New Life Requirement for our Troop.

[Beavah 205]

 

Correctly using the methods of Scouting results in achieving the aims of Scouting.

 

This is a statement of faith, FScouter. Can't argue it, other than to say I don't share your faith. For me and what I've seen, usin' the methods well along with supportive parents and good adult leader selection often results in achieving our aims, especially if we flex a bit to meet the needs of individual boys and programs.

 

Adding an additional requirement is almost an admission by the adult leaders that they are failing to build character and teach leadership and this is an attempt to fix that failure.

 

But this is a bit overbroad, eh? If that were the case, then every year when the BSA changes requirements would be an admission that Scouting is failing to build character and teach leadership.

 

It's important to remember that the Position of Responsibility requirement for Star and Life is not a leadership requirement, eh? Many of the acceptable PORs don't have a leadership component at all similar to what would be expected of a boy for an Eagle project. Maybe this troop is seein' this, and tryin' to help a bit, and when they're successful it's a requirement the BSA will add in the next revision. Those changes come from somewhere, eh?

 

I suspect, though, that the most likely reason is the one you mention - they have recognized a weakness in their program, maybe from SM conferences and BOR's where kids said they didn't feel prepared. That is part of what BOR's are for, eh? Program evaluation. Or maybe they've got youth from a culture or set of circumstances where they really do need more practice than the generic nationwide BSA materials offers.

 

Da point is that judgin' our fellow volunteers without walkin' in their shoes is a dangerous and often (unintentionally) discourteous business. And encouragin' complainin' parents when a program has "incredible" volunteers and is "successful at building character" is the surest way I know to discourage those volunteers and damage the program.

 

[evmori 11]

Gotta agree, FScouter. You are 100% correct!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[FScouter 24]

eh? Your baby talk style makes your posts difficult to read and understand.

 

I have a lot of faith in the Scouting program. It is a proven system that works. BSA has teams comprised of volunteers from all over the country that have worked countless hours developing the BSA programs. Changes and updates are considered, discussed, and debugged for months. Then they're tested in real troops before being finalized and released. Over 90 some years BSA has a program that works.

 

Frankly, I don't believe that any unit leader no matter how incredible he may be can invent methods that are any real improvement over what we already have. Imposing an additional troop requirement for advancement? How arrogant and pompous is that considering the BSA specifically says units may not do so?

[acco40 95]

If we use the real l o n g name "Eagle Scout Leadership Service Project" may clear up some confusion. For Eagle - providing leadership on the service project is required. On others, it is not. It really is that simple.

 

Now for those who like the English language, because leadership is not required for the other ranks does not mean that it is prohibited. It is not required to wear a hat while performing service (unless one is serving food?) but that does not mean a Scout can't wear a hat while performing service. :-)

 

Personal fitness is an aim of Scouting. However, that does not mean a troop may require a Scout to perform x number of push-ups before on receives his first class rank. Regardless if we feel it is beneficial or helps a Scout meet the aims, we promised to deliver the Scouting program which DOES NOT require leadership from a Star Scout for service nor push-ups for 1st Class.(This message has been edited by acco40)

[Lynda J 10]

Forcing a Scout to plan and run a service project as part of his Rank advancement is totally against BSA policy except for Eagle. If you add this requirement your are violating BSA policy.

 

Now do I dislike the idea of doing a project. NO Do I think Scouts should do more service projects yes. But you can not add this requirement to advancement.

 

If I was a parent and your required my son to do this as part of his rank advancement I would be as Council in a heart beat.

 

You can not add or remove Rank requirements. PERIOD.

[FScouter 24]

Barrys idea is good.

 

The Scoutmaster could discuss and develop a plan with the Patrol Leaders Council to encourage boys to take leadership of troop service projects. This may meet the objectives of the adult leaders without imposing a rank requirement.

[gilski 10]

FScouter I have been preaching that system, implementation with wisdom.

 

Eagle74 the hours were approved and he was asked to share the vision with the Scouts.

 

I have not created a stir (except here) in the troop as Chaplin it is my duty to serve and support the troop as well as the SM.

 

This issue can and will be handled from within, again the wisdom provided here is enough to incorporate new skills without adding to a particular requirement.

 

Thanks,

 

Gilski

[OldGreyEagle 5]

This is an Internet Forum about scouting. People who ask for an opinion here should expect to receive a spectrum of answers and if what they post is against BSA policy, they should expect to have that pointed out. I am not sure when quoting policy became a bad thing but some think it is. Adding a Life Scout Leadership Project is not permissible, simply stated thats the end. I would think that in todays climate, the Emergency Prep merit badge should be required and I would think the troop I serve would do a great service to the boy if the troop required it, but we cant no matter how well intentioned the idea.

 

gilski asked and was responded to, I think this internet stuff might catch on

[Region 7 Voyageur 10]

A similar idea for adding to the Life Scout requirement was brought up at a troop committee meeting I attended several years back. I read to the committee the pages on "Selecting Leadership Service Projects" in the requirements book and the discussion ended with no added requirement.

 

This may be found in the current 2006 edition of the requirements book on pages 20 & 21.(This message has been edited by Region 7 Voyageur)

[Hunt 11]

I think sometimes the adult troop leaders become disgusted with some aspect of the boy led activities, and there is a strong impulse to add requirements. This happened in my son's troop, when the patrol "cooking" deteriorated to such a degree that adults wanted to require the Cooking MB for the higher ranks. I pointed out that you couldn't really require it, but you could encourage it--the "requirement" sort of faded away, and as far as I know, only one boy actually obtained the Cooking MB as a result of this emphasis (mine). Cooking has improved, at least a little.

[LongHaul 10]

Been busy with the earning a living thing. Noticed that no one responded to my example of a boy who gets paid to do his service project. So I'll ask straight up all those who have solidly said approving only Life projects which show leadership would be adding to the requirements, would you approve a service project which was landscaping which the boy was being paid to do? He would be providing 6 hours of service to others just as written. Approve or Disapprove. Would you approve the same project if the boy was not being paid and the service was to people other than his own family or friends.

LongHaul

[evmori 11]

Who is the service project for? Is this part of his summer time job? Why is he being aid?

 

Does this service project fit

 

Leadership service projects shall be meaningful service not normally expected of a Scout as a part of his school, religious, or community activities.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt 11]

I would say that paid work is not a "service project" at all. That isn't adding to the requirement--it's giving a sensible meaning to the words "service project." I don't think anybody is claiming that the SM shouldn't apply any interpretation to the requirement at all, but simply that he shouldn't add conditions--in this case, turning the Life service requirement into a mini-Eagle project. I can imagine a SM rejecting proposed service projects as being inadequate for various reasons, but he shouldn't be setting preconditions like showing leadership. For one thing, that would mean that helping on another scout's Eagle project would never count for Life, and that is clearly wrong.

[LongHaul 10]

Ed,your quote referres to Leadership service projects, your position is that requireing leadership is adding to the requirements can't have it both ways.

Hunt, the issue under debate here is whether a SM can impose conditions which are not specifically stated. You say a SM should not impose conditions but the requirement makes no reference to what should and should not be approved as a service project.

Bad internet connection sorry.

Specifics are left up to the SM. What qualifies as an acceptable service project? Is the SM forbidden from requireing more from a Star Scout than a First Class Scout? The requirement staes at least 6 hours, does that men the SM can set a 20 requirement? Does at least mean no more than? Some are so ready to declare "adding to the requirement" that they fail to examine the actual facts. We all know what we are trying to accomplish in being leaders and sometimes read things into the words or fail to read the words to suit our goals. What I would like to discuss is how we interprete the written word consistantly. Unless National puts out a diffinitive list of acceptable projects it's the SM's choice to approve or not approve. Saying service is service and that the requirements for approval for Life should not exceed the requirements for approval for Second Class, except for duration, is an individual interpretation. In the end the wriiten requirment states that the SM must approve the project before it is done, it sets no other conditions. The requirements do not say that service projects shall not become more involved or demanding as the boy progresses in rank. The requirements set a minimum hour limit but do not set a difinitive hour limit. That is to say a service project lasting six hours is not necessarily acceptable as a Life project even though it may have been acceptable as a Star project. The requirements just don't say that even though some interperate them that way.

LongHaul(This message has been edited by LongHaul)

[evmori 11]

Take out the word leadership & that's what a service project should be. It is up to the SM to approve the project prior to starting. And the service project might be an annual Troop project or Beaver Day.

 

Here's the requirements

 

For the Second Class rank, a Scout must participate in a service project or projects approved by his Scoutmaster. The time of service must be a minimum of one hour. This project prepares a Scout for the more involved service projects he must perform for the Star, Life, and Eagle Scout ranks. (Source: 33088D - page 26)

 

 

For Star and Life ranks, a Scout must perform 6 hours of service to others. This may be done as an individual project or as a member of a patrol or troop project. Star and Life service projects may be approved for Scouts assisting on Eagle service projects. The Scoutmaster approves the project before it is started. (Source: 33215F - page 20)

 

Pretty straight forward.

 

Ed Mori

Troop

1 Peter 4:10