If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
No announcement yet.
Is it ever appropriate to "slow" a Scout's advancement?
Read this one with interst.. for a number of reasons.
1) I was an Eagle at 15, while my older brother didn't finish his until his VERY later 17. I certainly don't think I was too young...and I'm almost insulted to have someone think I was. I was very active, and did summer camp every year, Philmont at 15, etc.
2) Unless I'm mistaken, when Eagle was first created, the average age for the award was 15, then it went down to 14, and slowly rose and fell over the years. My father was 16 when he earned his in the 60's. I know I've read these numbers somewhere.
3) I've known SM to refuse the SM Conference for boys. Not due to age, but other 'real' reasons (lack of activity in Troop). So, I do believe there are legitimite reasons this could be done. However, like most people here, I agree.. the idea of a SM holding a Scout back and delaying their progression is disturbing.
Problem is a Scout can get Eagle without really being active as long as he is registered, in good standing and either can meet (or attempt to meet) the minimum standards for being "active" for his unit OR provide a reasonable explanation as to what he has been doing with his time. BSA in the GTSS has essentially watered down what being active entails. I know most units have attendance requirements for leadership positions, but few have it written in their bylaws for just an average Scout. So if I am a Life Scout without a leadership position, in most troops I am not required to attend any % of meetings or camp outs...officially. Our troop amended our bylaws for this very reason.
The problem Sqyire, is that in many councils there are Scouts getting Life by 13 and then dropping off the radar entirely to focus on other stuff. They work on Eagle but they are really not involved in their troops or Scouting. Some do the very least they can do to meet any "active" litmus test just so they can get Eagle. It is for their resume for college, nothing more. I think the reason many want to "slow a Scout down" is so they 1) develop deep skills, 2) get full benefit of what Scouting is about, and 3) learn to give back to their troop.
I had a coach when I was a kid who played professional sports. We were lucky to have him as a coach since he played at the top level of his game. Back then it was unheard of to have a guy like him coaching a bunch of 11 year-olds. He told us something that always stuck with me, he said "Make sure when you are done with your career -- regardless of what it is, sports, a club, a church -- that you give back to that group. If you continue to take from the well without giving back, the well will run dry." That simple statement has ALWAYS stuck with me and many of my generation. I think the problem is these days there is no sense of stewardship. Kids finish their business and move on. Heck, few even say "thank you" let along give back to their troop.
I go back to what BD said, it is about the journey not the destination.
MB, I think you miss spoke. Prior to the 2011 Guide to advancement National defined active as dues paid and not on suspension. The GTA allows troops to set what being active means for them.....my numbers are above...... Not sure what the Guide to Safe Scouting has to do with it other than taking a lot of fun out of scouting.
Bottom line here is the integrity of the program I provide the boys......
Holding the boys accountable, just as I hold myself.......Being Life for life isn't that bad, some of the best scouters I know are in that situation.
Whiel I see the point you're trying to make MB, I'm not sure I agree with what you are saying. (but I think we're very close to seeing some of this issue the same) I will state: My son and I are in Cub's still...so I'm not 100% current with the official requirements.
As a Youth, my Troop required some sort of leadership position for every rank past First Class. If you weren't actively doing your job, you were removed and replaced. While we were a good sized Troop, we certainly weren't 50 strong...so I could understand limited positions and multiple scouts issues.
The youth I specifically rememer went to get his SMC, but hadn't held a leadership position, and hadn't been active for months. He hadn't been attending meetings, and seemed to believe he was going to just get a pass on his SMC. This was the reason he was refused.
I don't however tend to agree with manupulating a situation to have a boy 'forget' to recieve his SMC. Some of the other idea's listed above I also feel are dishonest and contrary to Scouting's principles. If you have a scout who's not active....leadership should be working to ensure he is. My .02...
I was also an Eagle at 15. In my troop all of the boys did whatever advancement they did strictly on their own or with help only from other boys if needed. Parents merely transported boys to and from merit badge counselors, for example. The boys learned self-sufficiency, independence, initiative. My advice is for the dad to let the boy do it on his own. Period. It can be done. The dad doesn't have to 'hover'.
Mozartbrau, "...when I was a kid who played professional sports."
Wow, you must have been pretty good at it!
MB, I think you miss spoke. Prior to the 2011 Guide to advancement National defined active as dues paid and not on suspension. The GTA allows troops to set what being active means for them.....my numbers are above...... Not sure what the Guide to Safe Scouting has to do with it other than taking a lot of fun out of scouting. Bottom line here is the integrity of the program I provide the boys...... Holding the boys accountable, just as I hold myself.......Being Life for life isn't that bad, some of the best scouters I know are in that situation.
Yeah, my mistake...meant GTA. But the GTA does state the three part test for "active". That third point -- "Scout meets the unit's reasonable expectations; or, if not, a lesser level of activity is explained" -- is the one where I think many get tripped up.
I know most troops have activity levels documented for leadership roles in their job descriptions. But I do not know many troops that say to be considered active you have to go on (x) number of camp outs or attend (x) number of meetings. So my point was that troops that don't have a documented participation % to define who is/is not active, then you are in a grey area where that "alternate" third test is applied. That's why out troop documented what % of attendance was considered active participation.
Slight correction. Alternative only applies if troop has pre-established expectations and the scout does not meet those. If the troop does not have pre-established (i.e. written), the third test is passed. You only use the alternative if the scout fails to meet documented written pre-existing unit expectations.
"Alternative to the third test if expectations are not met: If a young man has fallen below his unit’s activity oriented expectations, then.... "
The only kid whose attendance I worry about is the one whose well being depends on it.
Of course, with venturers, the pressure to peruse awards is far less.
With the boys in the troop, well they've seen one or two not make rank, so they know the wrong way to go about things. Frankly, I got no problem with a kid picking up scouting skills in a hurry and making rank quickly. But our boys who are taking their good old time advancing seem to be the most active in our troop.
squire.....SMC are not pass or fail. you simply need to participate in one......For me the key is participate. so what do you do with a scout who is a yes and no kinda guy??? Won't actually hold a conversation.
I'm confused by your questoin. "yes and no kinda guy?" Yes, you're right, the conference is pretty much pass/fail.. but if the scout says he's really done with scouting and doesn't want to be here.. should you pass him? What if he says something contrary to scouting? You can fail them... But, if a scout isn't present or participating in the scouting program...the SM doesn't have to agree to hold the conference... or he can agree to hold the conference, and say "I don't agree you're active enough, and until you improve, I won't sign off on this requirement." I see nothing wrong with that. No tricks. Nothing underhanded. If you're not up to scratch..tell them so.. and see if they improve.
If a boy is truly motivated and needs a POR, there is always Den Chief. This is truly the most underutilized position out there. It's also one of the most time consuming. But it really puts the onus on the boy--if he is truly seeking the opportunity he wants and needs there it is.
Slight correction. Alternative only applies if troop has pre-established expectations and the scout does not meet those. If the troop does not have pre-established (i.e. written), the third test is passed. You only use the alternative if the scout fails to meet documented written pre-existing unit expectations. "Alternative to the third test if expectations are not met: If a young man has fallen below his unit’s activity oriented expectations, then.... "
I asked that very question of Council. What I got back was for the third test was:
- Troop has pre-established activity guidelines? If so, the Scout must meet them. If not, then he can explain why using that alternate test.
- Troop does not have pre-established guidelines? Then the alternate test is automatically in play.
According to my Council, a unit wants to give the benefit of the doubt to the Scout but establish procedures if he does not meet certain guidelines. To automatically pass a Scout as "active" simply because a unit does not have written attendance guidelines was apprrently not the intent of this passage. At least, that's what my Council said so I have to go with that.
Your council's interpretation is NOT supported by a clear text reading of the BSA GTA. Heck the title itself is "Alternative to the third test if expectations are not met". There is no wording in the BSA GTA 2011 page 21 that defends your council's interpretation.
If the kid has done his best, meets the requirements and performs the actions required then don't hold them back. Many troops do hold kids back until they "deserve to be Eagle" and good luck to them. With the number of kids that quit because tying knots and cooking is too much work you try to do what you can with what you have. I recall a few years that the national average is just under 15 yo. Once high school hits their time becomes precious and scarce with homework and other activities.
Yes, very important activities like playing online games,breaking the axles on their 4WD, working to pay for the next game system, guitar, threads for the school dance, fuel-injection system, bling for the girlfriend, etc ... I'm sorry, but the HS kids who I see making Eagle are the ones who are very active in church and band/sports, make high marks in school, attend the occasional dance or two, and maybe even pick up a nice girlfriend along the way. They show up at meetings, and call in when they can't make it. Even when they turn 18, are taking intensive college classes, pulling double-shifts at work, or maybe even married, they apologize for not coming around very often!
So, although I don't believe in making a gung-ho 12 y.o. kid (emphasis on *kid* not parent thereof) wait out some bureaucratic clock, I do believe that a lot of the Life/Eagle requirements are intended for 15-17 year old boys whose lives may be very full. (E.g., Family-Life, Personal Management, Personal Fitness, and Lifesaving start to take on real adult meanings.) A boy has no less chance of making Eagle in High School than he does in Jr. High. In fact, by High School they boy has made a lot of connections that my inspire his choices in MB's, leadership training, and service projects.
Perhaps some people view a unit that has high, yet realistic standards is really just a unit that is needlessly holding a kid back until they "deserve to be eagle".
If kids are quiting because knot tying and cooking is too much work, that should not mean that standards should be lowered so that it is easier for them. There may be other factors that can be looked at: perhaps there isn't sufficient "fun factor" in the program; i.e, patrol vs patrol competitions on scout skills, with recognition for best patrol; cooking competitions at campouts, perhaps one with the mayor and/or teachers invited as tasters; a skills teaching weekend where scouts teach scout skills to webelos scouts. Heck, I've even seen a troop where scouts have a day when scouts teach scout skills to parents. It gives scouts a reason to spend time practicing skills, becasue there is a worthwhile goal.
I'm with qwazse. Yes, high school students have many demands on their time. They must prioritize, and they will make time for those activities that are worthwhile and meaningful to them. If the troop program is structured to rely on older scouts, making them feel that they are needed (and the program has prepared them), many of the high school aged boys will continue to come. If the program is the same old same old, with mostly hanging out, then they will spend there time on things that are more meaningful and challenging to them (and for some, that is computer games).
Give them a reason to give the troop a high priority in their lives.
Now as a boy, I went through cubs but I didn't get very far along the path in Boy Scouts.... I'm a Cub Leader now, so I don't have experience in this area...... BUT I sure don't like the sounds of this leader.
I understand that if a boy isn't mature enough and isn't doing a good job I a given position he shouldn't get credit for it as if he did well.....
An example that I can think of..... At my church, there are a couple small garden areas with a bench or two set, nice landscaping, etc.... and a small sign indicating that it was so & so's Eagle project.... a good effort, but the benches aren't even sitting level! Bugs me every time in fact last Sunday I said to my wife I had half a mind to sneak out some Saturday after noon and level them out! I don't know what the project requirements are exactly, but I might believe that there would be room for slowing something like that down.....
.....but why squash enthusiasm? What's wrong with a young Eagle? Seems to me that a troop would benefit from having a few eagles in the troop for a while, as opposed to the boys that earn eagle then age out the next day. An active eagle in the troop could be an inspiration to the younger boys..... make the rank seem more achievable..... and it could help the young eagle by being in a position of seniority and leadership.
No sir, don't like it at all and in fact I think I would have to call him on it. Not right to make up rules.
Every boy is different. Every boy learns in different ways. To sum total it down to a set of rules is pretty much a waste of time and can in fact turn off a lot of active/super achieving scouts.
As a boy-led type of person, when I had a young TF come to me and say he was needing service project hours for advancement, I asked him what he was doing about it. When it dawned on him that sitting around waiting for someone else to plan it out was a virtual waste of time, he went out contacted the DNR and set up a project and invited the troop to participate. I'm glad I didn't tell him he needed to be wearing a POR patch or over 13 years old to do that. Was that going above and beyond the scope of participating in a 1 hour service project? Yep. So what? He learned something, he organized something and he had fun. End of discussion. It would have been okay with me if he waited for the next service project to come along, and it would have been okay with me what he ended up doing. The boy made his own decision and went after it. I really don't see it in the realm of the SM to dictate to the boys what they can and can't do. Mentoring means giving opportunities, not taking them away.
I just caught up on reading this thread. I saw that an earlier poster said their unit defined expecations that included " for the last 6 months ".
"for the last six months" ... You can do that because your scouts might not know better. But the BSA GTA doesn't defend that. You can set expectations, but once met, they are met. You can't say "for the last six months". BSA GTA PDF Page 21 188.8.131.52 point three says "If, for the time period, a scout or ....meets those aspects of his unit’s pre-established expectations that refer to a level of activity, then he is considered active and the requirement is met. Time counted as "active" need not be consecutive. A boy may piece together any times he has been active and still qualifying."
I think this is where units often get in trouble. The BSA advancement expectations are actually pretty manageable as far as time is concerned. I think I remember seeing it's possible for a scout who's 12 years old to even earn eagle. BSA only requires 16 total months of activity for Eagle.
Units get in trouble because they lose connection with the scout for a period of time, LEAVE THE SCOUT ON THE ROSTER and then the scout comes back to claim his advancement as is his right. If you choose to have the scout on your roster, then the scout has a right to claim his advancement. There is no "for the last XXX months".
This seems to be a case of a Scouter putting himself, and his personal views, ahead of what's best for the scouts. I agree fully that scouts who proactively, plan, prepare and complete the necessary advancement requirements should be permitted to advance without having 'roadblocks' placed in their path by SM's who are of the belief that a boy should not be allowed to advance too quickly or achieve Eagle before a certain age. I also could not disagree more with those Scouters who insist that all scouts who have a sincere desire to advance are somehow not enjoying their scouting experience because they are focusing on advancing.
Ultimately all boys should be allowed to advance based on their own willingness to do so. A scout who is active and who rightfully takes the necessary steps to successfully complete the requirements needed to advance in rank, should have that opportunity and should not be held back based on a personal opinion of a SM. There's simply no basis for that within the BSA program and within the requirements as outlined.
By the same token, if a scout chooses to take it slow or perhaps not focus on advancment at all, then that's completely fine as well. Let each scout choose his own path. Spur those who may want and need extra support, but don't penalize those who have the initiative and drive to achieve ranks on their own.
I would recommend talking with you SM first, one on one, as a courtesy. If no resolution, and it sounds like that is likely, bring it to your TC and then, if necessary, to Council.