mission of turning youth into persons of character, good citizens, and healthy and fit individuals, we would also turn them into true, competent "junior first responders."

We don't do this now. Sure, we teach some skills, but those may be seldom used, rarely practiced, and quickly forgotten once the advancement requirement is checked off. Our goal would be to really teach, and have boys really learn and use and practice this stuff, in order to claim a real, concrete role for Scouting that undeniably serves a useful, valuable purpose.

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

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 issues concerning the environment and the outdoors and how they should and should not be used. That doesn't make us political activists; it shows that as an organization, we care about the outdoors.

Unfortunately, we really only care about the outdoors because we use it as a tool.

As Seattle Pioneer notes, "Scouting is built around the idea of going hiking and camping, which shapes a large part of the advancement program through First Class. Hiking and camping naturally developes the Scouting theme of personal responsibility and character development, since boys inevitably learn on camping trips that 'Actions Have Consequnces.'"

What I am suggesting is that one way to sell Scouting as "relevant" to 21st century youth, families, and institutions is to show that we offer real, substantive training, knowledge, skill, and expertise in a real, concrete field of endeavor that has become quite popular -- outdoor adventure. That is, we want to show that we don't just dress boys up in antiquated uniforms and teach them "values." In addition to our mission of turning youth into persons of character, good citizens, and healthy and fit individuals, we would also turn them into true, competent outdoorsmen.

We don't do that now. Sometimes true outdoorsmanship is the result for those Scouts who really get into the outdoor stuff and have good, outdoorsy adults to teach them. But far too often in Scouting the outdoors is used simply as the venue for checking off advancement requirements; once the skills are checked off, they are promptly forgotten because either (a) the troop doesn't do enough activities that use that skill on a regular basis, or (b) the Scout doesn't have an interest in maintaining that skill and, quite often, doesn't really like the camping and hiking and all that outdoor stuff, and does only what is necessary to advance.

What I'm suggesting is a new emphasis, a new mindset for Boy Scouting that really focuses on the outdoor skills and knowledge for their own sakes, IN ADDITION TO what they teach about character, citizenship, and fitness.

And again, it doesn't need to be the outdoors -- I offer that as a "natural" niche for us that, coincidentally, is still growing in popularity. If not the outdoors, we could do the same thing with preparedness/emergency response, or with personal fitness.

The point is to not merely rest on our fat laurels, but to get out there and show the world -- the world that has been beating up on us a lot lately -- that we are not a quaint program whose heyday was fifty years in the past, but that we have something real, tangible, and popular to offer youth in the modern world.

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

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 like it would serve the "game with a purpose" function of an indoor/hobbies/sports/life skills Scouting program for Boy Scout-age boys using Boy Scouting Methods.

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

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 Boy Scouting structure and as many of the Boy Scouting Methods (Advancement, Patrols, etc.) as possible, but substituting Life Skills for Outdoors. Because Boy Scouting and Venturing have several differences in their structure and Methods, Venturing wouldn't quite fill the bill. Now, there is no reason we couldn't also develop a co-ed club-type program for the 11-and-up crowd -- "Junior Venturing."

Shifting gears a bit, in my post yesterday I suggested giving a renewed emphasis to the Outdoors as a fundamental component of Scouting. Doing so would be a way for people both inside and outside our program to connect Scouting with something concrete and important in our world today.

Two other potential ways to do that, and come a bit closer to our emphasis on our Aims (character, citizenship, fitness) would be to develop initiatives to really identify Scouting with one or both of the following:

* Readiness -- The Boy Scout motto is "Be Prepared." In this age of terrorist threats and natural disasters, when our newest heroes are "First Responders," a program that teaches first aid, resourcefulness, outdoor skills, and emergency preparedness should be a natural "star" among American youth programs.

* Fitness -- The dramatic increase in youth obesity and our national focus on health make this the perfect opportunity for Scouting to "break out" as a major proponent and provider of youth fitness programs.

The operative word in the title of this thread is "relevant." I suggest that relevance is simply a matter of marketing. We make ourselves relevant by identifying something about our program that a segment of the population need or want, and selling it to them. Our program has, I think, at three major elements (outdoors, readiness, fitness) that are or can be attractive to a lot of youth and families and corporations and other institutions in America today. But we aren't selling them.

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

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 outdoors and a taste of other things (through merit badges), these guys would get a lot of other things with just a taste of the outdoors.

(2) It is possible that, if B-P were living today and thinking about creating Scouting, he might not choose the Outdoors as the "stage" for his program. Regardless, the Outdoors is what we've been working with for a century, and we have nearly a million boys just in Boy Scouting and Varsity, so the Outdoors is still viable.

(3) Actually, I would argue that the Outdoors is more viable than ever, if we learned to use it properly. Outdoor adventure sports are exploding in popularity -- just check out the magazine rack in the local drugstore or the proliferation of "outdoor stores" in the shopping malls. (I just read an article about how so many people in Colorado are trying to bag 14,000 foot peaks that it is becoming a problem for the Parks Service and the landowners and a threat to the alpine ecosystems.) The Appalachian Trail Conservancy (ATC, formerly the Appalachian Trail Conference) is developing new outreach and membership initiatives to take advantage of the increased popularity of hiking and backpacking. Yet BSA seems to have done nothing to "catch the wave," much less be on the leading edge.

I submit that this lack of iniative is an unintended result of how we view the Outdoors in the structure of our program. For us the Outdoors is just a tool; a Method, not an Aim. We try to use the Outdoors properly when we use it, but we don't give it much thought when we aren't using it. We are "in" the Outdoors but not "of" the Outdoors. As an organization, Scouting is not really an interest group or advocate for protection and responsible use of the environment, expansion of national parks, or development of outdoor skill and knowledge for their own sakes. Rather, we care about those things only to the extent they advance our real goals of building character, citizenship, and fitness. (It often seems that we only care about Outdoor skills because we need them for Advancement.)

To conclude, I think one big thing we could do to keep Boy Scouting relevant is to elevate the Outdoors from a Method to an Aim of Scouting, right up there with the other three: Character Development, Citizenship Training, Personal Fitness, and Outdoor Expertise.

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

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 color contrast between shirt and pants. On the other hand, Sea Scout uniforms are the exact same uniforms (aside from insignia/patches/badges) that sailors wear.

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

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 premier youth outdoor and conservation organization in America, we'd have highly functional outdoor uniforms. I'm NOT saying BSA has made the wrong choices, just that the clothes project the image the BSA wants to project.

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

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 generally provide that most sports are cool. Therefore, it is perfectly natural for boys to associate themselves with something cool, and wearing sports uniforms almost anywhere is cool. Those norms also generally provide that Scouting is geeky. Therefore, it is perfectly natural for boys to avoid associating themselves with something geeky. For boys who are Scouts, that means they dislike wearing the uniform in public, and may be quick to drop out of Scouting. For non-Scouts, it means they are a very tough sell on joining Scouting. It has nothing to do with personal courage on the part of the boy, or with the appearance or usefulness of the uniform itself. It has everything to do with the "reputation" of Scouting in 11- to 15-year-old society. Until Scouting is cool, we will have issues with boys not wanting to wear the uniform. The uniform, as the outward symbol of Scouting, represents Scouting's geekiness. When boys say they wouldn't join Scouting because of the uniform, they are simply saying that they wouldn't join Scouting because they don't want to be associated with a geeky organization. The uniform itself is not the real obstacle, and therefore dropping the uniform is not the real remedy.

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

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.

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

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 from the outset. Okay, so we have to do a better job selecting COs and district and unit leaders so that they will do a better job selecting other leaders. But that is the same problem, no matter how far up the chain you take it. However far we go, at some point we still run into people or committees or whoever that (a) aren't using care and best practices to operate the program or to select the best volunteers to operate the program, and (b) can't be or won't easily be replaced -- we're essentially stuck with them, and © can't or won't learn how to do it better.

At some point, the "get better people" answer doesn't work anymore. Often, that happens at the unit level.

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

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 "groupthink" and widespread agreement on certain principles by folks who have lived and tested them.

Third, while there are certainly lots of successful youth programs that teach lots of great things without using the Methods of Scouting, they aren't Scouting. Scouting's Aims (citizenship, character, fitness) are shared in one way or another by many organizations, and they do not make Scouting unique. Rather, Scouting is defined by its Methods -- a unique combination of practices and operating principles designed to achieve the Aims. Very simply, if you don't use the Methods, you aren't running a Scouting program. You may have something that looks like a Scouting program from certain angles, but that is true for many groups -- 4-H, Boys and Girls Clubs, Outward Bound, etc. The Methods ARE Gospel if you want to operate a Scouting program under the auspices of the Boy Scouts of America. As discussed earlier in this thread, Beavah's troop does a great job with most of the Methods, and seems to do a passable job on the others, and that is fantastic.

That does NOT mean that the Methods and BSA's program are _infallible_ -- mistakes have been made and more will be made in the future, and how we implement the program, and even the Methods themselves, change over time in a constant effort to improve the program and correct problems.

More importantly, and getting us back to the focus of this thread, BSA doesn't have "Method Police" or inspectors or enforcers (except self-appointed ones). Quite the opposite -- BSA is pretty flexible about how its program is implemented, and lets leaders do lots and lots of things that aren't in the model. But, through its training and publications, BSA does offer and advocate a particular structure and sets of practices. Why? Because its 95 years of experience and the best thinking of volunteers all over the country tell it that a particular structure and certain sets of practices WORK. They work. Will other things work? Yes, of course. And lots of other things DON'T work. If units follow BSA recommendations, they are far more *likely* to have a good program sooner than trial-and-error and non-BSA practices will get them.

And that gets us to the bottom line -- the youth. Scouting units aren't about how smart or skilled or innovative the leaders are. They are about reaching boys with the Aims in just the few years we have them in our care. Therefore, it makes sense to follow the tried-and-true path, even if we don't like some things about it, than to take our boys bushwacking through the backcountry of non-BSA practices. It might be a fun adventure, but it risks not only losing boys along the way, but never accomplishing the mission. (The mission is NOT to give the boys lifetime memories.) And yes, we will hear war stories of the adventurous leaders who did things totally contrary to "the book" yet produced scores of Eagle Scouts who went on to become Senators and CEOs, which will inspire yet another generation of Scouters to ignore the program. But all you have to do is follow forums like this to hear endless war stories about leaders who threw away the "map" (or never learned to read it) and brought countless problems to their units and needlessly lost Scouts and families from the Scouting program. And the failures far outweigh the successes.

There is plenty of challenge and adventure for leaders on the trail laid out by BSA, with a well-supported likelihood of success. BSA's model is a good plan. To throw away or ignore pieces of it just because we don't happen to like them is a disservice not only to the Scouts in our own units, but to other units and Scouting generally. Why? Because every boy and every family we lose because a unit or a leader did "it's own thing" is evidence against us that gets magnified every time the tale of woe is told. Every poor unit that doesn't follow the Methods hurts Scouting and hurts our mission of reaching boys with the Aims.

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

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 forum is that it tends to get personal, often quickly. Perhaps that is a result of most folks using "handles" rather than their real names. I don't know. But I do wish that the response to folks we find annoying would be to use the "ignore" feature rather than attack. I think the reading would be more pleasant.

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

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; and Chartered Organizations don't do enough to recruit "the right sort" of leaders.

If these propositions are true, then what can we do about it? If the answer is "try harder," how do induce Scouters and Chartered Organizations to do that on a consistent, long-term basis? If we can't really do anything to make a consistent, long-term improvement in leader quality, are there other possible answers? For example, is the "model" program simply too difficult or complex for the average volunteer? Do we actually have enough good leaders but they are just poorly distributed? Could some roles and responsibilities be split up and spread around to ease the demands on individual leaders, such as Scoutmasters?

Or are we just stuck with what we've got?

Dan K

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 the interrelationship of the Methods. And if they don't, your argument and plan will fall on deaf ears. Your argument and plan have to address the interests, concerns, and experiences of the leadership who have fostered the current system.

Dan K

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 really don't know anything about backpacking and aren't interested in learning about it, so we don't do "adventurous" stuff like that. Parents complain, so we make concessions to them. Boys beg to play basketball instead of doing a first aid competition, so we give in. We only have two boys from one patrol, one from another patrol, and five from a third patrol going on a campout, so its just easier and more convenient to combine them into one patrol for the outing. We're embarassed to talk about things like personal character and doing our religious duties, so we sort of skip over the Ideals other than reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and the Oath and Law. It's a pain to find a pool and organize swim tests before the big canoe trip, so we'll skip that and assume that anyone with the Swimming Merit Badge is fit to go (even if it was earned 5 years and 75 pounds ago). Big Jim, who was Scoutmaster for twenty years, always did it THIS way, and it worked for him, so we're not going to change it. Cooking and cleaning up on Sunday morning take a long time and we all want to get home, so we'll just stop at McDonald's for breakfast on Sunday mornings.

Keep in mind that we can be subject to the same weaknesses. We may absolutely know that the troop has a problem with the Patrol Method. But if we think patrol flags are stupid and we shouldn't use them, can we really get the problem fixed?

Most of the difficulty we have getting a unit turned around or fixing particular problems has nothing to do with the program itself; rather, it is overcoming the "reasons" why the troop deviates from the program. People are people, and with few exceptions we don't have the luxury of just ordering them around and making changes as we see fit, even if it is to get the unit aligned with the Scouting program. Therefore, we are left with using the many tools of persuasion, mixed with prudence, time, and patience, to get our units on track.

(The point of the Loosey-Goosey thread, by the way, is to suggest the use of a particular tool of persuasion: the idea that there is Only One Right Way.)

I would suggest starting by listing the various "exceptions" to the "model" that your troop practices. Then pick one to work on. Study the books and know (and lay out on a chart) the steps and tasks that must be accomplished for that Method to work. Then work on each step or task, one at a time. Each step, task, and Method may require working on different people, using different means of persuasion, to get it accomplished. It may take a very long time. Keep in mind that one powerful tool of persuasion is trust -- that folks will do what you want them to do because they like you, they believe you know what you are doing, they know you have the backing of other people they like and respect. This particular tool is often not available to "the new guy," particularly the new guy who comes in and wants to shake things up, criticizes the current "management," and won't give the existing system a chance.

Dan K

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 leaders) will work just as well.

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to operate the Scouting program; in large part, you just need to be able to follow instructions. (Caveat: There are those who believe that, regardless of how well the program itself is implemented, you must still have leaders with certain personalities and characteristics -- "the right sort" -- to have a great Scouting program.) We encounter this every day. We don't know how every part of a car works with every other part, but we follow operating instructions to open the door, get the car started, get it moving, turn it left and right, and make it go faster and slower. Any time we buy something that says "Some Assembly Required," we have in front of us a jumble of various parts. To put the item together properly, we follow the instructions. The same is true for Scouting.

You know what the Methods are and what they look like. And plugging each one is a relatively simple matter of following the instructions and doing each of the steps and tasks set out in the books. For example, to implement the Uniform Method, pretty much all that is required is for each Scout and leader to acquire a complete uniform, attach all badges and insignia in their proper places, and wear the uniforms to meetings and other appropriate occasions. Simple. But that isn't the real problem, is it? I think the real question you are asking is, "How do I get everyone in the Troop to understand and agree that we need to implement all of the Methods of the Boy Scouting program as recommended by BSA?" Put another way, "How do I convince everyone to follow the instructions?"

Dan K

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.

Dan K

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 that the economics of "better leaders/better training" make more sense; I just think other, non-economic factors make it more difficult to implement.

That said, let me segue to the related "Loosey-Goosey" thread -- If tinkering with the program hasn't done the job of raising average program quality, and we haven't made the commitment to substantially improve our leadership recruitment and training efforts, what other options do we have? I suggest an extremely low-cost possibility -- stop suggesting to units that they should "do whatever works for them" and promote a climate that puts a high value on closely following the recommended program laid out in BSA materials and actively discourages deviation from fundamental practices. The program is already there, so we don't have to do anything with that. And our focus in this effort is work with the leadership we already have -- good, bad, and indifferent -- by, frankly, asking them not to think too hard, just do THIS. Yes, units that purposely deviate from the BSA recommendations and do so successfully won't change, and that's fine; the ones we want to catch are the units with the leaders who simply don't know what they are supposed to do or are stumbling along on unit "traditions" or the (wrong) practices that other Scouters have told them to follow.

Dan K