elitts

On 9/30/2020 at 6:20 PM, walk in the woods said:

if two units decided to camp together why would these standards apply?  Not sure I'm following your logic.

On 9/30/2020 at 6:22 PM, InquisitiveScouter said:

♦ Q: If my camp is cancelled, can my unit get together with other units and have our own camp?

No. Chartering organizations play an important role in the program and activities for their chartered units. Chartering organizations promote well-planned unit program for the units they charter and encourage their units to have active outdoor unit programs. Chartering organizations are not authorized to plan, promote, or deliver programs for units outside of their charter.

*Sigh*  Yet another example of BSA only thinking about the question they want to answer and not considering what implications that answer might have in other contexts.  I really wish they'd get their act together and start having their FAQs and publications reviewed by someone outside the "Group-think" at the corporate offices.

While this answer does respond directly to the question being asked, anyone who actually understood how people work would realize that this answer, specifically talking about a CO "running" a Summer Camp program for other troops, will definitely be mistakenly interpreted by some folks to mean "Troops can't camp together except at council functions".  All they needed to do was add a fourth sentence that read: This does not mean that separate troops may not mutually decide to camp together so long as each CO provides for the leadership, material and program needs of its own troop.

49 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

  If a Scout was abused 40 years ago who was more at fault - the BSA or the CO?

And that presupposes the idea that someone other than the abuser should be held to be at fault at all.  I'm still not a fan of that whole idea in the first place except in the relatively few cases I've seen where something clearly got ignored or covered up by the BSA. 

As much as it would be nice to get a settlement done and over with, there is a growing part of me that would like to see the BSA say "If you can't accept a settlement that leaves us with enough resources to continue to operate, it makes more sense for us to use every dollar we would have had to fund a settlement to actually litigate these cases.  If we lose, then five to ten years from now when all the extensions and appeals are exhausted, you can check the cushions for any change that happens to be left."

I only have one question and one comment about the news story:

• (Question) What the heck is she doing using a bow saw to cut down a standing tree?  (assuming that wasn't simply a staged photo)
• (Comment) The fact that she thinks having earned Eagle Scout in 20 months means she's gotten everything possible out of the program does not say great things about her mindset with regards to participating in scouts.  Though I'll admit this viewpoint isn't exactly uncommon.

4 hours ago, qwazse said:

IMHO. There have been way too many scouters who think every Eagle project should be something more than a scout and his buddies slapping together a nice looking bench in a public location.

I have more trouble with projects that are barn-raisers that take thousands of man-hours where the scout’s hand on the tiller seemed incredibly light.

I've never questioned a bench project that had thought and planning with regard to appearance and durability involved; but many I see really don't.  Most of the time you get a wood bench put together with no finishing done to the wood at all, they just cut up the raw lumber, and slap it together with screws and a few lag bolts, then set it on a surface that is pretty much certain to rot the wood out within 10 years.

But if you are talking about a bench that is done right, with surfaces sanded and sealed, screws and bolts countersunk to avoid scratching people, with grass and dirt removed and replaced with either concrete or well drained gravel and the ground contact points protected from standing water, I agree that's sufficient for an Eagle Project.

The worst projects I see though are the ones where someone just gets a bench or picnic table kit from a "big box" then dumps them on the ground on project day and says " Ok, you and you, build that one and you two build that one.  The instructions are in the box.".  In addition to the complete lack of planning and leadership required of the scout, the wood typically included in those kits is usually the lowest quality possible so a year or two later you end up with warped table-tops and benches.

15 hours ago, MattR said:

This is in the Open Discussion-Program sub forum and the discussion about porn is not related.

I agree that a "discussion about porn" isn't related; however, I will argue (just one time) that the existence of porn IS related by virtue of it being a potential factor in YPT.  I mean, my troop can't be the only one where there has been a scout caught watching inappropriate material on a cell phone.   So when that happens, is it just a teen/tween being a standard kid or is that scout now a possible sexual abuse victim (because someone exposed them to it or allowed them to be exposed to it) that the Scoutmaster needs to report to Council and possibly the Police/Child Services?

That said, I won't belabor the point as I have no further comments to make on the issue.

3 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

Lions must have a parent, per BSA.

I know some packs that have imposed the parent rule at least for the younger ranks.

The pack I was Cubmaster of had the rule that each scout had to have a "responsible adult" that remained on site.  That didn't mean that I didn't occasionally offer to be that "responsible adult" for someone's kid who had to leave, but that was my choice at any given time.  We didn't allow kids to just be randomly dropped off the way we do in Scouts.

20 hours ago, qwazse said:

. Right now "public service" announcements are reminding us that being exposed to pornography is a form of sexual abuse.

 

Yeah, I've seen that one too...  Great!  Lets water down the concept and criminalize more people at the same time.  I can already picture the headline.  Some 14-year old gets found looking at a porn site and between an outraged parent and a DA looking to get re-elected using a "tough on crime" platform, suddenly the classmate he/she got the link from is on trial for a sex crime.

And since I want to be crystal clear, there is a clear and significant distinction between an adult exposing a youth to porn as a grooming tool and kids talking about and sharing that stuff among themselves.

On 9/16/2020 at 12:13 PM, Eagle94-A1 said:

Grant you some of the folks are "worker bees," but there is a minimum $ donation.

Another factor for any non-profit board of an organization that seeks grant funding is that many (if not most) major grants want to know if all of the Board members are donors.  In some cases you aren't eligible or may receive lesser consideration if your Board donation rate isn't 100%.  Of course, this can be accomplished by requiring a minimum $1.00 donation or a minimum $1000 donation.

18 hours ago, InquisitiveScouter said:

...who give big bucks to the council.  How much does an Execurive Board position cost in your council?

I do have to say here that the crudely phrased "Seat for sale" concept is going to be true in just about any non-profit Board of Directors.  Not so much because someone willing to donate 10k or 20k is really that big a value to the organization, but because anyone able and willing to cough up that much money will probably know plenty of other people who can also cough up that much money.

Most Boards of Directors will have a certain number of seats that can be used for members that may not be "workers" but who provide special access or connections the organization finds valuable.

2 hours ago, CynicalScouter said:

How many will go bankrupt? It is really hard to say to not make is wild speculation. The hard part will be option #2 and forced mergers. I suspect Council A will NOT want to take on a crippled/dying Council B in a merger and may insist that Council B goes through bankruptcy first, settles all claims, and then merges.

Any council that did approve a merger with another council that hadn't gone through bankruptcy first would be exhibiting a practically criminal level of fiscal irresponsibility and negligence. 

43 minutes ago, ParkMan said:

- agreed.  In fact, I would favor a higher council fee to a higher national fee.  For example, I would not begrudge $60 a year to council, $20 a year to national.  That strikes me as an appropriate ratio. 

 

I agree about the council fee being more tolerable.  But that's If (and only if), they use those more stable funds to actually provide competent administrative and record-keeping services.  No more submitting MBC applications 3 or 4 times before they get processed.  No more taking 2-3 months between MBC list updates.  No more losing our Scouter's award requests or Insert other media taking 6 months to get them signed by the appropriate parties.

Paying $60 now vs $12 before and getting the same sort of shoddy service they've been providing would be intolerable. 

If they could do their annual budgets based upon like 85%-90% of those expected council fees (with the rest going into either a rainy day fund).  Then any funds still collected via FoS could be used for capital improvements and repairs to the reservations. (NOT council buildings, which is where ours decided to dump a bunch of cash)

I don't know if the issue of someone trying to just walk away from their responsibilities has ever come up, but in my troop, once you commit, you are committed to covering any costs associated with your commitment.  So if we book a spot to Philmont for you and you pay the deposit to sign up, you are responsible for the whole thing.  However, if someone has ever become unable to go, we would also search far and wide for someone else to fill the spot and get them reimbursed.  As far as I can recall, this has always been possible when someone has had to back out, though I think one time they ended up finding someone in another troop because no one in our troop was interested.

We had eaten a couple of Summer Camp registrations over the years, so now the troop only submits the deposit.  Everything else must be paid directly by the family to the council.

7 hours ago, Liz said:

The unit is "soliciting" to trade a car wash for $5. They are not ASKING for donations. 

The rule is that they can't solicit for donations. The rule is NOT that they can't accept donations if the giver decides to offer an unsolicited donation. 

I

In the post where someone mentioned their troop doing a car wash, they were explicitly doing the washes for "your donation" not "for $5 but we'll take whatever you give". 

There is something of a difference in intention and definitely a difference in the effect.  I've worked for organizations that try this both ways for event programs.  If you sell the event programs for $1, you will often make significantly less money than if you advertise it as "Please make a donation".  Because while many people in the second scenario will just take a program and walk away, the average donation from the people who choose to pay was usually $5 or more.

Personally, the only aspect of the issue that bothers me is the fact that the Popcorn sale actually violates the BSA's own standard for an "acceptable" fundraiser.  That's certainly within their rights, but it still bothers me.

9 hours ago, MattR said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "way of the comments section." Different news sites have very different styles.

Pretty much every news comments section I've ever read starts out with complaints about how "the Liberals this" or "the Conservatives that" and then devolves from there.  Particularly when anonymous comments are allowed.  It's usually a little better if comments are only permitted by people with active (and in particular, paid) memberships.  It can also be a little better if people are required to sign up under their own names.

Heck, it doesn't even matter if the subject of the article is political.  There's always at least one troll out there just waiting to chum the comments with something like "Only a Trump-tard Lemming would be interested in that" or "There we go again with Hillary's socialists trying to waste money".  (Those are actual statements I've seen used in local news comments)

On 9/5/2020 at 6:51 AM, OLDRIFLE said:

Thanks for your reply. It is sad that no one had the courage to step up and correct the SM, not even at Council level. 

I feel like the core of the problem here is that you asked the "wrong" question and, as bureaucrats and customer service folks are wont to do, they answered the question as asked without anyone thinking "I wonder if there is another way to get this done".   

If the important issue here is getting the scout his Eagle Board of Review, I think PACAN is correct in his approach.  If the scout can prove 6 "non-contiguous" months of active scouting, I could easily see the Advancement Committee granting a BOR even without a SM conference in these circumstances.

  But if your desire is to be publicly acknowledged as correct with instructions telling the SM he is wrong and must concede, you are only going to end up being disappointed.  Council staff are notoriously unwilling to exert any significant pressure on units unless the unit is ignoring an utterly black and white rule, and doing it publicly. 

2 hours ago, Eagledad said:

Really? The scouts take responsible for success in one and grow from the experience , while the adults take the growth opportunity away from the scouts in the other.

Let’s not suggest selling high priced items to raise funds for scouts is new. It’s been a tradition at least since the 60s when my sisters and I were scouts. I haven’t seen the Campfire Scouts selling their candy in some years, but if I ever do, I will donate, A LOT.

Barry

 

Except that when we were selling the popcorn in the 80s, it was only "pretty expensive".  The popcorn has gotten progressively more overpriced as time has passed.  In the late 80s/early 90s, the box of microwave popcorn was something like 50% more expensive than the popcorn in the store.  Now the markup is more like 400+% higher on virtually everything.  AND, I'd argue that the quality has fallen somewhat at the same time. (I remember it actually tasting better than most of what was available in the stores, but I'll admit that could have just been inexperienced taste buds.)

3 hours ago, David CO said:

Not much.  I see very little difference in selling grossly overpriced items (like popcorn) and soliciting for donations.  It's really the same thing.  

Particularly when all the advice on selling from BSA is that you shouldn't be marketing the product, you should be "Selling Scouting".

On 8/30/2020 at 5:59 PM, Cburkhardt said:

but if I were on a council executive board I would be encouraging an effort to transfer-away almost any hard asset to trustworthy entities and immediatly designate almost any contribution post-bankruptcy.  Big City Scout Reservation should indeed become owned by an organization governed by a very strictly-worded trust.  Big City council itself should become a nearly-pure cash operation, keeping what it needs for year-to-year financial stability, but urging the big gifts to go to the trust or be otherwise secured from lawsuit attachment.  Of course, the Trust will need to position itself in a manner to avoid liability, because the lawyers will name the trust as a co-defendant if any untoward allegations are made about activities on the Reservation premises.  

Hard to say much about Eagle and Remember Schiff's circumstances.  Eagle's council should consider transferring the camp(s) that survive the Victim's Trust Fund contribution activity.  If not, it ultimately will be in the position of Sad or Merger of Equals council.  Not much cash left, properties that probably need deferred maintenance, no big contributions in sight and a local trial bar praying for a program or membership slip-up.  This is not a formula for long-time existance.  Maybe that council should find a Big City council to preserve the viability of the property.

 

I'm seriously surprised that more councils didn't do this as soon as regular litigation started popping up in the news.  Transfer the camps to 3rd party non-profits with charters that forbid them selling the property and requiring them to be maintained as camps for youth activity and then lease them back to BSA.  There's a good reason why places like hospitals have technically separate corporate entities to hold title to property and conduct fund-raising and endowment building activities.

7 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

"The U.S. Marshals Service recovered [39] ...  missing children in Ohio in a two-week stretch as part of an ongoing operation....

.

.

BLM: "Defund the police."

The US Marshals Service is not "the police"; and while I know there are idiots out there advocating the elimination of every law enforcement agency, that's not what most people chanting that phrase are talking about.  They are clearly talking about the local police forces they interact with on a regular basis. 

Not that I think "defund the police" is a reasonable idea, but misrepresenting things doesn't help anyone.

7 hours ago, TAHAWK said:

"A California district attorney is requiring her prosecutors to consider looters’ “needs” when weighing criminal charges against them. The new mandate, set forth by Contra Costa County District Attorney Diane Becton, makes it tougher to prosecute looting cases in the county....I

Investigators must now consider “was this theft offense substantially motivated by the state of emergency, or simply a theft offense which occurred contemporaneously to the declared state of emergency?,” according to the policy reported by local outlet East County Today.
 

In making that determination, they must also consider five other factors, including “was the theft committed for financial gain or personal need?”

The new policy comes amid the swell of protests, looting and riots in the wake of police-involved shootings of black people across the country.

 

I mean, considering the motivations of a crime has always been involved in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.  Someone who steals $100 of diapers and baby formula is pretty much always going to be treated differently than someone who stole a $100 pair of headphones; this DA is simply making the policy formal instead of leaving it up to the discretion of individual ADAs.  I'll grant you that this announcement being made publicly is purely a PR move, but it's not like policies of this sort are somehow an abnormal or absurd action for a DA to take.

10 hours ago, awanatech said:

https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2020/06/24/answering-common-questions-about-the-bsas-commitment-to-act-against-racial-injustice/

Just as a reminder, the BSA stands with and supports Black Lives Matters. Despite the BLM speakers declaring that (law enforcement) officers should have been strangled by their umbilical cords as babies and that the speakers are ready to shoot the officers. Despite the BLM organizers endorsing the rioting and looting, since businesses have insurance to cover their loss.  Despite BLM organizers justifying the looting, by calling it reparations.  In the Bryan on Scouting article linked above, it mentions the Scout Oath & Law.  I guess we are to overlook the Oath & Law when we look at the words and actions of these Black Lives Matters activists?

https://nypost.com/2020/08/13/blm-organizer-who-called-looting-reparations-doubles-down/

Just as a reminder, what the BSA's publication actually said was:

"The Boy Scouts of America stands with Black families and the Black community because we believe that Black Lives Matter." 

In fact the article you linked specifically states they ARE NOT supporting any political viewpoint or organization but that they stand behind the idea that existed before the organization that co-oped the phrase.  Much like someone can stand behind the idea that the USA is best served as a Republic, without supporting the Republicans.

1 hour ago, walk in the woods said:

Nah, Chicago Public Schools have been in the news for two years now after a Tribune investigation exposed the amount of sexual abuse being covered up.  The new bureaucracy created filed over 450 reports in 2019, https://news.wttw.com/2020/01/06/cps-watchdog-opened-450-new-sexual-misconduct-investigations-2019.  Now many of those weren't substantiated but many were.  The school district isn't being pursued by a hoard of ambulance chasers to my knowledge.

Chicago might be something of an exception.  I'd guess that the history of rampant political abuse and corruption there has left the population a little more numb than places that didn't have a R. Daley in their past.

14 hours ago, Sentinel947 said:

They'll just exempt government entities. 

That would probably have worked 5 years ago, but now?  I think those same legislators that are passing these laws due to political pressure would get absolutely lambasted in the media if they tried that.

Honestly, I hope that in one of these states that stupidly removes the Statute of Limitations they get such a massive response of people suing schools and government sponsored youth groups/programs that the rest of the states around the country learn their lesson and a decide not to make such stupid choices.

I'm sure there is plenty of liability out there just waiting with: schools, local recreational sports leagues, former Juvenile detention inmates, children in foster care, juveniles held in adult prisons,

2 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

Your expertise and experience are appreciated. However were not talking about the swimming merit badge, lifesaving merit badge, or BSA Lifeguard.  We are talking about the basic swim check.  Were not talking about middle of the lake swimmers or what someone wants to see.  All we're talking about is the basic swim check.  And without going around the world all of the opinions, variables, and extra requirements, the simple answer is yes, a backyard pool can be used for swim checks.  

Except that without all those pesky details you'd like to ignore, giving someone a blanket "Yes" is about as useful as telling someone:

• You can use a 33 gallon garbage back to carry your gear on a backpacking trip, just throw it over your shoulder;
• You can use bedroom slippers to hike the Appalachian trail;
• You can use a racing bike with skinny tires to ride down a beach;
• You can use your mess kit knife to eat your soup.

2 hours ago, yknot said:

It seems what you're saying is that aside from a very small backyard pool of 20 feet or less, which is very, very small (there are above ground pools bigger than that in my neighborhood), backyard pools are allowed as swim test facilities under the source you cite? 

Personally, I want kids to be safe in water. Stringent requirements are good. My only points are that 1) if it isn't in the requirement, we can't add it, and 2) access to ideal facilities shouldn't limit a scout's ability to meet requirements.

 

This is a tough line to walk between what actually gets the job done and what someone could argue "meets the requirement".  But it's much like dealing with a MBC in that some subjective decision making is inherent in the process. (like how a Communications MBC gets to approve what kind of public meeting the scout can attend)

If I was trying to find an reasonable compromise between "ideal" and "what is the minimum acceptable", I would approach it like this:

1.  If a 75' long or lake/pond is available, that's what should be used.  (Using a less than ideal situation just because someone preferred it wouldn't fly)
2. I wouldn't just use a lifeguard to administer the test.  I'd find a current/formerly trained lifeguard who is also an experienced swimming instructor or swimming coach; someone who was skilled in actually evaluating swimming ability.  While there aren't any specific requirements for the adult who is going to run the test other than their agreement to using the BSA standards, the inferred requirement is that the person actually be competent to discern between swimming strokes that can be sloppy and weak, sloppy but effective and proper but weak and proper and effective.  (This is rather like requiring your adult drivers to actually be safe and knowledgeable drivers, not just licensed.)
3. I wouldn't allow the scout to really push off the wall when turning around.  Even a mediocre shove off the wall is going to propel the scout 5'-6' and with a 25' pool, that would mean over 25% less swimming. (9 laps x 6' per lap)
4. If there was any scout where the administrator had to "think about it" to decide if they passed, I would treat it like the manual does where jumping into deep water isn't possible, I'd consider the "pass" to be provisional, pending a retest in ideal circumstances.  For checking off requirements, the scout would be done, but when it comes to letting them swim at a camp or open swim, they'd need to retest.

Since there is no "one and done" rule when it comes to swimmer tests, I don't think requiring a retest for activities would be problematic.  Besides, basically every swimming pool with lifeguards and a "deep end" is going to have a rule stating that lifeguards can require anyone to take a swim test at any time if there is any question about the person's ability to swim. 

On 7/24/2020 at 4:08 PM, Jameson76 said:

 

Nothing says length, etc.  Just the 100 yards must be done at one time.  Yes 10 laps in a 30' pool could be different, but it is not specifically prohibited

Well, kinda.  See below.

On 7/24/2020 at 5:43 PM, Mrjeff said:

This is just another example of issues, items, restrictions, and additions of specific requirements that are very explicit and are not open to interpretation.   Unfortunatly this happens all the time and has been going on for decades.

Actually, this isn't changing or adding requirements.  It's specifying how the test is to be administered.  See below

On 7/24/2020 at 6:29 PM, yknot said:

 If, as you state, the purpose of the test is to assess stamina, then that can only truly be assessed in open water conditions, because that's the only situation in which that kind of stamina for rescue or survival would be required. A pool test, in flat, temperature controlled static water, would be useless.

The 1st class requirement isn't "Jump in to water... swim 75yards..."; the 1st Class requirement is "Pass The BSA Swimmer Test".  And while the test can be administered by a non-BSA lifeguard, the test administrator is supposed to conduct the test using BSA guidelines.  The guidelines for conducting the BSA Swimming Test are very carefully laid out in the BSA publication "Aquatics Supervision No. 34346" .  In fact, The "Unit Swim Classification Record" specifies this on the second page:

• The swim classification test done at a unit level should be conducted by one of the following council- approved resource people: Aquatics Instructor, BSA; BSA Lifeguard; BSA Swimming & Water Rescue; or certified lifeguard, swimming instructor, or swim coach who is familiar with the process. When the unit goes to a summer camp, each individual will be issued a buddy tag under the direction of the Camp Aquatics Director for use at the camp. Note: Unit Leader signer is knowledgeable of the Swim Test Procedure described in Aquatic Supervision - a leaders guide to youth swimming and boating activities (#34346) and is attesting that he/she has witnessed and agrees that all procedures have been followed.

Here is a link for the relevant chapter :Aquatics Supervision, you want to look at Chapter 5.  This is where there is a detailed breakdown of each portion of the test, what purpose it serves and what a test administrator should be looking for.  These are not "Additional Requirements", these are the criteria that are to be used in determining if the scout has passed the test.  Here are some selected passages that are particularly relevant to understanding the purpose of the test and what's required to pass it:

• If the swimming area available for the test is not quite over the swimmer’s head in depth, or does not provide a platform for jumping into deep water, then a person may be provisionally classified as a swimmer if able to easily bob repeatedly up and down in the water, then level off and begin swimming. (page 38)
• The swimmer must be able to cover distance with a strong, confident stroke. The 75 yards is not the expected upper limit of the swimmer’s ability. The distance should be covered in a manner that indicates sufficient skill and stamina for the swimmer to continue to swim for greater distances. Strokes repeatedly interrupted and restarted are not sufficient. The sidestroke, breaststroke, or any strong over-arm stroke, including the back crawl, are allowed in any combination; dog paddling and underwater strokes are not acceptable. The strokes need to be executed in a strong manner, but perfect form is not necessary. If it is apparent that the swimmer is being worn out by a poorly executed, head-up crawl, it is appropriate for the test administrator to suggest a change to a more restful stroke. A skilled, confident swimmer should be able to complete the distance with energy to spare, even if not in top physical condition. (page 38)
• (Regarding backstroke) It is placed at the end of the distance requirement to emphasize the use of the backstroke as a relief from exertion and may actually be used by some swimmers to catch their breath if they swam the first part more strenuously than needed. The change of stroke must be done without support from side or bottom. (page 38)
• The ideal place to conduct a swim test is a swimming pool with straight stretches of 25 to 50 yards and clear water at least 7 feet deep at the point of entry. Those taking the swimmer test can then be instructed simply to swim either four or two lengths as appropriate. (page 40)
• Very small backyard or apartment pools (less than roughly 20 feet in the maximum direction) are fine for a unit swim, but should be avoided as locations for swim classification tests since likely contact with the sides and bottom during all the turns makes it difficult to judge how well the person can swim. (page 41)

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The important thing to keep in mind with the swimming test is that while basic stroke ability is what we are using for the test, from a Water Safety perspective, the single most important aspect of the test is the swimmer's stamina.  We aren't having them swim 100 yards in order to see if they can do it.  The 100 yards is being swum in order to allow the tester to gauge the swimmer's ability as it relates to their ability to swim safely.  If a scout can complete the 100 yards, but is so wiped out that they need to get out and rest they SHOULD NOT be considered a "Swimmer". 

For anyone responsible for children's safety around water, there are two groups of people that are going to represent the vast majority of their "saves".  The first is kids that go into water deeper than they know they should because their friends are doing it and they don't want to be left out.  When I was in college and worked the city pool, I estimate that at least once every day or two, a lifeguard ended up jumping into the diving well to pull a kid out who had absolutely no idea how to swim, but who jumped off the board anyway because their friends did. (or were pushing them to)

The second problem group is the scariest. (and is the reason the testing instructions repeatedly talk about "strong stroke", being "energetic" after the test and knowing how to go from swimming to floating without needing)  These are kids with basic swimming skills, but limited stamina.  These are the kids that will be out in the deep water splashing around with friends and having a great time, who push the limits of their endurance because they are having fun and don't want to stop.  In the best case scenario, you'll see these kids suddenly start struggling to make any forward progress and getting left behind while their group starts moving away and maybe you can tell them to "come talk to me" so they get a break.  In the worst case scenario, these are the kids that just silently slip underwater.

While it might suck to have to fail a kid that made it 100 yards because they didn't look "energetic" at the end, the nice thing is that if they've got the basic skills to go 100 yards at all, usually all they need to get to the "Swimmer" level is a couple weeks of swimming some laps 2-3 times a week.

P.S.   I just want to mention; my original comments about the inadvisability of using a backyard pool were strictly based upon 10 years being a lifeguard, swim instructor and Aquatics Facilities Manager, which is why I didn't cite any of this the first time.  Only after reading the responses was I inspired to actually search for the official BSA literature on the subject, otherwise I'd have posted all of this the first time.  I wasn't just looking to ambush people after they'd established opinions on the subject.

Quote