AquatDir

it seems a different arguement all together has been discussed by most of the people on this forum. i'm not arguing that the job of a lifeguard would be much easier if the policy simply said no goggles, nose plugs and such. this issue here, from the original post was simply if a scout who needs those aids shoudl pass the test. if it is a matter of passing it for his rank advancement then most of you are right, i have no authority to hold that scout back. but, in a summer camp situation where this scout will be participating in open swim, canoeing, sailing, etc, it would not be very responsible to allow a scout who is known to NEED those aid to achieve swimmer. with that said, i am not going to test each scout to see if they in fact need those. the situation i pose may be unlikly, but it is still a concern. the situation i pose is a scout comes to the edge of the pool, it is made clear to me he NEEDS those aids in order to swim.(by himself, by a scoutmaster) then i will not give him his swimmer buddy tag. i dont care if this situation is 1 in 1 mil. that one scout will have to do the swim test in a strong manner like everyone else. therefore, each scout will not be wearing those aids wile taking the swim test unless he is prepared to achieve begginer at the most.

and as far as giving the kid a break. i'm very willing to do that unless it is unsafe.

packsadle,

yeah, my job may be easier if the rules simply said no earplus, goggles and such. i mean, i could simply produce document for an angry scoutmaster. but you know what, its not so hard as is. in my aquatics area, like it or not, no person who NEEDS those aids in order to do the actual act of swimming will be givin a swimmer buddy tag. go ahead and poke holes in this statement. i'm sure theres plenty of places to do so. i'm not really concerned about writing a flawless argumenmt here, i dont need to, i know my job come summer time as well as my priorities. i know i have the safty of everyone in my area at the top of my list with fun being a very close second.

Word up scoutldr. the guys arguing agains my points seem to be taking a logical approach. i entered this discusion thinking we were trying to answer a real question, not some hypothetical mumbo-jumbo. currently the BSA does not actualy use the words goggle and nose plugs so people like you, youngblood, and myself must evaluate the guidlines, as well as each boys swimming ability, the best we can so that everyone in our program has a SAFE, and fun time.

packsadle, sorry about the quote misunderstanding. i am writing in a cyber cafe at 20 min time limits and the post didnt click till my next computer visit. i'll admit i have been getting into this discussion and it may have caused me to be a bit hasty. i however stand by the things i've said. this was the orginal post:

I am working with a scout who insists that he needs to wear a nose plug and goggles when swimming. (This is a work in progress, and I am quite aware that the goal is to not depend on these aids.)

However, several of my esteemed fellow scouters insist that the scout can not pass the swimmer test while wearing them. They refer to past experiences at summer camp, during which the testers told the scouts they can not wear goggles or noseplugs. I ask them to quote me chapter and verse of the requirements that states he can not wear the goggles and nose plug when taking the test.

its been established that noseplugs or goggles have not been directly banned from the swim test. so, the arguement is under what rule, regulation, guidline, whatever can i not pass that scout. what i have been trying to make clear is that i am obligated to that scout and the scouts around him in the pool, to make sure he will be ok without those aids. the scout in the original post insists on wearing them. again, we go to the situation at hand. is he insisting because he's scared. well, we really dont know. maybe he's just stuborn. IF the situation was he was scared without them, THEN we have a problem. we can prevent this problem, however, before it becomes a safty issue by giving the boy beginner and working with him.

as adult leaders in charge of boys i dont think we should get all hoped up on what each regualtion says word for word so much as what is the safest thing to do. of course, this doesnt mean breaking rules or making new one as we go. it simply means training adults to know how to make a judgement call when needed. the sad truth is that there are some people out there who will make the wrong call or an unfair call. well, thats the trust your putting into the staff at summer camps and the adults who take your kids camping. when at camp this summer, by all means make sure your scouts are being treated equally, but if you know your scout is going to panic in the water without those goggles(or any other situation along those lines), dont fight it just because its not in a book somwhere. you could be putting him and others in danger.

packsadle, you said:

"The reason the BSA has a little ambiguity in these requirements (i.e., "in a strong manner") is because they do not want the "in charge" types (i.e., "qualified supervision") to be forced to do something by a disgruntled Scoutmaster (or some other "not in charge" type), such as allow a boy to be classified as a swimmer, when in fact the "in charge" type feels this is not a safe action for the boy and/or for those around him."

so you are saying you would like it if ridged rules forced a lifeguard to go against his better judgement in order to please a scoutmaster? i'm sorry but thats just disturbing. i'm almost in agreement with youngblood in that i see no point to argue further. i just feel a responsibility to defend those staff members out there, aquatics staff or not, who have the scouts best interest in mind.

your last post was in responce to me not youngblood i take it. just wanted to clarify we are not the same person, just see eye to eye.

how many times does it have to be said? situation dictates. i made the statement about a boy having doctors orders to wear a nose plug or goggles because i do not think that every boy wearing them is a safty issue. each situation is different and should be evaluated by the ligeguards in charge. i also understand that scouts who pass the test without aids can still panic at some point while participating in an aquatics activity. unfortunatly i can not see all possiblities. those possibilities i do see, i will do my best to control. preventitive lifeguarding is what BSA teaches. this means, doing ones best to see a potential problem before it occures and ensuring it does not occur.

example: a child passes the swim test while wearing goggles. lifeguard approaches the scout and asks "could you do it without goggles? the child says "sure" ok, "do me a favor, just jump in without the goggles and tred water for a bit" ok, he did it, i'm satisfied this scout swam his test in a strong comfortable manner. and no, i dont see that as adding a requirement. i see it as filling the "stong manner" portion of the requirement. another example: before jumping in i see a scout with goggles on. "hey, can you do it with out those goggle?" "yes, i just like to wear them to keep my eyes from stinging afterward." "ok, well, let me see you do it just this once without them." "ok, no problem." now lets say the scout answers "no way." "well why not?" "i'm scared." or, "i cant do it without them." dont you see where this is a problem? did you see how the situation was handled based on the individual responce. "ok scout, can you jump in without those goggles?" "well, i could but my doctor said i have to wear them." "thats cool, but, lets say they came off by accident, think you would be able to keep swimming if you had to" "oh yeah, i dont NEED them to swim, it just 'cause my doctor says." "ok then, jump in." now in this case the scout could be lying to me, he could in fact panic if those goggles did come off. but, as a person who has his best interest in mind, including a disire to see him have fun, i'd give him the benifit of the doubt. i'd probably tell one of my guards to follow him as he swam and see how strong of a swimmer he was. maybe i'd even have someone keep an extra eye on him when he is in the pool. like i said, preventitive lifeguarding to the best of my ability. it doesnt mean i am going to give every scout with goggles a beginner buddy tag. it means i am going to judge each situation to the best of my ability.

now you may read this and come up with some other say one of the above situation could pan out. well, i'm not going to sit here and type every possible situation. your just going to have to trust that: a) i have the kids best interest in mind. b) i am qualified to make that decision.

not to brag, but scoutmasters have always found me as a very accomidation director and staff member. i have NEVER taken away a scout or scouters chance at fun. yet, i have always had safty on mind as well. believe it or not, safty and fun can go hand in hand.

packsadle, if you'd like me to evaluate every possible situation for you in this forum just post them, i will consider them just as i would at the pool side. realize, if BSA sat down and made these guidelines you ask for it would make things much harder for lifeguards to do their job. if they had to follow some strict guidline as to who passes an who does not then something like "all scouts using aids to swim will not pass the test" could come to be. the guidlines are as they are so that each situation can be avaluated on an individual basis.

packsaddle,

you talk about people such as YoungBlood and myself as not having proof that these nose plugs and goggles are a problem. niether one of us is trying to make a case that in all situations these aids will cause problems. i believe i states before that the situation dicatates. maybe you think i just throw kids in the water and see who makes it to the end. maybe i dont even really pay attention to the way the scout swims as long as they get there in the end. yeah, i probably even throw all kids with nose plugs, goggles, rings, caps, ID bracelets and such out of my pool without question. i must be come evil director who gets satifaction out of making scouts cry.

again, situation dictates. i dont need to prove here and now that aids such as those mentioned will cause problems. thats not the argument here. its situational arguement. my staff and myself, being responsible lifeguards pay attention to each scout as they swim. IF, i say again, IF a scout shows me that he will panic without the aids he is using THEN i will judge that situation accordingly. i'm not on some power trip where i make the rules, if you dont like them get out. i am interested in safty as well as good ole' aquatics fun. to make the statement that we would probably force kids with ID bracelets and swimming caps to remove them or fail is just plain silly. i really hope you weren't serious there because your getting petty.

let me say it again, the situation dicatates. as said before, if the goggles and such are being used during fun swim or boating as a preference, thats no big deal. as long as the scout demonstrated during the swim test that they did not absolutly NEED them in order to pass then he's ok. wheres the problem here? would you really allow one of you scouts who, in his individual case, panics without his goggles to the point of drowning pass as a swimmer. would you allow this scout in a sailboat or out in a motor boat where he could fall in at any time and have his goggles knocked off. PFD or not, panicing in the water is not a good thing. would you allow him to jump in and out of the deep end with 20-30 other kids all around him? knowing that if his goggles came off he would start flailing his arms, grabbing onto anything the floats(other swimmers included), and possible drown. thats what happens when a person starts to drown. they are a danger to himself and the people around him. your one of those scoutmasters i get all the time. you think the rules were made to hinder your boys fun. you probably go to the water front and argue with the director that you dont need a PFD. yeah, your a swimmer, and adult and were even once a lifeguard. why do you need a PFD? its just stupid right. yeah, you dont even need a buddy in your sailboat right. i mean, whats this kid gonna do if you are unconsious in the water from your boom hitting you in the head. he's just a kid.

realize the scouts best interest is in mind when people like youngblood and myself force them to swim without aid. not only to we care about safty, we are the ones who will loose a job and credibility if anyone gets seriously hurt or dies in our area.

Swim 75 yards in a strong manner.

this is where the trained, qualified adult in charge has to make a decision. what defines strong manner. thats the director in charge to decide. thats what he or she has been trained and paid for. packsaddle, before you threaten those willing to disqualify one of your boys you should consider that. it is the responsibility of the qualified supervison to be sure each boy can complete this test in a strong manner. i wouldnt consider a scout who, while swimming well enough with these aids, panics when those aids are removed. unfortunatly we do not live in a perfect world. those aids could come off in any number of situation. if this happens and this scout panics we have a real safty issue. for the scout, the scouts around him and the lifeguard who has to go in there and help him. rest assured that my staff take it as their personal responsibility for every one of your scouts to have the best aquatics experience possible. but if he is panic stricken by the idea of swimming without earplugs or goggles he will have to get over that fear. i'd be willing to give him ever chance possible. he'd even be able to take the swim test with those aids as far as i'm concerned, but, he better show me he can get in without those aids as well. i just couldnt allow him to go out in the bay in a sailboat if i have that fear of his earplug comming out in my mind. it just wouldnt be a responsible thing to do

my responces in this forum have been in responce to the other posts. when running an aquatics area i dont simply follow some strict guidline that i set forth. the situation dictates. as i said, if a boy can swim yet is terrified in the water without his aids then i say he's not a swimmer. if a boy simply prefers them, well he's good to go. if a scout has a doctors orders not to go in the water with out earplugs or goggles i dont have a problem with that. lets think here. is he wearing those things because if not he will panic? or is he wearing them because his doctor has suggested them for the boys health. if a scout has to wear earg plus due to doctors orders that doesnt mean if they were to come off he would panic and therefore be an unsafe swimmer. i know my previous entries have seem strict. but rest ussured the most important thing to me when running an aquatics program is that every child has the most fun posible as well as the best learing experience. but, if the situation dicatates a possible safty iddues then i will consider it on an individual basis.

i'd have to do some research but as far as i know in order to pass the swim test a scout or scouter must do so in a "strong" manner. the word strong in this respect is up for interpretation. it is the job of the qualified adult in charge to make that interpretation. if a camp only offered pool activities then perhaps a scout who needed goggles wouldnt be such a big deal. but in my case, we have a whole bay in addition to a pool. my instructors can not be within ten feet of each sailboat or canoe. with that said it is crucial that each scout be able to handle the water without his ear plugs and goggles.

i may not be able to add requirements but i can interpret phrases such as "in a strong manner." its important that the person in charge of an aquatics area interpret such phrases in the safest way for their respective activities.

I totally agree with youngblood in this. i am an aquatics director and in my area i am responsible for the safty of each child and leader who comes through my camp. lets say we have a scout who passes the swim test with flying colors. althoug he needs those aid which have been discussed. theres no doubt the child is at swimmer level. but, do i feel safe with him playing in the deep end during open swim? i'll tell you what i would do. after this kid passes his test i'd ask him to take off the aids and simply jump in. if he's downright terrified at the idea then you can be sure he will not make swimmer in my aquatics program. safe swim defence and safty afloat were designed so that accidents just dont happen. that however depends on the vigilance of the lifeguards, directors, and adult leaders who run the aquatics programs. if anyone of those people are not totally sure of each scouts level of skill than that person has failed the guidlines put forth by safty afloat and safe swim denfence. if i have a scout who panics when his goggles come off despite being an excellent swimmer with them on then i have a safty issue.

sure, lots of us dont like having chlorine in their eyes. i dont have a problem with this kid wearing them when he's in the pool having fun. but as the qualified supervision at my camp i have to know that if they come off he will be ok.

some of you are saying you dont feel swimming is a survival skill. i firmly believe it is. not only is it important if the scout wants to partake in aquatics activities but it is a skill that builds condfidence. confidence in one self branches out to everything that person does. that aside, if a scout is taking aquatics badges in my camp, he better be able to swim without those aids.

talking about organisms and such, that is just getting away from the topic all together. if we're gonna bring up everyone reason under the sky as to why ear plugs and goggles are usefull aids then we're bringing up a whole new discusion. the duscusion here is, if a child who NEEDS those things should be considered a swimmer under BSA policy. well, its up to the person on charge. in my case, and in the aquatics areas i'm in charge of i'd say no. i do not define a person whoe NEEDS, absolutly NEEDS ear plus and goggles as a strong swimmer.