Re: Star Advancement Question
Bruce E. Cobern (bec@PIPELINE.COM)
Tue, 6 Jul 1999 15:35:22 -0400
From: Murphy Peter <MurphyP@TCE.COM>
Date: Tuesday, July 06, 1999 2:00 PM
>1. Is there a "typo" in the list of acceptable positions of
responsibility
>for Star?
Assistant Patrol Leader has not been and is not now a qualifying
position of responsibility for Star, Life or Eagle. I don't know why
they included it in the picture on page 172, but that is certainly NOT
controlling. It is not, IMO, a typo, since it has been this way for
many years. My understanding of the reason behind this is that all of
the other positions are TROOP positions (the PL serves on the PLC which
runs the troop), whereas the APL is merely a PATROL position. HOWEVER,
for Star or Life there is the option of doing a SM assigned leadership
project to help the troop. As SM you may decide to accept APL as such a
project. We do, sort of. If a Scout is First Class and doesn't have a
qualifying position he will sit with the SM. If he is an APL then
typically they will reach an agreement about what he would have to do in
order to count his APL time. This might include teaching a monthly
skill theme, or becoming "certified" to sign off some of the skills up
to First Class (we allow qualified Scouts First Class and above to sign
off the various requirements, once they have satisfied us that they not
only know the material, but know how to teach and test it.) So, APL is
NOT a qualifying position, but you can make it so if you so choose.
>
>2. Who in your troop is responsible for ensuring quality control on
>advancement issues?
>As Scoutmaster, I grow weary some days from the bombardment of
>pleas to sign something off that I do not feel has been properly
>completed.
Primary responsibility rests with you. You, as SM, are charged with
maintaining the list of those who are authorized to sign off on each of
the requirements. IMO it is critical that you establish and maintain a
standard of quality performance necessary to get signed off on ANY
requirement, and that the Scouts be required to complete each and every
requirement in its entirety. To do less is to cheat the Scouts and the
program. The board of review process allows your troop committee to get
a feel for whether the program is working or not and then address with
you any problems they feel exist.
>A recent example was the 20-nights of camping for the Camping
>merit badge while at summer camp. Both I and the ASM who counsels
>Camping in our troop interpret the requirement to say you can count a
>single week of summer camp
You are correct and the camp staff member is wrong and you should make
his area director, program director, or camp director aware of this.
Without starting up another periodic debate, there is even some question
about whether even one week of summer camp can count unless the Scout
pitches the tent himself (or spends the week under the stars). The
ultimate determination is made by the counselor who will be signing the
merit badge card, so if the badge will ultimately be awarded by your ASM
then HE decides whether it will count or not. If the badge will be
signed by the camp staff then you need to just not authorize your Scouts
to take camping mb with that camp staff.
>3. How do you respond to pushy parents (and Scouts) who whine about not
>advancing fast enough?
You stand your ground, take the heat, and be fair. Aside from that you
make sure your troop has an active program that is NOT focused on
advancement and the speed at which people can obtain recognition as one
of its primary focuses. You emphasize that advancement is only one of
the METHODS of Scouting and is not an aim of the program. It is one
means to an end and not an end in itself.
>A very motivated 12-year old requested a SM conference for Star
>and is counting the days until he has his 4 months since 1st Class
>so he can have his BoR. I pointed out that his job of assistant Patrol
>Leader doesn't qualify.
Unless you have assigned him APL as a leadership project he has at least
4 months until he can qualify for Star.
>I told both Scout and dad that the Scout should be RESPONSIBLE
>enough to read and understand the details of all of the requirements.
This is an absolutely essential point, and one not made often enough.
WE are not responsible for a Scout's advancement, HE IS. HE is the one
who should have read the requirements and noticed that APL doesn't
qualify. We have no responsibility to tell him. HE needs to find out
that Personal Management, Family Life, and Personal Fitness all require
a minimum of 3 months to complete. If he waits until two months before
his 18th birthday to realize that then HE is responsible for his failure
to make Eagle, and nobody else.
>decisions. The dad feels it's just a matter of a title and should be
>able to sign it off.
It is a matter of title. One title qualifies the other doesn't.
Period, full stop.
I'm uncomfortable putting my name on something
>that I know to be false. I'm also uncomfortable with voiding the
>boys' election and retroactively promoting the assistant to Patrol
Leader.
You are right on both counts. Don't do either, even though it means that
the nonperforming PL will have completed HIS Position of Responsibility
requirement based on his poor performance. Apparently his patrol is
willing to tolerate it.
>
>Last week a boy showed up for his Tenderfoot BoR w/o his uniform.
>It was still dirty from summer camp. She reasoned it would be a MAJOR
disappointment
>to wait until he returned from vacation in 6 weeks.
If it were so important to either her or her son the uniform would have
been washed by then. Too bad you didn't stand your ground here as well.
>I just get a little tired of the argument that we should not hold up
>advancement or stick to rules because it might disappoint the kids.
Don't we all at times.
>
>Thanks for letting me vent
I hope it helped.
--
Bruce E. Cobern
mailto:bec@pipeline.com
