"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message ...

I agree with ARRL
that to stimulate growth (or even to keep up with dropouts and SKs) that
we need a new entry class with meaningful, mainstream privileges that
will be
interesting enough to bring in newbies (especially kids) and KEEP them
interested in learning and progressing.

Morse Code is mainstream in amateur radio.

Many people's mileage varys on that ...

Whose mileage, Carl? Yours?

Is Morse Code "mainstream" in amateur radio or not?

Kids aren't put off by code tests *or* written tests, in my
experience. And I do have a bit of experience in that area....

You must know different kids than I do ... the vast majority of the ones I
know couldn't give a rat's backside about learning or using Morse.

How many kids do you really know, Carl? How many of them would be
interested in *any* sort of radio avocation?

However,
geting on HF and talking around the world, experimenting with (and maybe
developing) some new sound card digital modes (ever notice how many kids are
computer wizzes?) would appeal to them and keep them interested.

With all due respect, Carl, I don't think you're the most objective
observer of people's interest in Morse Code. Nor do I think you'd be
quite the best salesperson for the mode...

Here's testimony from someone (not me!) who actually works with *lots*
of kids on a long-term basis. This guy is right here in EPA, closer to
your QTH than to mine. His program goes after the exact kinds of kids
we say we want to attract. These are *his* words and experiences, not
mine:

BEGIN QUOTE:

"I have had the privilege of teaching an after school activity,
at the local middle school, for five years. I named it Tune in
the World, and it covers many aspects of radio and television,
and of course, pushes ham radio. Each year I have had several
students, both boys and girls, obtain their license and try to
help them continue on the hobby."

"With this as my basis, I can tell you that 95% of the students
were a pleasure to work with and each year the district offers
me a nice salary to teach the class and each year I decline it.
Yes, it is a lot of work, but the students enjoy it and come away
with a very positive idea of ham radio."

"The attention span varies, but I have found that I have to
work at making sure I have an interesting program and that no
part of it goes on and on and on. I set the rules at the first
meeting and have not had any serious problems. (My son and his
friends have been my biggest problem.) If one expects the
students to sit in their chairs and listen to a presentation
for an hour, after being in school all day, they good luck. I
combine power point presentations, live demonstrations, part
of ARRL videos, short movies, simple building projects and
computers. Interestingly, the students are always VERY
interested in the Morse code and seem less so in
modes connected with the computer."

"I am not a STRONG disciplinarian, but we have rules and the
kids obey them and something must be going right, a few kids
who were in the previous class always take the next year's
class and we always have 35 to 40 students. In fact, my
biggest problem is that other students want to join the class
after it has been on a few weeks."

"Last year at the last minute, I offer the Radio Merit Badge
at Boy Scout Camp. I was given a terrible time and hoped for
six kids. I had over 1/4 of the camp at the classes and more
wanted to attend. We got a dozen hams out of that one."

"So, if we want to get new, young hams, then think about
reaching out to the Middle Schools, and Scout Camps. Just
the camp alone, with eight weeks of camp, would produce
between 80 and 100 new hams....with about 400 Scout
Camps in the USA, (Cub and Boy Scout) that would mean a
very nice increase in our membership."

"I do agree, that like every previous generation, the new hams need
help in
getting into the hobby and if nothing else, get their email address
and send
them info as well as forwarding the address to the ARRL, and local
clubs.
We can sit here and complain about the lack of young people in our
hobby, or
we can do something, or expect someone else to do it. Ahhh, it is
easier to
complain...right?"

END QUOTE

Note that sentence at the end of the third paragraph. The emphasis is
his:

"Interestingly, the students are always VERY
interested in the Morse code and seem less so in
modes connected with the computer."

Just one teacher's experience in one middle school and one Boy Scout
camp. But he's there, with the kids, doing the teaching and recruiting
on his own time.

Who are any of us - including you, Carl - to say he's wrong?

What evidence do you have to counter what he says, Carl?

Testing = knowledge = bad

No ...

Irrelevant/unnecessary requirements = waste of time/lack of interest = bad

OK, fine. Now imagine FCC enacts free upgrades. How are you going to
argue that the General written test is "relevant" or "necessary" when
about 2/3 of the then-licensed Generals never passed the test for the
license they hold? How are you going to sell the idea that the General
written is "necessary"?

Sure. But that part of the ARRL proposal isn't the problem. And if the
majority of NCI members support NCVEC's "appliance operator" class,
and their "copy of Part 97" idea, will NCI support that, too?

Read the numbers ...

Where? You won't even tell us how many members NCI has, or how many of
them are US hams. How many NCI members actually answered the survey?

the majority of NCI members did NOT support either the
"commercial gear only for newbies" or the "low voltage finals only for
newbies" proposals from NCVEC - that implies pretty clearly to me that they
want newbies to be able to tinker, build, modify, and experiment, just as
did the Novices of our beginning days ...

Yep, I built my first station and many more since then. And a key part
of being able to do it was being able to start with simple projects
that gave good results. Like a simple Morse Code transmitter and
receiver.

Suppose a 'kid' with a brand-new license told you she wanted to build,
not buy, her ham radio station. Tools, skills, time and $$ are limited
- we're talking about a middle-schooler, not an adult.

What would you suggest to her as a first project, Carl?

As far as the NCVEC proposal that applicants be required to certify that
they have read and understand the Part 97 rules, most felt that was
reasonable, and so do I. However, the way the question was worded (mea
culpa), it doesn't indicate that that would be a substitute for at least
some rules and regs questions on the written test - just "should folks
certify that they understand the rules."

All hams should certify that they have read and understand the rules.
That's not a substitute for testing. But NCVEC's proposal wants to do
just that. Read the "21st Century" paper - it's a blueprint for the
NCVEC proposal. The proposers don't think new hams will learn the
rules well enough to pass a test on them!

Again, it is not "support for lowering of *written* test standards" ...
other than introducing an appropriate test like the Novice test of old for
beginners, I see no "lowering of written test standards" - the General and
Extra tests would remain the same. And I would oppose weakening them.

If 2/3 of the extant holders of a license haven't passed the written
test for that license, the standards have been weakened.

However, for a "one shot adjustment" to align the current licensees with the
new structure proposed, I personally don't have a problem with the ARRL
proposal.

Why is such an adjustment needed at all? We've had 3 classes of
"legacy license" for over 4 years now. What's the problem?

I think it's the only way to avoid the fiasco that occured 50-some years ago
when folks lost privileges ... you know about that, and I'm sure you're
aware that there are still some folks around who are very bitter about it.

What "fiasco" of 50 some years ago?

In 1951, FCC replaced the old ABC incentive licensing system with the
Novice/Technician/Conditional/General/Advanced/Extra incentive
licensing system that still forms the basis for our system today.

In 1953, FCC reversed its 1951 program and gave all operating
privileges to all US hams except Novices and Technicians, effective
mid-Feb., 1953. (51 years ago - was that the fiasco you meant?)

I wasn't around for those two. Some folks were bitter about the 1953
changes (no kids no lids no space cadets). The "legacy" Advanced class
was kept separate by FCC for more than 14 years.

In 1968, FCC reinstituted differences in operating privileges between
the Extra, Advanced, and General/Conditional licenses. These were
expanded in 1969. I was there, I lost privileges, and I had to wait
two years before I was even allowed to take the tests to get them
back. I wasn't bitter then, nor now. Other folks feel differently. But
most hams today weren't hams when those changes took place.



73 de Jim, N2EY