dkurtenbach

FScouter, thanks for saying it better than I could. What Beavah's post points out is that so much "non-model" Scouting is being done out there -- even at the District level and at summer camps -- that these poor Scouting behaviors are being mistaken for the "model." Dan K

I agree that the absolute best way to improve the quality of a unit program is to get leaders who are "the right sort." Sadly, the mechanism for finding and selecting unit leaders -- the Chartered Organization and Chartered Organization Representative -- often does not work well and the unit is left to fend for itself. Even if the mechanism does work well, the problem is often finding volunteers willing to take on the jobs, and there is not the luxury of ensuring that the "willing" are also "the right sort." If we want to rely primarily on "better leaders" to improve the quality of

Eamon wrote: ---------- Q:Is Boy Scouting Too Loosey-Goosey? A: Yes Q: Does National, The Council or The District have the tools to make unit leaders follow and deliver the program? A: No. Q: Who does? A: The Chartering Organization. Q: What happens when they don't do anything? A: Scouting Loosey-Goosey? ---------- Agreed. I'm not suggesting that National, the Council, or the District can *make* a unit do anything. I'm suggesting we try to find ways to _persuade_ units (through training, roundtable, formal and informal contacts, etc.) to more closely follow t

Umm, Bob, the whole point of this thread is that the current methods work *if they are used*, and to urge that we look for ways to get more units to use the methods more consistently and "do their own thing" a lot less. It's all right there in my posts, including a few specific ideas. Dan K

Bob, it's all right there in the books -- which are right in front of me. No, my solution is not to change the methods -- not sure where you got that. My solution is to change the culture -- find ways to emphasize and encourage the use of the methods and reduce deviations from the recommended program. Dan K

Bob, that problem solving process is right out of the books. Specifically, you'll find it in "The District" and the "Commissioner Fieldbook for Unit Service." Yes, the Institution Head of the Chartered Organization, the Chartered Organization Representative, the unit Committee Chair (and the Committee), and the Scoutmaster are all responsible for the quality of the unit program. Often it takes someone from outside the unit (Unit Commissioner) to spot issues and problems, and folks from outside the unit to provide advice, guidance, and resources to help the folks within the unit and CO to so

Bob White makes a good point -- BSA already has a system in place for dealing with program quality issues in units, so why don't we just use that process instead of bothering with yet another initiative? There have already been a couple of good responses, but I'd like to offer a couple of thoughts. The process we have goes something like this: An program quality issues arises in a troop. The Unit Commissioner spots it and does what he/she can to coach the unit leaders to a solution. If that doesn't work, it is reported to the Assistant District Commissioner/District Commissioner level

Yes, let's get Chartered Organizations to take their responsibilities more seriously. So, how do we do that on a consistent, nationwide basis over the long term? Yes, let's have leaders in every unit who can figure out what works for them and what does not, who the kids like and who can lead other unit Scouters with lesser Scouting knowledge and skill. So, how do we do that on a consistent, nationwide basis over the long term? Yes, let's do a better job making training attractive and accessible. So, how do we do that on a consistent, nationwide basis over the long term? Bet

Eamonn, my thinking is this: Yes, the key to substantial improvement in the quality of our programs is "better" unit leaders. However, because we (BSA, Council, District) don't control the selection and appointment of leaders (the CO does), we can't make significant improvements in the quality of our leaders without making significant changes in our program (such as requiring minimum training, testing, and/or continuting education). Yes, we can do things locally to help make incremental improvements and temporarily improve leader quality, but I think it is fair to say that as priorities cha

The underlying issue is the development of nationwide consistency in how troops do things in order to promote nationwide consistency in the quality of the Boy Scouting program. Enhancing the Quality Unit award or developing new levels of that award is one possibility. Having our trainers strongly emphasize the model BSA program as "the only way to go" is another. Preaching at every opportunity (unit visits by UCs, Roundtable, District Committee meetings) the "every troop should be following the the same fundamental practices and procedures of Boy Scouting" message is yet another. District-

I agree that a positive, rewarding approach is the way to go, and I think a prestigious, "Good Housekeeping Seal" or "UL Listed" type recognition would be a wonderful development that could really contribute to the cultural change. Can you picture a Webelos parent at a troop visit telling the Scoutmaster, "Well, we were told we should only join an _accredited_ troop." Frankly, I'm less concerned about mavericks who deliberately deviate from the model program -- at least they generally have the energy to try to make their wrong-headed ideas work. I'm more concerned about the folks who ar

A number of recent threads raise issues that are fundamentally about the choices the troop adult leadership makes that shape the unit program. Whether it is uniform wear (or lack thereof), doing merit badge classes at troop meetings, collecting non-refundable food money a week in advance of the campout, trying to develop patrol identities, suggesting that the troop try some high adventure activities, or dealing with untrained leaders, it seems that a lot of the issues that come up (over and over again) arise because troops have so much flexibility in how they operate the Boy Scouting program.

Lots and lots of Scouting -- perhaps the vast majority of Scouting -- is done by volunteers who are just in it because their kids are in it. There are in Scouting only as long as their kids are in Scouting. They see value in Scouting, but see value in lots of other programs as well. They are willing to take some training, but within limits they believe are reasonable for them (and who are we to judge their decisions about their own time and resources?). They are willing to go camping, organize fundraisers, serve as Advancement Chairman, and take on lots of other jobs big and small so their

Funny thing about the Venturing program. It is so broad and flexible that it could also comfortably include an all-male crew that wears the BSA spruce green/gray uniform and focuses on the Venturing Advancement awards. True, Venturing crews have a different organizational system (President and other officers) that doesn't use patrols, so you can't quite duplicate that aspect of Boy Scouting. You would have to set the crew up from the beginning with the uniform-wearing, advancement-centered program as something that couldn't be altered by the crew -- and yes, that can be done. The Chartered

Five percent is five percent. There doesn't have to be a choice among remedies -- all reasonable methods for getting more leaders to follow the program should be pursued. It is easy to say "look for better people"; far harder to actually find them. In the meantime, we have to work with the folks we have, the good-hearted parents who are giving up their time, energy, and resources to do something great for their kids. Maybe they aren't the best people for the job, but we owe it to them and their kids to do what we can to make them successful. I would also say this. If our progra

One more note and I'll shut up for a while. Most of you have probably seen or used _The Elements of Style_ by Strunk and White, a manual of English grammar and usage. White's Introduction captures perfectly what I think is needed to reach the vast audience of Scouters with BSA's Program: "It was Will Strunk's _parvum opus_, his attempt to cut the vast tangle of English rhetoric down to size and write its rules and principles on the head of a pin . . . In its original form, it was a forty-three-page summation of the case for cleanliness, accuracy, and brevity in the use of English .

Online, of course. TV/video, yes. Audio, comic books, Scouter's Hint of the Day email services. The point is to get out of the "big book/training classes only" mode and use comfortable, familiar media to get information out on how the program is supposed to work. At the same time, we are already plagued with too much information out there -- too many books, too many videos. How many training courses are recommended for someone who plans to be a den leader from Tigers through Webelos? Average Jane who just wants to help her son have a great time Scouting throws up her hands in confusi

Pictures, charts, and other graphics, of course -- a lot of folks learn best from pictures rather than words. We'd want to have a good mix. Take a look at the Boys' Life Program Notebooks. The Unit Commissioner notebook, for example, has text, calendars, forms, even an insignia placement guide, in 90 pages (including the inside covers) and measures just 3 7/8 x 5 3/4 x 3/16. Dan K

What we really need, for the benefit of our youth, is a system-wide, permanent leap in program knowledge on the part of our Scouters. But how do you attain that in an organization with huge, complex programs and tons of literature, when the average volunteer tenure is just two or three years, and ordinary human nature and the busyness of life create real, practical barriers to self-study, group training, and remaining current in the program? While there is no single solution, it seems to me that the depth and breadth of the problem -- Scouters simply not knowing the program -- indicates

Yep, I've been reading.

Eamonn, my frustration is mainly with the sniping and bickering, which are not only an annoying waste of time but drive away potential contributors to the discussion. I'm happy with the ideas that were coming in. I think that immediately jumping in with criticism of ideas also discourages potential contributors. It would have been nice to build on that one list a bit before starting to tear it down. Unfortunately, I don't have time right at this moment to lay out a full list, but I would organize it based on the eight Methods of Boy Scouting. Here's a sample: IDEALS: * Each tr

Well, so much for this thread . . .

Tsk, tsk, tsk. We seem to be a little short on the gearhead mentality here. 8^) Put the old pack in a place of honor, say, over your fireplace. Then go through all the catalogs and websites, and hit all the sporting goods stores in your region. At each stop, test at least three or four backpacks by loading them up with equipment and hiking around the store with them. Make sure you wear your favorite boots. Eventually, after returning to the stores a few times and having your new best friend (the sales clerk) over for dinner, you'll find a new pack. After two or three treks, there w

Thanks, OGE -- I appreciate the positive suggestion, and I appreciate your service as moderator. (I just recently started posting here, but have been reading for a while.) Dan(ny) K

Bob White, ideas like those on the Commish's list are exactly what I'm looking for. I was hoping for a bit of a brainstorming discussion to get a broad range of thoughts on elements of strong troop programs and elements that make troops strong. (The discussion seems to have gotten bogged down critiquing the Commish's list rather than offering additional or alternative suggestions.) I envision a list that serves (1) as a blueprint for new or struggling troops to get on track -- concrete, practical, attainable goals, and (2) as a set of "bare minimums" for strong troops seeking to move to the