Boy Does Not Camp, SM Okay with Advancement

[Venividi 35]

Mark,

I am not trying to be brutal with my comments. Perhaps it is just me being dense. I just see more downside than upside in knowingly advancing a scout that has not met the requirements for advancement.

 

I agree with you that it is not good to "focus on the just the advancement method". Yes, the adult association method, outdoors method, etc. all can be used. Advancement isnt required. But isn't knowingly advancing a scout that has not met the requirements an undue focus on the advancement method? Why is it not the other methods that are being used to keep the scout in the troop?

 

I know it is difficult to sit across from a boy and tell him that therre is still more that he needs to do to catch the brass ring of second class, first class, ... but from experience, I have found that to do so does the boy more good than to knowingly ignore some of the requirements and provide a social promotion. I wouldn't agree that not giving an award that hasn't been earned should be considered a punishment.

 

Note: Like John, questions raised are only retorical. I am not looking for a response. Just using them to raise points for consideration. And again, hope this is not coming across as being brutal.

[anarchist 10]

MarkS,

 

wow, And I thought our last SM and CC were fraud helpers (enablers)...

 

I have a hard time seeing how a boy could complete his tenderfoot or second class requirements with two campouts a year...let alone first class. A couple of years ago we lost several very good (active) scouts who felt the "feel good" advancement policy then favored by the "two biggies" was unfair to scouts who did their work... Example: on the exit interview for my own (youngest) son ...(we try to talk dis-affected scouts into continuing or at least letting us know how we failed to keep their interest) the CC was embarrased to hear him say..."why should I continue to do the work, give up weekends with my other friends, short change other interests because I am expected to do the work, make the effort and you let _______ earn the same rank and he never came to meetings when he was the PL, doesn't know a single knot and hates to camp?"

 

Several of the committee members simply stopped doing BoRs because we refused to accept the "advancement lies" the SM was willing to tell (and the CC was willing to accept) in order to keep the boys advancing...This included giving a life rank to a scout who had not participated in any outdoor program for a full year.

 

It was only a very real program crisis...(boys stopped attending activities and meetings in large numbers because "being active" was seen as paying dues and having a pulse...) that activity drop eventually made the SM see what he (and the CC) had done to the program. SM decided to step down as soon as new blood could be found for his position and the CC is soon to follow...but the damage was done and now we are in a correction and retraining period.

 

Like this country has discovered in the feild of public education..feel good advancement, in the end, does not really help anyone...even the ones allowed to skate by. It also cheapens the program and undermines what we are really trying to do.

 

A coming "Train wreck" is the right discription but it needs to happen...neither the SPL nor the SM has a right to reduce the requirements for advancement...for any reason...even disablities. (And those adjustments in advancement requirements are the duties of higher pay grades than the SM/CC and no one in the troop has the right to alter the advancement requirements because "a mom will not let her boy go camping").

 

This might be considered too blunt or brutal but whatever anyone says, what has been done for that boys "benefit" was wrong and has degraded or cheapened the efforts of every boy who has worked for his rightful advancement...and these boys do understand fairness...sometimes all too well.

 

BoRs do not test or retest...but they are to ascertain that the scout has met the advancement requirements...what part of that is difficult for us to understand...(or SMs and CCs to understand)

 

2 cents worth

Anarchist

[MarkS 11]

Please, let's stop implying that the purpose of the BOR was not understood. I thought I made it clear that it is well understood.

 

However, dicsussing the pros and cons of, applauding (not existant so far) and criticizing (plenty of) the decision to make an exception for one particular boy in order to keep him active in the program is fair game. This was not a decision made in ignorance or without debate. The fact that some boy's would think it wasn't fair was the main reason I was the hesitant to agree on making an exception. As this thread indicates, I certainly don't think this is something that should be done as common practice and has a very real potential for an adverse affect on our program.

 

We can't change the past but can do things better in the future. The extra effort to keep the boy in the program worked but wasn't perfect.

 

He still has a couple other first class requirements that are not signed off yet. So we still have time to get him current on his camping. That will be a priority.

 

If we can't, I still think the best path forward is to use what the boy has learned so far, to help him recognize for himself that he's not ready to advance.(This message has been edited by MarkS)

[Venividi 35]

>>I still think the best path forward is to use what the boy has learned so far, to help him recognize for himself that he's not ready to advance?

[John-in-KC 311]

The problem with making an exception is this: The Scouts will perceive favoritism was shown to one Scout. Perceive it? It's ground truth.

 

That contingency plan Venividi spoke about? It should include:

- What happens when Scout A calls the SM on favoritism at a SM conference.

- What happens when Scout B calls favoritism at a BOR.

- What happens when Mr Smith calls the COR, or worse, the Scout Executive and complains about favoritism in Troop 123.

 

Be prepared. The door's open.

[MarkS 11]

anarchist said, "This included giving a life rank to a scout who had not participated in any outdoor program for a full year."

 

I was willing to make the exception for a situation that is beyond the control of first year scout working Tenderfoot or Second Class in order to get him through that first year and keep him in the program. I'm not willing to do that for a second year scout who starting to advance to ranks of leadership such as First Class and above.

 

John-in-KC asked, What about Character Development, Personal Growth, Obedience, Citizenship and Leadership Development?

 

The boy has to be in the program to teach those, right?

 

I want to do the right thing for the boy without having to refuse to sit in on another BOR where he has not completed his camping requirements while keeping him active in the program.

[Gold Winger 9]

"Once recorded at Council into ScoutNet, there's no going back. Sigh."

 

Urban Myth. When I was Advancement Guy for my son's troop I had a number of things taken out of Scout Net, all it took was a phone call. "Hello, this is Gold Winger. That Life for John Jones last month? Yeah, I sent it in by mistake. Okay, taanks."

[thebigguy 10]

I dont want to come off as telling you to take away his rank. he already has second class weather he deserved it or not.

 

all im saying is that there is no reason to advance a scout to keep him in scouting. a boy can have just as much fun at tenderfoot as one at second or first class. if you have a program it should keep him involved.

 

If he wants to advance in rank, then I guess hes going to have to get dad to help him to convice mommy to let him camp.

[thebigguy 10]

unless he has a valid medical problem and has been granted amended requierments, it is not up to the sm or bor to over look the camping requierment. I guess I did not realize lieing was one of the 12 points of the scout law.

[Lisabob 13]

Mark, I'm kind of surprised here. What were you looking for in terms of responses? What you posted is kind of far off from the written requirements, from the training that many/most of us have had, and from what people accept and expect as the standard. So it should not surprise you that people criticized the situation as they did.

 

In our own unit we also have a couple of boys who don't camp much. One has been holding at tenderfoot for three years because of this. Another scout who just joined, his mom told me she won't allow him to camp for the first year or so. I'm not sure why and I don't think it is a great idea. All the most fun stuff happens at camp outs! But so far I haven't been able to convince her otherwise. In the meantime, we have made very clear to her that her boy is still welcome in the troop (we do have some non-camping activities from time to time), but that he won't be able to advance unless he meets the requirements. I am hopeful that he will realize his peers are having all the fun, and will be able to convince his mom to let him try it too. If not...

 

Scouting is a wonderful program with much to offer. I would like to see all of our members stay with the program until they age out, and then come back as adults (maybe with kids of their own) a couple years down the road. But reality is, scouting is not for every boy or for every family. A boy who can't or won't or doesn't want to go camping might be better served by a church youth group, or an explorer post, or a venture crew that doesn't focus on camping, or the local Y.

 

It might be better to help this boy find a niche in another program where he can be a full participant on his own terms (or on terms "mom" is ok with), rather than put him in a position where he is attaining compromised accolades that even he probably realizes he hasn't quite earned.

 

We all have tough calls to make so I do sympathize with you. But I hope you'll keep thinking about it.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, hmmm...

 

Yeh know, sometimes good people make tough calls, eh? When dealin' with a problem parent, we all just try to do da best we can to work around. If the year in the program had been enough for mom to get to know and trust the adults so the boy started campin' enthusiastically, it would have been a win.

 

That havin' been said, I've seen this a lot, eh? Adults tend to overweight da importance of disappointing a lad or having a lad quit. Kids get disappointed anytime anyone says "no" for anything, eh? It's part of growin' up. Most of the time they don't quit. And if they do, that's an important character buildin' lesson for them, too, eh? "Life will go on without me, it doesn't revolve around me." It's a sure sign an adult is jumpin' off da deep end whenever he/she starts thinkin' that not receiving an award is the same thing as punishment.

 

So yah, da SM blew the call, IMO. A lesson to be remembered, but still water under da bridge.

 

The way out of this little snafu is for the SM to have a conference with the boy and help him grow and give him some direction as to how to meet da requirements. It can be very positive, and establish good rapport for an ongoin' relationship. But it has to be firm, eh? No boys really want an ongoin' relationship with weak adults.

 

I don't think it should go to a BOR unless the boy insists and therefore needs a firm "no." But if it does get there, it should be a firm "no", eh?

 

Beavah

 

[Oak Tree 15]

Mark,

 

I too am surprised that you're surprised. It looks like you posted - looking for support for your position in an upcoming BOR that the boy should not be subject to social advancement. You got that support, in spades. It looks like everyone here agrees that the BOR should not advance the boy. It seems like that you might take that strong support as a positive thing.

 

Now, it happens that we all also think that the BOR shouldn't have advanced the boy in the first place. Yes, it's true, there can be lots of extenuating circumstances. But really, this just doesn't sound like one of those situations that cries out for overriding the rules.

 

I've had boys stay in the troop for four years at Tenderfoot. To me it looks like your SM is making the assumption that if a boy doesn't advance, he won't stay in the program. I'm not sure I get why that would be. Do all of your Scouts earn their ranks at about the same time? Is there a reason one would feel significantly left behind if he didn't advance?

 

So, I'll add my voice to everyone else's. Don't give the Scout another unearned rank. I wouldn't worry about what's in the past - just fix it going forward.

[evmori 11]

Bottom line - this Scout was passed on BOR's for Tenderfoot & 2nd Class without knowingly completing the requirements for each rank. Technically, he should still be a Boy Scout.

 

I was willing to make the exception for a situation that is beyond the control of first year scout working Tenderfoot or Second Class in order to get him through that first year and keep him in the program. I'm not willing to do that for a second year scout who starting to advance to ranks of leadership such as First Class and above.

 

This statement is scary. What it says to me is until you are ready for 1st Class, you will pass your BOR's for Tenderfoot & 2nd Class regardless of what you do. This sounds like First Class First Year ran amok! It also sounds like the leadership of this unit doesn't fully understand they are not allowed to add or subtract from the requirements for rank which they are clearly doing.

 

Like I posted before, stop the fraud now! It is already too late!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[AnneinMpls 10]

"Since joining, have participated in ten separate troop/patrol activities (other than troop/patrol meetings), three of which included camping overnight."

All is not lost

Assuming he's been participating in all the other troop activities that did not involve camping overnight, he could meet this requirement in as little as two months.

The key will be to make the expectation clear to all parties, then involve the boy and his dad in making a plan to meet this and other requirements.

Two more campouts - that's doable! And not a bad goal for a young scout to set.

Anne in Mpls

[Bob White 20]

If the scout was advanced in the past when he had not completed all the requirements then the problem is not how the scoutmaster "feels" about things, but how the board of review members acted. They were wrong to advance a scout if he had not met the requirements.

 

It would be just as wrong to not advance him because you "feel" that he lacks experience. Experience is not a specific requirement for any rank. Here is what the the actual 1st Class requirement is that is relevant to the situation.

 

Since joining, have participated in ten separate troop/patrol activities (other than troop/patrol meetings), three of which included camping overnight.

 

The board is well within their authority and responsibility to ask for documentation that shows the scout's participation in each of the ten required activities.

 

If he was there then he passes the requirement. If not then the board needs to let him know what is left to do. If the board is unwilling to do this then the problem is theirs and not the scoutmaster's. They do more harm to the scout by rewarding him for something he did not do rather than hold him to the same standard as other scouts as set by the BSA. Nor should he be denied advancment based on personal feelings of what someome thinks the scout should have done.

 

He either met the requirements or he did not, and it is the board's responsibility to make that decision based only on the BSA requirements.