Re: Eagle Age (War and Peace)
Anthony J. Mako (ajmako@NLS.NET)
Fri, 11 Dec 1998 22:31:30 -0500
<Bruce wrote>
They are the ones who have be pushed to their achievement either by
overzealous parents or by a troop leadership that wants Eagle feathers
in their bonnet. In neither case is this the fault of the particular
Scout, but very often solutions don't fit the crime and those who aren't
responsible get tarred along with those who are.
</Bruce>
I agree. As I said, troop leaders need to look at what they are doing to
either enable or discourage parents (and other leaders) from "cramming"
Scouts through the ranks. District folks need to keep an eye on the
troop leaders, helping them stay on the right course.
<Bruce continued>
Actually, as discussed at Philmont when the First Class/First Year
program was being released, the numbers were much worse than that.
</Bruce>
I knew they were pretty bad, I just couldn't remember what they were.
<Bruce continued>
Many Scouters, myself included, firmly believe that they got the cause
and effect reversed. Those troops providing a program active enough to
keep the Scouts to stay longer also had them achieve First Class.
Getting them to First Class within the first year had very little to do
with it, in our opinion.
</Bruce>
I think National probably thought of it as a combination of the two.
Troop who were already providing an active program didn't have a
retention problem and, thus, wouldn't have to change much. First Class
emphasis effectively _forced_ troops that had retention problems to
"activate" their program. Has it worked? I don't have those numbers
either, but my experience says it has worked where it was needed.
<Bruce continued>
So actually, I probably misspoke earlier when I said that the New Scout
Patrol was the worst mistake national has made. I probably believe that
First Class/First Year was the biggest mistake they have made during my
30 years in Scouting. It changed the focus from running an exciting
program where advancement happened because of the program to an
advancement focused program where the program happened to facilitate
advancement.
</Bruce>
I wouldn't say you misspoke because (as I remember it) the purpose of
the New Scout Patrol was to provide new Scouts an opportunity to
concentrate on Tenderfoot through First Class. It also doesn't have to
change the focus of the program. It is possible to run a First Class
Emphasis/New Scout Patrol the "old fashioned" way where advancement is a
natural result of an active program.
<Bruce continued>
Thus, if Johnny is being pushed by his parents, the leaders feel
helpless to do anything to stop his headlong rush to early, yet probably
undeserved, advancement because national has made clear that "being
registered" is enough, and that "holding" a position is equivalent to
"serving actively" in a position. The solution they say is to remove
the Scout from office. Yet they also teach that these positions should
either be elective or appointed by OTHER SCOUTS. So, where does the
SM's authority come from to remove a Scout from a position so he can't
say he completed his time? So I believe FRUSTRATION is as much a cause
of all of this as anything else.
</Bruce>
Very good point! This is the way I see it. Am I adding to the
requirements if I expect a Scout to DO HIS BEST in a particular
position? Does the Scoutmaster have a right to expect a Scout to DO HIS
BEST to attend meeting and activities? As a Scoutmaster I am expected to
evaluate whether a Scout tries to live by the Scout Oath and Scout Law
on a daily basis. To me that means whether or not he DOES HIS BEST to
live up to Scouting's ideals. Part of that is DOING HIS BEST to attend
meetings and activities; DOING HIS BEST to take on whatever
responsibility he is given. If I don't think he's DOING HIS BEST, I have
the right (and a responsibility to the rest of the troop) to do
something about it. Removing him from a position is a last resort, but
possible if he doesn't even try to improve.
I've never been a real big fan of parents signing off advancement
requirements or merit badges. In my troop, it is the Scouts'
responsibility to know when he has completed a requirement and ask for a
sign off. With certain requirements, I might ask the parents about how
it was completed, but that won't work for the majority of requirements.
Parents need to understand that their sons are no longer in the Cub
Scouts. Scouters need to take control of advancement and let the Scouts
advance at their own rate.
Beyond all that, one thing we Scouters need to do is realize that it is
possible to disagree with National and still provide an excellent
program. Personally, I like using the New Scout Patrol and First Class
Emphasis, but that doesn't mean I think Bruce and everyone else who
doesn't like them SHOULD use them. Basically, if it ain't broke, don't
fix it! If it IS broke, don't blame it on National or the Scouts!
YIS
Anthony J. Mako, ajmako@nls.net ,Scoutmaster, Troop 381
http://members.aol.com/Scouts381/ "Home of the Unofficial Boy Scout
Desktop Theme!"
Great Trail Council - Akron, Ohio
"I used to be an Eagle (C-7-97), but I'll always be an Eagle (1981)"
