Should we demand more or less?

[BrentAllen 10]

There is a big difference between Scouting and any sport - Scouting isn't an activity, it is a way of life. If a unit isn't treating their Scouting program as a way of life, they are missing the boat.

 

Scouting is adventure, not a sports season. I'm 47 and I'm still not bored with adventure. Are the 15 - 17 year olds that are dropping out bored with Scouting, or are they bored with their unit's program? Yes, boys develop other interests, but do they lose their sense of adventure? I find it hard to believe so many would.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, I get where TwoCub is coming from, but I'm more in BrentAllen's corner on this. Scouting is outdoor adventure and a way of life. There's plenty of outdoor adventure and life out there to more than enthrall a 16 or 17 year old.

 

Yep, in some units they can't seem to get it together and boys in high school move on to other activities. That's not "bad" for the boys, but it shows where there's room to do better Scouting. Gern's son shouldn't feel he has to leave the scouting he was loving because the challenge is no longer there for him as a high schooler.

 

I think JMHawkins got it right when he said " If the adults are doing all the leading, there's nothing for the older kids to do." Teens are looking for adult-level challenges.

 

Beavah

 

[sherminator505 10]

"I think it's VERY illegitimate for a sport or activity to claim kids must be there 100% of the time, or have mandatory attendance.

 

This is just a bad way to run a program. The worst offenders are the people running kids sports, who stroke their egos by trying to get a winning record as a coach. Kind of as proof of one's manhood.

 

Kids should be free to go, or not go, as they choose. "

 

I don't necessarily agree with this.

 

With band, or sports, or Scouting, or anything else, comes a certain level of commitment. While the demands in terms of time and attendance may vary with the activity, the commitment in terms of the expectations to meet those demands varies with the participant. What we should be teaching, I think, is the notion that commitments are important, and that they should be honored fully and not in half-measure. If that means that an activity must be dropped to honor other commitments, then so be it.

[GernBlansten 10]

"Yep, in some units they can't seem to get it together and boys in high school move on to other activities. That's not "bad" for the boys, but it shows where there's room to do better Scouting. Gern's son shouldn't feel he has to leave the scouting he was loving because the challenge is no longer there for him as a high schooler."

 

But why do all of his adventures and challenges have to be through the lens of Scouting? I think we are all a bit full of ourselves to think we have the corner on adventure and challenges.

[Beavah 205]

Nuthin' wrong with a lad who gets into new things, Gern.

 

But you were the fellow who suggested that in your son's case, it was because Boy Scouting was a good middle school program and a poor high school program.

 

That doesn't suggest a lad leaving because he suddenly found his bliss in band, but also because scouting was no longer meeting his needs as a high schooler. I think if we have a program for 11-17 year olds, it shouldn't be "poor" for the 14-17 year olds, eh? Certainly not so poor that they don't continue.

 

B

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Gern is a "fellow"? Unless I have misunderstood Gern's past posts, or unless "fellow" has been rendered gender-neutral while I wasn't looking, I don't think so.

[GernBlansten 10]

I think that for scouting to be exciting for 11-17 year olds, it needs to become distinct programs. One program cannot satisfy the needs of that broad age spread of boys. The program, as published and taught in training is to program for the middle school boys. If you want to keep older ones engaged, you need an alternate, homespun program for them.

 

Here's another potential thread spinoff....Ready....

 

Is scouting a lifelong commitment?

 

 

[sherminator505 10]

Gern writes:

 

"I think that for scouting to be exciting for 11-17 year olds, it needs to become distinct programs. One program cannot satisfy the needs of that broad age spread of boys. The program, as published and taught in training is to program for the middle school boys. If you want to keep older ones engaged, you need an alternate, homespun program for them."

 

Through the years, the BSA has attempted to fill this niche through several programs, including:

 

* Sea Scouts

* Rover Scouts

* Senior Scouts

* Air Scouts

* Explorer Scouts

* Exploring

* Career Awareness Exploring

* Leadership Corps

* Varsity Scouts

* Varsity Patrols

* Venture Patrols

* Venturing

 

Perhaps this would be a good spin-off thread (or perhaps a continuation of this one)...

 

Why haven't the BSA's older boy programs met with greater success?

[vol_scouter 365]

I believe that several have touched upon the reasons that scouting does not hold the interest of older boys. The boys advance too quickly so become Life or Eagle at an early age, they wish to have new challenges in leadership but they do it early, and they want new challenges. In my mind, they are inter-related issues stemming from two things: 1) National's desire to 'push' boys to Eagle quickly and 2) Our youth are not required to master anything.

 

I would like to focus on the second point because it is something that Scouters can influence or control. We allow or youth to learn a skill for a test instead of mastering the skill. I doubt that most boys at their Eagle Board of Review could tie all the knots that they were required to learn. So they never mastered the skill, only passed a test. Mastery requires more time and repetition than is the current trend. I agree with someone earlier in this thread who said it should take 2 years to reach First Class. For most boys, it will require 2 - 2.5 years to actually master the skills to be a First Class scout. If troops demand mastery, then the boys will master the skills. This can be tied to the adult leaders allowing the older youth to actually run the troop. The adult leaders can encourage the boy leadership to push for scouts to have higher ranks for some positions of leadership in the troop. Thus, only the older boys will actually lead the entire troop. Also, there can be activities on outings that the boy leadership specifies that one must have a certain rank to do. For example, everyone can go mountain biking but only the more senior youth can take a longer more demanding trail.

 

I have seen this approach work. It will be to the benefit of the boys to require to learn how to master skills rather than do what they do in school and learn for a test only to quickly forget much of the information.

[GernBlansten 10]

Artificially holding back rank advancement and adventure opportunities to bolster your older scout ratio just seems counter productive to me.

Here's one solution, establish a minimum age for Eagle. Say 17.75 years old. That would keep them active right up to aging out! NOT!

[UCEagle72 10]

You want to keep "young Eagles?" Then have a troop program that keeps them engaged!

 

I earned my Eagle at 14, and I was fortunate to have a SM who truly believes (yes, he's still SM, 40 years later) in the Patrol Method. He knew how to keep his Eagles active and engaged, and over his 40 years, the 250+ Eagles have normally stuck around until they were in late high school, or even off to college, or the military. A number have gone on to be ASMs in the Troop, or actively involved in Scouting in other areas -- the lessons they learned were that important. It is a Troop, that even to this day, is a 100% uniformed troop, to include neckerchief (both the Scouts, and the Leaders).

 

He encouraged us to attend Leadership Training (Brownsea in the olden days, JLT later, and NYLT now) - held high-adventure trips all over the US every two years (we even went to Jambo as a Troop back when that was allowed) and multi-week summer camp is the norm. He gladly supports OA, and Scouts getting involved in OA. And while we had a Leadership Corp back in the day, there is a Venture Crew associated with the Troop now - that has his full blessing and support. He encouraged us to be on Summer Camp Staff, and to participate in Council sponsored events like the World Jamboree. Or even work on their religious emblem if they have not done so already.

 

If you want to keep them involved, then ENGAGE in the extra programs that are out there -- not fight them, and think they will "steal your scouts away!"

 

[Venividi 35]

I agree with UCEagle. A program that is challenging enough to be engaging. This requires an increasing level of challenges as each scout's skills develop, otherwise the program is no longer engaging to the scouts.

Each of the methods of scouting can be used to provide an increased level of challenge for an individual scout to rise to.

- off the top of my head:

Outdoors - move from car camping to lightweight camping to homemade equipment to short backpack trip to long backpack trip to easy climbing to technical climbing, etc.

Leadership - move from participant to patrol cheermaster to grubmaster to quartermaster to instructor to patrol leader to senior patrol leader.

Ideals - move from reciting the oath and law to living the oath and law, to being a role model for the ideals.

Patrols - should be given increased challenges as they become better at working together - move from cooking together to patrol service projects to patrol campouts without adults.

Advancement - move from skill level of "do this" "know the skills by heart" to using them in competitions at weekly meetings and campouts to teaching them. (For scout spirit requirement, see Ideals above.

 

Given the diversity of skill levels in a troop, there is no "one size fits all".