hellomom

What I mean is that it seems when boys are younger it is easier to be immersed in the troop and troop activities. If troops want, and I hope they do, older boys to stay involved, I would think that acknowledging the developmental and cultural (the high school vs late elem or middle school) differences and embracing them might enhance the character of a troop. what do you think?

The only problem I have with that response is that I thought that scouts were supposed to take the oath and law into the REST of their lives. That they should use what they have learned and basically share those values--integrate being a boy scout into other areas where maybe scouting and scouting values are not spoken of often. Isn't there a reason why boys are given so many years to "do" scouting "inch by inch". It seems that an Eagle by 14 is a whole lot easier than to integrate becoming a Eagle by 18. I am just trying to understand the underlying goal of this requirement.

Does this "active" need to be in 6 consecutive months? My son is in high school and very active in Performing Arts. Sometimes rehearsals overlap with troop meetings. Since becoming a Life scout a year and a half ago he has: gone to one summer camp, gone on 8 campouts, attended JLT, served 2 times as aspl, 2 prep hike days for Philmont and 10 days at Philmont but has only attended about 50% (approximately 17)of troop meetings due to performances and rehearsals. He attends the meetings when he can, he has not just sat at home, and frequently eats dinner and changes into his uniform in the