Adding to requirements

Yah, maybe I'm just feelin' ornery today.

I'm thinkin' that if I hear someone use da phrase "that's adding to the requirements!" one more time about somethin' trivial I'm goin' to blow a gasket.

Since when did we become a nation of adults who teach kids to strive for the absolute minimum required? A nation of whiners indeed!

I reckon people should be embarrased if their son goin' for Eagle can't manage to secure a few reference letters or show up in a decent uniform. I sure would be. I'd be mortified. I'd be callin' up da SM and sayin' "I'm sorry, George, clearly my kid is just not deservin' of this award yet."

Da notion of no adding to the requirements in the guidelines means yeh can't decide as a MBC that First Aid Merit Badge should have a requirement for insertin' an emergency chest tube into patients. In other words, yeh can't seriously bump up the expectations with additional onerous hurdles.

It doesn't mean that we're supposed to interpret every requirement in the most limited and superficial way. Nor does it mean that we can't expect boys to do ordinary things that they're clearly capable of doing.

I don't mind deferring to a unit's expectations for things like da uniform. If a lad is followin' his units uniform standards, that shouldn't be an issue for a BOR anyways. And there's always room for exceptions. We once had a boy show up (late!) in scout pants and a T-shirt because he'd stopped to help at an accident on the way and his scout shirt had been used for bandaging material. All those are different than a boy choosin' to just show up in jeans, a tank top, and flip flops out of lack of respect for himself and others.

All this "Adding to the requirements!" malarkey reminds me of one of da Lethal Weapon movies, where the bad guy keeps claimin' "Diplomatic Immunity" as he steals and murders his way around town. It's an abuse of the term and its intent.

In fact, I'd like to see Danny Glover revoke da "Adding to Requirements Immunity!" from the next person who claims it for somethin' where it clearly doesn't, or shouldn't apply.

Beavah

I kinds, sorta agree with where you are coming from.

But...

There is adding to requirements and adding to requirements!

Our Council, every few months has a Program Group Meeting.

All the different committees get together for a quick big meeting and then break off into their own meetings.

A couple of years back I spent one of the most miserable nights of my Scouting life!

I was asked by the SE if I'd chair the meeting of the Council Advancement Committee. I can't remember why?

Anyway -The four District Advancement Chairs were there.

Guys who'd being doing this for eons.

The guy wearing the Scout Shirt and the blue jeans started off by going on how he liked to see at least 180 hours work on an Eagle Scout Service Project.

It kinda went down hill from there.

When he said that all the Scouts working on the project should be in full uniform. While he sat sitting there in his blue jeans and Scout shirt, I nearly lost it.

These guys were not out in any way to help or support the Scouts.

While I'm sure that they had the best intentions in the world. They had set themselves up as some kind of "Defender of the good name of the BSA" (At least as they seen it.)

They seemed to take great joy in trying to place obstacles and hurdles in the path of the kids that we all are supposed to serve.

On this board we do at times make a big fuss about these extras.

My feeling is that maybe we know a little too much.

The face of Scouting to the average parent is Mr. Jones the Scoutmaster. - What he says goes! (Good or bad).

In a recent thread there was something about a Troop that had added a hike to some requirement or another.

I might not agree with this, I might see it as being wrong, but to the Scouts and the parents of the Scouts in that Troop ? That's just the way it is.

Ea.

If Eagle projects required scouts to be in FULL UNIFORM every time I think the parents in our troop would pitch an absolute fit. The resoning behind my statement is that most of our scouts only have one uniform and 99.9% of the project that our guys come up with involve things that would utterly destroy a uniform at the very least, i.e. painting and maintenance type of projects.

Beavah, I've been thinking about this recently too. Not because of anything happening in the Troop, but because of things I've read on the forum.

Common threads on the forum are from upset parents complaining about their son's SM or troop's practices. A common theme is that their son's advancement progress is being slowed or he's expected to do too much.

The recent post about patrol flags is an example. To most people, and I'm taking a big assumption here, the requirement to describe the patrol flag means to describe something tangible. You know, something that exists. If a new scout joins an existing patrol that already has a flag - great, describe it. If he and other new scouts are made into a new scout patrol that doesn't yet have a flag - great, make one. Indeed, the requirement is to describe, not to "make," but thinking that asking a new scout to work with his patrol on making an actual flag and not using a drawing on a piece of paper is somehow unfair to him and slowing his Tenderfoot advancement is simply ridiculous.

Uniforms is another one. It's true that a boy does not have to own a uniform to be a Boy Scout. It's also true that I've never known a guy that shows up to his Eagle BOR without his uniform to have NEVER worn a uniform through all his time in Scouting. Personally, I see nothing wrong in expecting a boy who is asking for Scouting's highest honor to show respect for that honor and for the organization giving it to wear the uniform fully and proudly.

Sadly, though, I have known scouts and parents that view scouting as nothing more than check marks in a book and a patch on a shirt. For those folks, there will always be the questioning of requirements and the parsing of words to the point that their interpretation of what those requirements mean will lead to quicker advancement and a smooth easy glide to Eagle.

I don't know how many of you have heard the expression "when all you have it a hammer, evrything starts to look like a nail".

I think the same applies to the phrase "you can't add requirements". Just as I told the person who kept saying "when all you have it a hammer, evrything starts to look like a nail". I think its time to buy a few more tools.

It may be time for some to develop a more than superficial understanding of the Boy Scout program and not reduce everything to a "you can't add requirements" issue. Until then its up to those who have a deep and thorough understanding of the Policies and Procedures of the BSA and also know the intent of the Policies and Procedures to give answers. One must be able to devine from the few sentences given which scouter is on top of his game and is working to the betterment of the youth he serves verses the ego-centric shrill who needs to go away.

Ok - let's drop the phrase "adding to the requirements". Let's stop sugar coating it and start calling it what it really is: "Over-ruling the BSA". Because that's exactly what takes place - individuals, well-intentioned as they believe themselves to be, over-rule the policies and procedures of the BSA in order to what? Defend the virtue of the BSA? Prove that they have power? Prove that they're smarter than the BSA?

The uniform is a prime example. The BSA says the uniform is an important part of the program, even making it one of the methods of Scouting. They also say that the uniform is not required in order to fully participate in the BSA. Fully participate - that doesn't mean they can attend meetings and go camping but can't advance - it means they can fully participate, including advancement. Yet peoples personal expectations that an Eagle Scout candidate should somehow be in full uniform is more important than the policies and procedures of the BSA which doesn't expect a Scout to be in uniform in order to fully participate in Scouting?

Being in uniform is great - and should be encouraged - nothing is wrong with that. But instead of complaining about the folks looking askance at leaders that are adding to requirements (which is specifically not allowed), how about instead we stop enabling people to make up their own rules that have the effect of over-ruling the BSA.

By what rationale do we have to over-rule the BSA on their prohibition of adding to the requirements? The answer is "none" - and any thing else is just an attempt to justify a belief that we know better.

There are two basic kinds of adding to a requirement in my book. 1) that punishes a boy and holds him back and 2) challenges and encourages him to try something new.

If a boy joins a patrol that is brand new, things are exciting and if asked to describe his non-existent patrol flag, expecting him to do something extra just to meet a requirement is unfair to the boy. "You have to do extra to fulfill the requirement?" What if his buddy in the next troop joins a legacy patrol, describe the existing patrol flag and goes on his merry way.

On the other hand the boys that design their new flag on a piece of paper of something they hope to make in the next couple of months has in fact described their new flag. To me that is sufficient. The challenge is to come up with the flag sometime in the next couple of months so they have something for their new patrol. If they don't, then maybe they'll get one together the following month, etc.

Too often adult expectations have a way of adding just enough straw to make it frustrating to the boy that he eventually quits, or worse yet, didn't do his Eagle project in full uniform so his SM isn't going to sign off. These serious kinds of expectations are not in the best interest of the boys and should be stopped. I knew a boy that organized a church clean up project with landscaping (new addition was put on a church) He had non-scouts working on the project (this was not allowed in my former troop, only scouts in uniform could help on the project. Some of those non-scouts were the youth from the congregation, volunteers from the congregation, and his friends from school. He coordinated the plans designed by adults as to what they wanted for landscaping and his buddies from the troop showed up to help, some in uniform, some not. Adults worked under his supervision and gave specific plans as to what they expected be done. Does that mean the boy didn't do his Eagle project because he didn't do the planning? Or did he show leadership by taking the architects plans and translated it into reality with the use of scout and non-scout resources?

Too often narrow definitions serve the scouting leadership to hold back young Eagle candidates, or whatever some SM happens to think is appropriate at the time. This boy that did the church project was 14 and did a fantastic job. Did he get any help from the SM? Nope, I signed his proposal with out reading it, without editing it, without suggesting anything. Just took his proposal as is, signed it and he turned it in, handwritten, I noticed that much when I signed it. Obviously the Review Board thought it was sufficient enough to approve it.

I helped rake one day and I shoveled some rock another, but that's all the help he got from the SM. I then signed off on the completed project (that was typed up with a few pictures). As long as the EBOR approves it, why should I pre-approve it?

I went last weekend for an Eagle Court of honor for three boys all from the same small troop. Each boy had a chance to address the gathering and all three went into great lengths to thank the SM, ASM's, parents, people for whom the project was done. Most of these thank you's were couched in thanks for the pushing, prodding and guidance they provided for making sure the project got done. It was as if it wasn't for all the adults the projects wouldn't have been completed.

That speaks volumes to their system.

I hope the only thing the boys ever thank me for is for believing in them and their skills as leaders. If I don't hear that, then I haven't done my job.

Stosh

Ok - let's drop the phrase "adding to the requirements". Let's stop sugar coating it and start calling it what it really is: "Over-ruling the BSA". Because that's exactly what takes place - individuals, well-intentioned as they believe themselves to be, over-rule the policies and procedures of the BSA in order to what? Defend the virtue of the BSA? Prove that they have power? Prove that they're smarter than the BSA?

Or perhaps to achieve da Aims of the BSA for a particular boy or circumstance, eh? I don't recall those Aims referrin' to teachin' lads legalistic parsing of words for da purpose of tryin' to get what you want through an adversarial system.

Asking a boy to repeat da Scout Oath from memory or to explain the Scout Law in his own words at a BOR is "adding to the requirements" and illicit "retesting" of da Tenderfoot requirement by even the most rudimentary legal examination of da policies and documents.

But expectin' a lad to be able to recite (shyness and nervousness aside) and explain the principles he claims to be livin' his life by is how we teach character. And Character is an Aim, where Policy Parsing and Argumentation are not. Da policies serve the Aims and the kids, not vice versa.

Dat's my point, eh? The way some folks use "don't add to the requirements" really is overruling the BSA.

I reckon if there is anything that merits attention in da BSA, it's that subtractin' from da purpose and intent of advancement requirements is vastly more prevalent. While it shortchanges kids and sabotages the Aims, it generates nowhere near the opprobrium that da "no adding" folks feel compelled to level over minutia. And sadly, I reckon scouters who invoke "no adding to the requirements" willy-nilly are da ones who both overrule the BSA's Aims and dismiss da "no subtracting from the requirements" expectation.

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

We expect our scouts to read their handbooks. They can gather a lot of good information in there. We expect them to do the requirements as listed for advancement. But, if we want to get really picky about it all, what the handbook describes to the scouts and what the requirements say (or don't say) can cause some interesting debate.

For example, the uniform. First let me state that I've read on this forum for numerous years that a uniform is not required to be a Boy Scout. OK, I'll buy that. I would like to know where that is specifically written, though. It is not in the handbook. In fact, the handbook states "Wear full uniform for all ceremonial and indoor activities, such as troop meetings, courts of honor, and most other indoor functions."

So, a Scout reads that and takes it to mean that he should wear his uniform. What's the problem? It always seems to come down to some adult deciding that since the actual requirement for advancement doesn't say a scout should wear his uniform, it therefore is insidious adding to the requirements by some scouters if they ask their scouts to do so in their troops.

Yep, I'll go back to the flag again. My apologies in advance for beating this horse, but this is really bugging me.

Handbook shows a very nice picture of a homemade patrol flag. "Each patrol has a flag it can carry at troop meetings and on campouts..." So, it seems clear to me that the requirement to describe your patrol flag means you have an actual flag. Guess I could blame the scouts for this interpretation. After all, it was both new scout patrols a couple of weeks ago that decided they needed a patrol flag.

I suppose we could all get nit picky about every little word in the advancements or whether or not it's fair for one kid to do something another didn't have to. What would you do in this situation? Second class one hour service project requirement. Say for instance a patrol plans to work at the soup kitchen for a couple of hours. One boy who hasn't completed the requirement can't make it. No problem, the others that need the requirement go for a couple of hours and get the requirement signed off. Then next service project comes up and it's an hour of picking up litter along the road and around the church where the scouts meet. Another scout picks up his 2nd class service project. But, wait a minute, that's not fair - he only did an hour, some guys a couple of months ago worked two hours.

My point is for those of you that are worried about adding to requirements, do your guys plan the 2nd class service project to be an hour and only an hour?

I don't know about others, but so far I've never had a young scout approach me because he's having difficulty understanding a requirement for advancement. The things I hear are, "hey Mrs. B., Patrick just signed me off for such and such - want me to show you?" Just from my experience, those young guys know when they've done something, when they haven't, and when to their way of thinking they sneak something through.

I have had older scouts come for some interpretation from time to time, but only rarely has it been with the goal of diminishing requirements or making something easier.

I'm going to overlook that reference to thoughtless recitation. To me the problem with 'adding to the requirements' (thar she blows!) is the risk, indeed certainty, that unwritten things will change with the whims of whoever thinks they know something at the time. I have seen this. In each case I have not directly challenged the notion, whatever it is, that is being required. I ask for the idea to be explained clearly enough so that everyone can understand it. I also suggest that if it can be expressed with such clarity, it could and should be written so that everyone will be able to see it, same as everyone else. All part of a level playing field and sense of fairness.

So far, not a single one of those notions has been up to the task. To me, 'adding to the requirements' is something that is applied without fairness, applied sometimes capriciously, perhaps even punitively.

What some of us view as a healthy latitude within which we can nurture the best of each boy in uniquely optimal ways can, on the other extreme, be a punishingly inane and counterproductive waste of time.

I guess I was influenced by the clarity of chain of command and the clarity of a well-written set of orders that I enjoyed working with the Army, but I saw that as something that usually worked well. Unwritten, nebulous, unclear, off-the-cuff rules that we make up on-the-fly don't work well. Worse, they can hurt young men needlessly.

I guess I was influenced by the clarity of chain of command and the clarity of a well-written set of orders that I enjoyed working with the Army, but I saw that as something that usually worked well. Unwritten, nebulous, unclear, off-the-cuff rules that we make up on-the-fly don't work well. Worse, they can hurt young men needlessly.

Yah, sure. Works if you're in da Army in combat.

What would be a terrific error in logic is to assume that because it works there it works for raisin' children.

Families where dad is the Brigadier General to his wife and kids don't fare too well.

Teachers, coaches, counselors, mentors, outdoor education program leaders... artists, writers, scientists.... they don't do too well with da Army style either.

If yeh really remember your Army time, I expect you'll also recall that few things are as "punishingly inane" as some of da Army bureaucracy.

B

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Beavah (and those who agree) have hit the nail on the head here and kudos to you all for having the guts to stand up for what is right and say what so many think but would not dare say.

I have not had much experience at the troop level but will soon, however I see this problem come up a lot with Cub Scouts. We teach them at such a young age that this is all you have to do to earn this. Rather than showing the boys that this is the intent of the badge and here is what you can do. BSA leaves several things up for interpretation and they obviously expect for a reasonable human being (or at least a properly trained one) to interpret things in a manor that will help and push the boy in a positive direction.

I realize I am probably behind with this, but our Long Rifle (local council paper) had a spot where it described what being active is. I came off after reading feeling that there might as well be an online scouting program. Where boys who don't want to really interact with others can do the stuff at home at their own pace with only minimum checking in with the SM or den leader. Don't get me wrong, I know that kids have a lot going on and that scouts has competition from sports and many other time consuming activities. But do we need to dumb down everything so badly as to say as long as you pay up and have a SM conference that you can achieve rank? Are we looking for a sucessful program or for numbers? I don't know about today, but when I was a kid if I didn't go to practices and only showed up for games my coach would have me riding the pine. Instead we cater to everyone and everything saying that "we can't add to the requirements" by actually requiring a boy to attend meetings.

We are raising a generation of boys who will do, look for, and expect the minimum. If these boys apply to real life they will soon find out what your boss says, you do, whether or not it is in the requirements for your job, because he is the boss. I am blessed to have parents who stand behind me when I push the boys to do a little more and when I expect more because I know they can do it and it will make them better.

I think BSA needs to change the CS motto to "Do the Minimum" and the BS motto to "Do a Good Turn when it is Convienent".

Beavah, for me the merit of the military approach was its clarity. And I agree with you regarding bureaucracy, that's almost always inane from my perspective, I have little time for bean counters. But you ignored the main part of my response and focused on a peripheral point to spin a red herring argument. My main point was about clarity.

My point can be applied to what you and PACK15NISSAN and others of similar thought seem to be promoting. I think it's a fair request that if you think a boy must do something more than what is spelled out in the written requirements, you ought to be clear about what that is. It shouldn't apply ONLY to that one boy. It should be understood the same way by everyone to whom it does apply. I would like to see it written.

IF your communication skills don't allow you to clearly articulate your intent in written form (and so far, not a single such instance has been completed for this unit), then I suggest that it isn't as clear to you as you seem to think it is - unlikely to be any clearer to those to whom you attempt to communicate it. And you should rethink it until it IS clear. THEN you might be prepared to present it to someone else with sufficient clarity that there will be no confusion.

My request is a modest one. It does not deny your ability to go beyond the written requirements. It merely requests clarity. Is this unreasonable?

It all comes down to being reasonable. Unfortunately, not everyone is. I used to be more on one side than the other on this issue, but I have seen too much silliness with nothing to restrain it.

The troop requires scouts show up in full uniform for a BOR (GOOD!) but then a BOR makes an issue out of a scout not wearing official scout socks under his official long scout pants (PULEEZE!)

Troop established performance requirements for leadership positions -you dont to do the job you dont get full credit (GOOD!) but then 90% of the scout leaders do not meet expectations (PULEEZE!).

Wear your uniform to scout functions (GOOD!) but wearing it to an Eagle project involving painting (is there intelligent life in the troop?).

All actual examples.

Easer said than done, but BE REASONALBE!

My copy of the Scout Handbook is in my car and I'm feeling lazy!

As I see my role, when it comes to working with our youth members, I'm going to try to do my best to get them to do their best.

I'm not an idiot! (Well maybe sometimes!) I can read, or I could if I wasn't so lazy.

A few years back at Philmont I had the misfortune to get stuck with a first class twit. This guy went on and on about how "His Scouts" did much the same stuff as he'd done when he was serving in Vietnam. I tuned him out after a while. I was left wondering if he belonged to the same youth organization as I did? Or if he was training kids for some kind of SAS unit?

On the other side of the coin. A co-worker of HWMBO looked in the house yesterday with her son who is just 13. A nice kid. His Mom asked me what was there for him to do after he got his Eagle? It seems that he only has his project left to do. I mumbled on about Palms and the OA. I was cooking a smoked salmon quiche, which was about done. I removed it from the oven, the Lad was in the kitchen. I said something about cooking at camp. He said that in his Troop all the Scouts always cook for themselves and they eat a lot of hot-dogs.

It was very windy yesterday and one of the tarps I use to cover one of the small sail boats has come loose. I invited the Lad to come and give me a hand re-tie it. On the way to the boat I said that maybe one day he could maybe come sailing with the Ship and that the guys from the ship were using the local YMCA pool later in the afternoon, if he wanted to come and join them. He said that he'd pass as he couldn't swim. I said that the YMCA instructor was a really nice Lady and I was sure that if he wanted that she would work with him. He said that he didn't like swimming and didn't need it now!

I do feel that somewhere between the GI -Joe at Philmont and the SM of this soon to be Eagle Scout, there has to be a happy medium.

I have never and hope that I never have been one to say "OK Scouts get your books out, today we are working on ..."

I'll bet that in a month or so in the forum we are going to see a lot of people posting about the poor quality of the MBC at the summer camps they go to. Camps where the only real requirement to get the badge is to show up each and every day.

This is a shame.

Strange thing is that when I talk with Scouts when the attend an ESBOR and I ask which MB's they enjoyed the most? As a rule they tend to mention the MB's that were and are the most challenging.

I have yet to have a Scout say that Finger Printing was top of his list.

We wonder why we can't retain Lads after they are 14 or 15 years old?

I in my infinite wisdom! Think a lot of this has to do with us not challenging them to do their best and use the skills that they should know and should have learned in order to go out and be involved in new and exciting activities.

The requirements are OK. They are a good way (A method) of providing the ground work for opening the door for new and exciting activities and challenges.

However when we allow Advancement to be the entire program and Advancement to be what we are all about, we mess up.

Sure every kid likes to be recognized for what he has done. Most kids enjoy basking in the lime light when they are called up at a COH or wear a sash covered in badges. But this isn't the only thing we are about.

I feel bad that the little 13 year old soon to be Eagle, will more than lightly get his project done and because he hasn't learned any of the real skills needed to join in th bigger and better activities that we can and should be offering, he will quit.

I don't in any way see myself or set myself up as the gatekeeper of the good name of the standards that some people think they need to defend to keep the BSA and Eagle Scout as it once was? (If it ever was??)

I see my role as using advancement as a tool for us (Leaders and youth leaders) to be able to provide situations where the things they learn are put to use.

I don't care if the Boatswains Chair knot is required or not! Knowing how to tie it and using it can be a lot of fun.

I don't see a hot dog and a pack of noodles as being a meal. But I also don't see any real need for Scouts to have to cook a Thanksgiving Dinner at camp -Unless of course that's what they want to do.

We need to stop looking at the requirements as being the be all and end all of what we are about.

If we were to put as much effort into offering new and exciting challenges for the youth we are supposed to be serving as we do into minimizing or stretching the requirements. I feel we would keep the older Scouts around for longer, they would then have more and more opportunities to learn and use all that good leadership stuff we are always going on about along with all that other good stuff.

(I think I'm now ranting! So I'll stop!)

Eamonn.