The BSA, Program is it still relevant to 21st century youth?

[dkurtenbach]

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

[BadenP]

OGE,

I agree with Dan, my crew started off with a church youth group with a leaning towards religious life, doing community service projects, hosting a craft night, teaching the young kids at the church things they have learned with the crew.

 

However, we have done many camping trips, Cope style courses, and even were given a Navy seal survivor course (modified). The point is in Venturing you may start with a certain focus but in no time the teens will want to explore other options. Also without the advancement requirements of a troop, overnights are a time just to have fun and experiment with some outdoor recipes. Half of the teens in my crew had never camped out before in tents, and when they made their first dutch oven cobblers you should have seen the expressions on their faces, all the cobblers turned out great.

 

As I have said before I love Venturing, it has given my crew experiences they never would have done on their own as well as learn leadership and organizational skills. Thank you BSA for this excellent program.

[Eamonn]

I like to think that when we look at the big picture, what we are trying to do is still relevant. Maybe not trendy or MTV cool, but relevant.

It seems to me that we are as a nation in a state of confusion. Looking back to the map on the night of the presidential election and the blue states and the red states, it would seem that we do want to keep or maybe return to traditional values. However it would seem that those who are in the business of marketing seem to not understand this.

Our TV shows seem to want to push bad values and at times I think they are almost seeing how far they can go and how much they can get away with.

The youth who join our program's join because they want to have fun, they leave when we fail to deliver, at least most do. We still have parents who push for their kid to remain in a program that isn't fun until he makes Eagle Scout. I'm going to take this as meaning that even if the Scout doesn't feel the program is relevant, his parents still think that making Eagle Scout rank is.

It seemed to me that a few years back we had Scouts who were unhappy telling anyone that they were a Scout. But that is changing, from what I'm seeing our kids are far more at ease standing up and telling everyone that they are their own person and saying yes I do go to church, yes I do sing in the choir, yes I am a Scout and what's more I'm proud to do what I want to do.

I really don't want to get into a debate about anything that starts with the letter G. and I am aware that here in our corner of Southwest Pennsylvania we might not truly reflect the feelings of elsewhere in the country. Still the majority of the people on the street still think Scouting is relevant and are unhappy with the bashing the BSA and the Scouts seem to be receiving. The man in the street still thinks that Scouting is a good thing.

Eamonn.

[SeattlePioneer]

I suppose I should just let a bad idea sit there and expire, but I can't resist jumping on the idea in dkurtenbach's post in which he suggests that "The Environment" be raised to a Scouting "aim."

 

He seems to be proposing that the Scouts adopt the aim of the Sierra Club as an aim of Scouting, turning Scouts into what would amount to being the youth program of the Sierra Club. Bad idea, in my view.

 

Firstly, I don;t think the Sierra Club is doing very well these days. The heyday of the environmental activist was the 1970s.

 

Secondly, I see no demand by Scouts to become political activists over such issues. If some Scouts or Troops choose to support particular proposals regading land use in their areas, they are welcome to do so. But I see no reason to make that an aim of Scouting. Scouting should continue to focus on helping boys grow into men of good character, not politics.

 

Scouting does intersect with politics some of the time in carrying out it's existing mission. That's far different from making politics one of it's main aims.

 

As far as dkurtenbach's other idea of extending Cub Scouts into a parallell program that doesn't have the outdoor program as a method, I don't quite see how that would work. What I usually see in Webelos units is an intense interest in doing more camping. If Webelos dens do a good deal of camping, boys usually stay in them. If they don't they find the craft kind of Cub Scout activities boring at that age and drop out.

 

And while it's likely enough that there is an audience for an arts and crafts type of program for boys and girls, I wonder if you can really keep the diverse interest of such children focussed enough to keep an organization from flying off in different directions?

 

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."

 

In short, the outdoor method strikes me as among the most important to Scouting. I'm sure you could create a model for a youth organization that doesn't involve the outdoors (youth sports and youth bands and orchestras do that of course) but you still need some kind of powerful interest on which to build a group and an orgnization.

 

 

 

Seattle Pioneer

[dkurtenbach]

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

[SeattlePioneer]

Sorry, D. K., but in my view you have the issue just backwards.

 

In my view, teaching about good character in Scouting mostly isn't a matter of talking, it's about learning from experience.

 

Yesterday I was leading Cub Scouts around a nature study trail at Cub Scout Day Camp. One boy had a handfull of luscious looking Oregon Grapes and was ready to eat them, until he learned from the program that they were poisonous.

 

Another Cub Scout was ready to take off down a trail he was sure was the correct one, which it wasn't. That led to a discussion about why the rules that had been discussed to keep people together were important.

 

To me, the beginning of good character is discovering that actions have consequences. In a good outdoor program, it's hard for boys to avoid recognizing that fact of life.

 

Frankly, I don't have the slightest interest in "The Environment" as an abstraction. In my view, a lot of enviro types are basically involved in various kinds of nature worship, something you seem to be supporting directly or indirectly to me.

 

In short, I don't buy your argument.

 

 

Seattle Pioneer

[dkurtenbach]

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

 

[SeattlePioneer]

Sorry DK, I think myou have Scouting confused with the FEMA.

 

Scouting already suggests that people Be Prepared for any old thing that may happen. But the reason is that it's a part of the Scout idea of good character which involves being able to look after yourself and to help other people.

 

Sorry, I think you are still batting .0000 with your ideas to "update" Scouting.

 

 

 

Seattle Pioneer

 

 

[dkurtenbach]

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."

[SeattlePioneer]

Heck, DK. I didn't say I was opposed to change, and I think your worries about Scouting numbers is reasonable.

 

I just think your batting .000 with the two suggestions you made for change. These were to add two additional elements to the goals of Scouting by adding environmental politics and protection as Scouting goals, and adding emergency preparedness as one of the aims of Scouting.

 

As I noted in an earlier post, I think the first is a flat bad idea. The second is something that is already a part of the Scouting program. It is already in its proper place and doesn't need to be given a dramatically higher priority, in my view.

 

 

But Scouting is quite flexible. If you or particular units wish to try out ideas such as the ones you suggest, there is no reason you can't do so. Perhaps you could prove me wrong.

 

The troop I work with spent a month of troop meetings studying first aid, followed by a weekend outing which featured first aid as a theme, and a district level First Aid Oree competition where the Scouts won 3rd place overall. If they were really interested in extending that to additional months of program and concentration on Emergency Preparedness, I'd be glad to support it. But they have had enough of that for the time being.

 

Are they wrong? Do you really think adults should be imposing more emergency preparedness on Scouts when there is no obvious interest in it?

 

 

 

Seattle Pioneer

 

 

[stlscouter]

just grin-Went camping once(have camping and wilderness survival merit badges. Saw a tree(have nature and forestry merit badges). Cut tree down (have woodworking merit badge and my totin' chip). Built fire (have firemanchip and emergency preparedness merit badge). Cooked a meal (have cooking and first aid merit badges). Spent the night (have astronomy merit badge). Got up drove home (don't have automobiling merit badge-too young). Posted this on my computer (don't have computer merit badge-too old)

 

The fact that we are here and communicating over long distances by computer means we are working hard too remain relevant and so long as we continue to communicate we will continue to be relevant.

[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

[SeattlePioneer]

It's quite possible to use Scouting to become a "real expert" in outdoor activities. Indeed, some of Washington States top climbers developed their expertise through Scouting, including Jim Whittaker, the first American to climb Mt. Everest.

 

For boys and troops that want to develope real expertise, the opportunity is there.

 

But Scouting doesn't require real expertise in order to carry out its fitness and character building aims. And relatively few troops are going to be equipped with leaders who are genuine experts in such things.

 

Personally, I'd backpacked 3,000 plus miles and had a modest climbing history behind me before I was a Scoutmaster in 1982 at age 32. I also had substantial experience in snowshoeing, cross country skiing and bicycling, among other things. That was a considerable depth of experience along the lines I would suppose you have in mind.

 

That did allow me to craft some trips that were a few cuts above the average troop campout. But it wasn't really critical to having a good troop program, in my opinion.

 

Where this kind of expertise would be more valuable is in keeping the interest of older Scouts who have mastered the fundamentals of Scouting and are ready and interested in tougher and most sophisticated trips.

 

In my view, the main reason the outdoor program is valuable in shaping character is that it exposes boys to the idea that "actions have consequences" in ways that can't easily be ignored. Learning that essential fact doesn't require sophisticated trips --- all you have to do is forget to pack your raingear on a weekend car camping trip.

 

And frankly, even with the expertise I had in outdoor stuff, I learned a lot from the Boy Scouts too. My usual practice on a backpacking trip was to get up at the crack of dawn, hike 5-6 miles before breakfast and then continue hiking until the sun as going down and it was time to cook a Kraft Mac and cheese dinner. The Boy Scouts taught me you could have a fun time in camp without going anywhere, and that camp food could actually be really good to eat. These days, most people regard me as a highly skilled Dutch Oven cook, for example.

 

These days, I'm a lot more interested in promoting the idea of Scouts learning to do a good job of cooking their meals than I am of promoting backpacking. When Scouts decide they want to go backpacking, I'll be glad to help teach them and take them. But learning to cook is essential and must be taught from the beginning.

 

Perhaps this post will give you an idea of the reasons for my biases, dk.

 

 

 

Seattle Pioneer

 

 

[dkurtenbach]

Sorry, SP, but nothing you've said really advances the ball when it comes to making Scouting more marketable, and therefore more "relevant," to 21st century youth, families, and institutions. How do we preserve what we already have -- which you have so eloquently described -- while ensuring that Scouting is a real and attractive choice for more and more youth and an influential voice in modern society?

 

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

[sst3rd]

Dan,

 

"Marketable" and "relevant," aren't related.

"Advances the ball." Huh?

"Influential voice in modern society? For over 95 years.

The closer a unit (Pack, Troop, and Crew) comes to running all of the available BSA programs, the more "Scouting is a real and attractive choice." Current BSA programs are excellent, but you've got to have the resources to run as many of them as possible.

The bottom line is clear in this 21st century, there are many more "choices" out there then ever before. Scouting can't satisfy all of them. I don't ever expect it to.

 

sst3rd