dkurtenbach

Councils exist for one purpose:  To promote and expand the national Scouting program by helping Scout units succeed.  Helping units succeed can include a variety of tasks, such as --

• Providing campgrounds for unit outings
• Providing summer camp programs and other activities and events to enrich unit programs 
• Providing training to develop unit volunteer skills and knowledge
• Providing fundraising programs to help units pay for activities, equipment, and supplies
• Providing marketing materials to units to assist with recruiting drives
• Providing Council-wide service projects in which units can participate
• Facilitating things like registrations, approvals, and certifications for units and unit members where required by law or by the national program
• Promoting Scouting to individuals and organizations who can contribute resources that the Council can use to help units succeed
• Maintaining relationships with chartered organizations that sponsor Scouting units and developing relationships with organizations who could sponsor new units

It is important to note that, from the perspective of units, there is an actual need only for a few of such Council programs or services.  Units, volunteers, and families may find varying degrees of value to those Council programs.  Units may feel more or less independent and self-sufficient, and may not see a need for or benefit from those programs or services - just the expense and the annoyance of Council always hitting them up for something.

Where Councils go astray is when (1) the burdens they ask (or demand) that units undertake (paperwork, money, and manpower) outweigh the value provided, as perceived by the units; or (2) they forget that their entire existence is for the purpose of helping units, and begin to believe that they have an independent and unquestionable value and purpose. 

As part of their strategic or annual planning, Councils should go through an exercise where they (A) list all of their programs, activities, events, and other expenses, then show how each one provides (B) some clear, obvious assistance to units.  If they can't get from (A) to (B) within two steps, or can't easily identify a (B) connected to an (A), a Council is going to have a hard time justifying that program, activity, event, or expense to volunteers and families.  Any new "great idea" for a Council initiative or program should be put to that same test.

This statement in the article caught my eye:  "Unlike his predecessors at the National Council of the Boy Scouts of America, Mosby’s title is not Chief Scout Executive. That title is reserved for commissioned BSA professionals — that is, full-time employees of the BSA who have undergone the required amount of training."  (Emphasis added.)

So, are they suggesting he is untrained or under-trained?  Or that he's not worthy to bear the "reserved" title of Chief Scout Executive?

7 hours ago, The Latin Scot said:

Last week I was at a meeting with a few of my district's commissioner team, and I was surprised when our RT Commissioner asked me take his place as the District Roundtable Commissioner next year (2021). I have mixed feelings about it.

I stepped in as the Cub Scout RT Commissioner a few months ago when my predecessor was poached by a neighboring district offering him a "better" position. I had been coming in as a guest instructor for the Cub Scout break-out sessions for a while, so it was a natural role for me to take on in a pinch. I am also the Unit Commissioner for a new, large and hectic new troop being formed from the vestiges of all the past LDS units in South Orange County, a troop that will have more than 60 boys right from the start (not to mention dozens of families that need to be re-trained as to how Scouting is supposed to work)

. . . . I actually joined the district commissioner team hoping to focus my service as a trainer for Cub Scout leaders, which is why I've stuck to helping run the Cub break-out sessions. With this new position, I wouldn't be doing that any more, about the which I have mixed feelings. . . . 

However, they asked me to take on the role, and I know they really do need somebody - that I understand. And I think I would do a fair job with it. Yet it's simply not a position I'm particularly eager to assume. I want to have a firm answer within a month or two so that they have as much time as possible to explore other options if needed, but ... how do I gracefully decline the request? Should I even do so, or should I just bite the bullet and take on the job that's asked of me? And what's the best way to explain my concerns about the individual they're eyeing? As always, comments and suggestions are most appreciated. Thanks all!

Emphasis added.

1.  Trust your gut.  You have already identified what is most important to you.

2.  That you are looking for a way to gracefully decline seems significant.  I'd suggest, "I'm personally committed to [A, B].  Those are the things that I really need to be doing for at least the next couple of years."

3.  Their response to whatever you tell them will be that the new position isn't really complicated and won't take much additional time, so you won't have to give anything up.  I would suggest saying, "I know me, and to do it right, I would have to sacrifice something that I am already committed to doing.  I just can't do that."

In my view, the single biggest membership blunder that BSA has made is allowing Boy Scouting/Scouts BSA to develop in a way that makes it almost totally dependent upon crossovers from Cub Scouting.

•  It puts the future of the Scouts BSA almost entirely in the hands of Cub Scout leaders and their ability to recruit kindergarten and first grade families.
•  It allows Webelos and Arrow of Light Den Leaders to heavily influence whether Scouts should cross over to a troop at all.
•  Having to leave one Scouting organization (the Cub Scout pack) and find and join a new Scouting organization (the troop) provides a convenient opportunity for youth to simply not continue with Scouting after Webelos/Arrow of Light.
•  It allows Webelos and Arrow of Light Den Leaders to heavily influence the choice of which troop to cross over to.
•  The expectation that new Scouts BSA members will join at pretty much the same time and same age, together with New Scout Patrols and first-year advancement practices mean that it is awkward for older youth to join when they would be significantly "behind" their age/grade peers.

The result is that simply by running our program as expected, we leave a lot of youth un-recruited and we allow many who are already in Cub Scouts to slip through our fingers.

When Venturing first kicked off in 1998, the original handbook was pretty much all about the Venturing awards.  If you knew nothing else about the program except what was in the handbook, you would have concluded that Venturing, like Boy Scouting, was structured around advancement.   But from following and participating in Venturing forums from the beginning, it is pretty clear what happened:  Many Venturers, and many of the Venturing crew adults, came from Boy Scout troops and wanted something different from the advancement-focused grind.  They wanted fun and adventure without all the bureaucracy.  So they grabbed on to Venturing's built-in flexibility and ran with it, largely ignoring the awards program.  Some crews -- a minority -- took the awards system seriously.  Some crew adults used a "stealth" awards system, tracking youth accomplishments themselves and surprising the youth with Venturing awards they had unknowingly earned.  But it wasn't enough.  Somewhere around 6-8 years ago BSA was so distressed at the tiny percentage of Venturers actually earning Venturing awards that they completely revamped the Venturing awards system to what it is now, with the goal of increasing its use.

I think the problem is that many professionals and adult volunteers raised on advancement-centric Cub Scouting and Boy Scouting just could not understand Venturing.  Without awards to mark progress and accomplishments, how could BSA know what Venturing crews were really up to?  How could BSA show that the program worked without statistics evidencing achievement?  

Mr. Mosby's biggest challenge will be to convince America that despite BSA's history of sexual abuse, clumsy response to changing social norms, and old-fashioned program, our country needs Scouts.

Wall Street Journal article on Roger Mosby's appointment:  https://www.wsj.com/articles/boy-scouts-tap-outsider-ceo-to-navigate-legal-crisis-11577726749

Interesting quote from Mr. Mosby:  "In my experience, a successful organization’s values don’t change, but it has to be flexible so it can meet the needs of a changing world.”

1 hour ago, qwazse said:

• • a Bugler who's earned Bugling and Music MB's vs. one who's not,
  • a Historian or Scribe who's earned Journalism vs. one who's not,
  • a Librarian who's earned Reading and Scholarship vs. one who's not,
  • a QM who's earned Backpacking, Woodwork, and Welding vs. one who's not,
  • a PL who's earned Signs Signals and Codes vs. one whose not,
  • an SPL who's earned Orienteering and Hiking and one who's not,
  • a JASM who's earned Wilderness Survival and Search and Rescue and one who's not.

Thinking along those lines, maybe a scout should not be assigned a PoR or a Star/Life service project until he or she has rightly earned a dozen elective MBs and has some hint of how they could best serve their troop or patrol. It would not look great as a requirement, but I would admire the SM and SPL who announce that scouts who've earned the most MBs in the past year will have first choice of PoR.

I think it makes sense for a Scout holding a PoR to get some training directly relevant to that area, so the first three sort of make sense:  Bugler - Bugling, Music MBs; Historian, Scribe - Journalism MB; Librarian - Reading, Scholarship MBs.  But I don't really see the relevance of the merit badges suggested for the other jobs, or the relevance of the raw number of merit badges earned to qualifications for holding a PoR.

8 hours ago, ParkMan said:

Why is this a bad thing?  

The merit badge program adds to the richness of Scouting.  For 99% of Scouts (and maybe more) it serves as another approach to learning and growth.  In a setting where most everything else is patrol or troop based, here's a part of the program that is individually driven.  What you learn is driven by you.  What skills you add is driven by you.

I think this is a health mirror to the rest of the program.  It's important in life to be able to work as a team to accomplish things.  It's just as important in life to recognize that you need to take responsibility for your own intellectual and skills growth.

It is problematic to the extent that Scouts put their own merit badge program before their obligation to their patrol or troop.

Happy holidays, everyone!

So, let's consider some aspects of the merit badge program.

• A Scout works on a merit badges individually; it is not a group or team effort.
• Any registered Scout can work on merit badges; no rank is necessary.
• While a unit leader may have a concern about a Scout working on a merit badge, it is the Scout's decision.
• A Scout must be allowed to work with the counselor of his or her choice, so long as the counselor is registered and has been approved by the council advancement committee.
• There is no time limit between starting and completing a merit badge, except that all requirements must be completed before the Scout turns 18.
• Many units, districts, and outside organizations offer merit badge fairs, clinics, or universities in which Scouts can complete many merit badge requirements in a single day, and often for more than one merit badge.
• Merit badges are standard offerings at council summer camps, and Scouts in attendance can often complete multiple merit badges during the summer camp session.
• Other than summer camp, Scouts usually work with merit badge counselors in their local area, with meetings at mutually agreeable dates and time.
• Many unit Scouters also serve as merit badge counselors for Scouts in the troop, sometimes offering merit badge sessions during regular troop meetings.
• Most merit badges do not include a service requirement.
• Merit badges do not require a Board of Review.
• There are currently 137 merit badges; a Scout could earn an average of one per month since joining Scouts BSA and still only complete about 2/3 of the badges available.
• Upon completing a merit badge, a Scout receives the badge, which can be worn on a merit badge sash as part of his or her uniform.

What we have is a system that offers fun, excitement, adventure, knowledge, skills, and the potential for new hobbies and even careers, in more subject areas than most Scouts could ever hope to experience.  The system offers the individual Scout almost total control over planning, direction, and timing of his or her work.  The system offers a high degree of convenience for Scouts (and the parents who need to get them to merit badge sessions). A Scout using the system doesn't have to participate in any camping or outdoor activities at all unless the Scout wants to work on an outdoor merit badge (or a merit badge being offered at summer camp). A Scout using the system doesn't have to work with, cooperate with, or rely on any other Scouts. A Scout using the system doesn't have to take on any responsibility in the patrol or troop.  A Scout using the system doesn't have to bother with ancillary requirements like service hours, Scout spirit, or a Board of Review. And yet the Scout is as much a Scouts BSA member as any Scout in the troop participating in those old-fashioned patrols and that so-last-century rank advancement. A Scout using the system will still receive a lot of badges awarded at Courts of Honor. Mom and dad will still be proud.

In other words, we have come up with a system for a Scout's personal growth and achievement that can operate almost entirely independently of the rank advancement process, the patrol system, the troop's youth leadership hierarchy, the troop's adult leadership, and pretty much all of the troop's program. All a Scout has to do is stay registered and meet with the Scoutmaster to get counselors and get blue cards signed. 

So what we have created with the merit badge program is either No-Responsibility Scouting for the 21st Century (genius!), or a program that undermines patrols, and outdoor adventure, and leadership, and rank advancement, and the other stuff we're trying to accomplish within the troop program.

9 hours ago, ParkMan said:

I get the sense you're leading up to a bigger argument here.

Yes.  And if I could summarize it one word, it would be “patrols.”

2 minutes ago, Navybone said:

I could not disagree more.   Scouting should encourage the scout to develop a lifelong interest in learning.  That is exponentially valuable to the scout and the community.   And will continue to be of value for the lifetime of that scout.  So long as scouts are learning, and it is about learning, not just getting a patch.  There is goodness in all of this.

i guess if you look at it from a cost perspective, then why encourage scouts to do more.  Although what is the cost?  A buck to two for the badge and blue card?  Continued involvement in scouts?  No, cannot see your point on this at all.  

What you are saying is that anything that encourages the Scout to develop a lifelong interest in learning belongs in Scouting, and we should support it with our Scouting resources.

1 minute ago, ParkMan said:

Well - to an extent.  Math problems help my daughter to grow, but I wouldn't subject Scouts to that.

Within the context of the Scouting type activities - merit badges, camping, leadership opportunities, patrol activities, etc.  Yes - even if they don't bring specific value to the troop or community, yes - we should support them.

So there are boundaries to the Scouting program and what we should support:  "the context of the Scouting type activities - merit badges, camping, leadership opportunities, patrol activities."  Math problems, maybe not . . . but if there was a Mathematics merit badge, that would be okay?
 

26 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

In our results oriented world  of today, I think we have to be careful how much we try to find the "value" in what Scouts do.

Scouting is a youth development activity with four aims.  All of those aims are targeted at developing the individual - they don't worry about how much value that individual then adds to the group.  I think this is the right model.  Since development of youth is the point, helping them develop along the four aims is the purpose.  So, if a youth earns 8, 18, or 80 merit badges and it helps the scout to grow then we're succeeding.

So, I wouldn't try to stop a Scout who's enjoying earning merit badges.  If all they ever do is earn merit badges (an extreme case), then we should suggest that there are other parts of Scouting to explore.  But, I would not suggest that they stop earning merit badges.

What you are saying is that anything that helps the Scout to grow belongs in Scouting, and we should support it with our Scouting resources.

There is no question that giving youth significant exposure to real expertise in a variety of subject areas is a very good thing.  I agree with @ParkMan's statement that "The more areas you learn about as a kid, the more prepared you are as a citizen."  Likewise, meaningful interaction with adults that a youth doesn't really know is also very beneficial.  But if everything works the way it should, Scouts who seek to earn Eagle Scout rank will have eight opportunities for studying non-core subjects (elective merit badges) and twenty-one opportunities for meaningful interaction with adults that they don't know.

So, a Scout gets to the point where he or she already has their eight elective merit badges for Eagle Scout rank.  Presumably all of those badges were in areas of career or hobby (fun) interest or in useful life skills.  And presumably all of those badges were counseled by adult experts over enough sessions that there was significant and meaningful interaction with each adult expert (in addition to the meaningful interactions with adult experts in the thirteen required merit badge subjects).  So, a Scout gets a lot of value from the twenty-one merit badges needed for Eagle Scout rank.  And there is value to the troop and to Scouting generally and to the community in getting a well-rounded Scout.  But once we get past that point, what value is there in a Scout pursuing non-advancement merit badges (elective merit badges beyond the eight needed for Eagle Scout rank)? 

Because the non-advancement merit badge program serves the individual Scout only, and includes many subject areas that have nothing to do with Scouting's core program, neither the troop nor Scouting generally nor the community get any benefit from the non-advancement merit badge program.  Couldn't the time and resources devoted to earning non-core non-advancement merit badges be put to better use?  Uses that provide value not only to the individual Scout, but to the troop and Scouting generally and the community: service projects or patrol campouts or leadership training? 

Note to @Navybone:  I'm not advocating that Scouts shoot for the minimum number of merit badges; I'm suggesting that more than the minimum number has little added value to the individual Scout and no value to his or her troop or to Scouting generally, or to the community. 

4 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Is that like asking if more than 1 camp outs a month are a waste of time and money? 

No.  It is more like asking if more than 20 nights camping is a waste of time and money.  But the difference is this:  Camping more than 20 nights is still directly relevant to the core Scouts BSA Method of Outdoors, even if it no longer applies to the Scouts BSA Method of Advancement.  So, theoretically, that additional camping continues to promote the Aims of Scouts BSA.  Some elective merit badges are clearly relevant to Scouts BSA Methods other than Advancement, such as Bird Study or Astronomy being relevant to the Outdoors Method.  But some are not -- Pulp and Paper, Automotive Maintenance, and Moviemaking, for example.    

1 hour ago, Eagledad said:

I understand what your saying, but it's different strokes for different folks really. Most scouts I've met who earned more than 35 badges were more along the lines of self motivated. The best way to describe these scouts is something along the lines of nerdy, lacking for better words. Like some students that don't have to study to make "A"s in school, some scouts find earning MB badges easy and fulfilling.

As this thread illustrates, there is a whole merit badge industry within Scouts BSA -- including summer camps -- that promotes essentially indiscriminate merit badge earning by all Scout BSA members starting when they first join, in a manner that is only loosely linked to Star, Life, and Eagle ranks.  Even merit badge nerds know that they will be recognized for the number of merit badges earned.  The important number is eight:  Why isn't earning more than eight elective merit badges considered a waste of time and money?

Interesting discussion, but I would take a step back:  Why do we have merit badge fairs at all?  I see lots of Scouts who have earned 30, 40, 60 or more merit badges before reaching Eagle Scout rank.  Why on earth would any Scout be interested in earning more than the minimum number of merit badges necessary for each particular rank?  The required merit badges represent areas that BSA thinks are important for a well-rounded Eagle Scout.  A Scout already has the opportunity to explore eight additional personal interest areas via elective merit badges; so that "personal interest" role for merit badges is adequately covered within the twenty-one total badges required for Eagle Scout rank.  Aside from earning Eagle Palms, which confer no status, BSA offers no incentives for earning more merit badges than the number required.  So what is the magic of merit badges that has created a huge infrastructure of merit badge fairs and merit badge counselors to support the program?

I think that the answer is that adults (Scout leaders and parents) teach Scouts that the cumulative number of merit badges received confers a status of its own that is separate from rank.  But where does that come from, since most of the merit badge topics are unrelated to the core skills and knowledge of the BSA program?  Why isn't all that energy being directed toward accomplishments that are closer to the core of the BSA program, like nights camped, miles hiked, or service hours completed?

11 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Ok - I'll take your word on it.

I actually find the evolution of this topic kind of odd.  We started out going through all the limitations of JTE and are now discussing how if we made it a competition, people would participate more.  Guess I'm more interested in really addressing the issue that JTE is designed for than trying to find ways to promote it.

I'm reminded that JTE feels a lot to me like other BSA initiatives.  That the BSA needs to find a way to manage units.  We see it from national, I see it from the council professionals too.  But, in reality this is all backwards - the BSA shouldn't be trying to manage units.  The BSA should be looking at how they can best support units.  Getting units to become more successful involves personal investment of time to understand the personal goals of units, to help their leaders grow, become excited about Scouting, to have a desire to grow.  You can't achieve this through a form or by assessments from council.  It's people investing time and working with people.  Yet, if they don't want to grow, then the BSA needs to find a way to start a second unit down the street.  

This is why I find stuff like JTE, online training, etc. - the wrong answer.  This is why I find ideas like empowering the district/council with the ability to force change in a unit - the wrong answer.

I don't disagree with you.  But JTE -- while crude and limited -- is the system we have now.  So, rather than waste it by keeping it as just one more piece of paperwork, is there some way we can use JTE to, in your words, "[get] units to become more successful . . .to help their leaders grow, become excited about Scouting, to have a desire to grow."  I'm suggesting that if we can get units motivated to use it in some fashion, that's a win -- however minor.

1 hour ago, Jameson76 said:

Honestly do any actual Scouts (or Cubs / Venturers / Explorers ) really care if they are Bronze - Silver - Gold - Chartreuse??  Do they even know if they are Bronze - Silver - Gold - Chartreuse??  Do they even know what JTE is??

My point is that JTE seems to be (is??) adult leaders reporting things to other adults leaders who then report to other adult leaders who then report to more adult leaders.  

The intent is good and at it's heart there can be benefit.  In practice it's a form that unit leaders fill out as another leader finalizes the recharter form(s).  One more piece of paperwork.

Scouts will care if the adults in the unit treat it like it matters.  But for the time being, it only matters to the district folks and above.  For unit leaders currently, it is just one more piece of paperwork.

10 hours ago, ParkMan said:

We as Scouters don't so much need another plaque to tell us who the best troop is - we generally know that stuff.

Need 'em?  Nope.  Want 'em?  Oh yeah.  The other troops in the district aren't the only audience.

2 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

Honestly - I seriously doubt anyone would even bother with a JTE competition.  We already have a JTE competition - it's called being the largest, most active troop in the district.

Which, if JTE was considered a competition among units, would result in recognition for the troop's JTE gold within the district (awards dinner, plaque), local newspaper article about the troop, and recognition from the council (letter and certificate from the Scout Executive, listing in council newsletter).  And every year the district would send out a list of district troops to each Webelos and Arrow of Light den leader and parent, with each troop's JTE level highlighted. 

And then we can start goosing up the JTE requirements a little bit at a time.

32 minutes ago, MattR said:

I don't know, @dkurtenbach, if the point is to help units improve their program, to be a teaching aid, making it competitive will just encourage units to game the system. Councils clearly game the system and for those that are struggling there's no incentive to help the units.

Sure, there will always be some units who act in an un-Scout-like manner.  But not all.  And district leaders have a pretty good idea about the accuracy of self-reported unit scores.  Because unit performance directly impacts district JTE scores, there will be plenty of incentive to help any unit that wants help.  The real problem units are those that are low-performing but aren't interested in improving and aren't interested in help or advice from outsiders.  

On 12/17/2019 at 7:31 PM, mds3d said:

I am curious.  I see people here complain about JTE, but it is rarely about specific things.  What are your complaints about the program?   Is it the targets themselves? Is gold too easy or too hard? Are you still bitter it isn't silver at the top 😉? 

My complaint is that JTE is used as a form of competition at the district, council, and national levels (thus the quantitative performance goals), but is not used that way at the unit level.  It should be.  Sure, the particular quantitative performance goals for units are few and crude.  But they are something.  If JTE score was actually competitive among units, JTE could get each unit thinking about its own program in comparison to both an objective standard and to what other units are doing.  Put another way, treating JTE as a real competition among units would create a minimum performance standard for all units that would benefit Scouts.