returning for eagle

[nolesrule 58]

I know it's just one person's opinion, but I'm in agreement with it so I'll just quote the latest Ask Andy column...

 

'Further, the BSH (p. 187) states: "Your rate of advancement depends on your interest, effort, and ability," and also (p. 14) states: "...you can advance at your own pace..." There is no statement anywhere in BSA literature or handbooks that even remotely suggests that one's adult leaders will determine or influence a Scout's advancement pace.'

 

BSH = Boy Scout Handbook

 

If the boy is registered with the troop and he has not yet reached age 18, he's eligible to work on his advancement. You can try to use your "lack of attendance" reasoning on the active requirement, as seems your wont, but you cannot apply that to the other requirements. Attendance just isn't necessary to work on merit badges or to carry out the service project.

 

There also seems to be this impression that he must be "active" (by some arbitrary definition) all the time, or for the 6 months just before the board of review, but that's just not the case. The active requirement for rank can occur anytime between one board of review and the next, no matter how many years between them. Heck, he can even be unregistered for years after being "active" for 6 months, re-register 2 months before he turns 18, complete the remaining requirements and have his board of review.

 

Again, there seems to be all this focus on Eagle Scout, but it's just another rank. Would there be this much to-do if he had come back before his 18th birthday to earn Tenderfoot, or Second Class, or First Class, or Star, or Life?

 

The Eagle Charge or Eagle Challenge or any other text read at an Eagle Court of Honor, while it may have some personal meaning to the Eagle Scout, is just text to make the Eagle Scout Court of Honor more solemn and officious, yet it's not even official program materials.

 

And yes, I am proud of having earned Eagle Scout, despite what I wrote. I consider it one of my greatest achievements as a youth, but let's keep it in perspective, it's an award for completing requirements. Yes, it is a recognition of skill and character and of being an example to others. When you complete the requirements, you've achieved all those things and should be recognized for it.

 

Turning away a boy for an arbitrary reason is not character building, and can have a lasting negative impact on the individual for no apparent reason. Don't advocate throwing one of the good ones under the bus for DOING HIS BEST-- there's been nothing put forth to dispute he is one of the good ones, and nothing put forth to suggest he was not doing his best. The time for telling him he'd need to do better was 12 months ago when he met with his scoutmaster regarding his future attendance.

 

Eagle Scout is not a job interview where only the best one gets the job.

 

Finally, if you are using advancement to force participation you have the program backwards.(This message has been edited by nolesrule)

[Beavah 205]

Yah, I always get a chuckle out of Andy. There is no statement anywhere in BSA literature or handbooks that even remotely suggests that one's adult leaders will determine or influence a Scout's advancement pace.' What a hoot! Has the man never seen a quality unit application? "It is important that the troop committee and Scoutmaster set an advancement goal for the year. A basic goal should be for each Scout to Advance a rank during the year. New Scouts should earn the First Class rank during their first year in the troop." That's in ACP&P, SMH, TCG, etc. etc.

 

Somebody should also let Andy know that "Do your best" is a Cub Scouting program standard, eh?

 

Boy Scouting advancement is different. It places a series of challenges in front of a scout that are fun and educational. Meeting the challenges should allow the boy to achieve the Aims of Boy Scouting - character, fitness, and citizenship.

 

So we have to ask ourselves as we implement advancement in our units, "Does the way we are doing this really build character, fitness, and citizenship?" If not, then we aren't doing Boy Scouting advancement properly, and we're shortchanging the kids we've promised to serve. "Does advancement in our troop really provide a challenge? A fun challenge?" if not, then we're not keepin' our promise to the lads.

 

Boy Scoutin' helps boys develop self-confidence by measuring up to an external challenge or standard. Not "do your best" like in Cub Scouts, but "meet this challenge." A Boy Scout badge recognizes what a young man is able to do, it is not a reward for what he has done in the past. And all Boy Scouting advancement must be administered in light of the Aims.

 

Where'd all that come from yeh ask? Why, the Rules & Regulations, ACP&P, and our many other program documents of course.

 

So the question I think ASM206 is askin' is one that we all need to ask ourselves and our COs - "what do we think represents good character and citizenship?" Being present, participating in the community, contributing positively? Arguin' each requirement so as to do the bare minimum? (hey, attorneys and bureaucrats have to come from somewhere, eh?).

 

Then whatever each unit's view of citizenship is, it should be reflected in all da ranks, not just Eagle. Ask Andy always gets at least half of his blog right, and he's right about that. I always tell units that if they're disappointed in their Eagle Scout candidates, they need to focus on their expectations for 2nd Class, First Class, and Star. ASM206 should start with his young fellows going for those ranks, with a vision for what they should be when they become Eagles.

 

Beavah

 

[nolesrule 58]

There's a big difference between shaping your program to assist the scouts with their T-2-1 advancement/encouraging advancement and forcing boys to get their books signed and attend boards of review.

 

Some of the lines on the quality unit form are about meeting numbers, not necessarily about a quality program (correlation does not equal causation, and all that jazz).

 

 

asm206 asked what to do. You either encourage him to complete the goals he has set for himself, or you give him the DE's phone number so he can find a troop that will meet his needs.

 

But don't sacrifice him to improve attendance with younger scouts. That might just backfire on you with the other boys, especially if any of them have respect for the older boy.

 

 

 

Yes, I have an issue with adults using negative reinforcement, which is how I see this whole question being spun. It goes back to an experience I had with a teacher in high school. Perhaps I'll tell the story at some point, but it's late and I need to get some sleep.

[Beavah 205]

But don't sacrifice him to improve attendance with younger scouts.... Yes, I have an issue with adults using negative reinforcement, which is how I see this whole question being spun

 

Yah, I reckon this is just my personal learning disability, eh?

 

I just can't learn to think that not giving a kid an award is negative reinforcement.

 

For me, giving kids awards is positive reinforcement. Positive reinforcement is the whole point of the advancement method. We give boys awards for achieving something substantial and worth rewarding. We recognize them as special for how they've developed their skills and character. We go out of our way to say how special it is because such a small percent of scouts merits our highest award, so as to make the positive reinforcement even stronger.

 

If da award (any award!) is really an entitlement, so that not giving a boy the award is "sacrificing him" through negative reinforcement, then the award is useless for positive reinforcement. Everyone who wants gets the award for being registered unless the adults are mean, nasty louts. If everyone gets one, it ain't worth striving for.

 

There's nothing wrong with not getting an "A" in Chemistry, not earning a Varsity letter, or not earning Life Scout. We'd like to think if most boys work hard enough they can do any of those things, eh? And we hold out that positive reinforcement to get them to work hard and build skills. But there is somethin' wrong if a lad earns an "A" in Chemistry just for being registered in the class, or earns a Varsity letter for showin' up to one practice a week and no weekend games. It means the adults are failing to use positive reinforcement properly, so the award isn't helping boys grow.

 

ASM206 did ask what to do, eh? There are all kinds of options besides those two. The boy has almost 6 months. I think a good one might be that yeh sit with him, say that you're glad he's got renewed interest, and talk about what Scout Spirit really means. Ask him if he wants to be the guy who just wants to get his medal and move on, or whether he really cares about the troop and the example he's setting for the younger guys. When he goes before his ECOH, does he want those younger fellows to look bored and roll their eyes ("Who is this guy?"), or does he want them to be cheerin' ("I know him! He's so cool! I want to be that kind of Eagle Scout!"). Then set him up as a JASM and see if he walks the walk between now and November.

 

In other words, set the boy a challenge to achieve that leads to real personal growth. And if he achieves that growth and character, recognize it with an award to reinforce it for him and for others.

 

Dat's how the Advancement Method in Boy Scouting works, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[nolesrule 58]

"I just can't learn to think that not giving a kid an award is negative reinforcement. "

 

Who said anything about "giving" the kid an award? We're talking about preventing him from earning it by not allowing him to complete the remaining requirements. I consider that a huge difference.

 

It is negative reinforcement when you can say, "if you don't show up to our meetings, we're not going to let you ear rank, regardless of whether you actually complete requirements" and then hold this kid up as the example. We're not talking about someone who spent meeting nights committing vandalism, he was working.

 

"There's nothing wrong with not getting an "A" in Chemistry, not earning a Varsity letter, or not earning Life Scout."

 

Very true. But if you put in the work necessary according to the criteria set forth, you've earned that "A", that letter or that rank. While none of these (other than Life Scout or a college chemistry class) are apt analogies to working on Eagle, this is like not allowing the kid to sit for the final exam or knocking off a letter grade in chemistry due to an undisclosed attendance policy.

 

 

You keep making it sound like he's never done anything for the troop his entire scouting career, then disappeared for a year, and now is back to finish up the last remaining requirements to earn Eagle (the project and Personal Management merit badge).

 

We're talking about a 17.5 year old Life Scout. What was he doing for the troop for 5 years while earning those ranks? Sitting on his butt? Nah, unless some evidence is presented to the contrary. He earned 20+ merit badges, served in PORs for at least 16 months, plus all the other requirements along the way. During the last year, he didn't disappear, he didn't even abandon the troop. He told his scoutmaster in advance (a year ago) that he wouldn't be able to make many meetings or activities because he got a job, it was the school year, and obviously it required him working evenings. Yet he still managed to show up once a month, and when he did he was "helpful" (darn that pesky Scout Law).

 

Why didn't the scoutmaster address this 12 months ago when he was completely up-front with his scoutmaster about his ability to attend meetings? Why wasn't it addressed at any of the 13 meetings he did attend? Perhaps then he would have been able to re-prioritize his own family, school, employment and scouting lives to align better align with some unverbalized expectations.

 

Anyway why'd the scoutmaster let him work on Personal Management merit badge if they were going to not let him work on an Eagle Scout project? Are they not going to award him the merit badge when he completes the requirements?

[nolesrule 58]

The Eagle project workbook requires 3 signatures, unit leader, committee and district. The signatures are for pre-approving that the project is worthy of an Eagle project. They aren't a referendum on a scout's attendance the previous 12 months.

[Beavah 205]

I really didn't intend any special emphasis on the word "giving," since I used it in da following paragraph too. Substitute "awarding" if yeh like.

 

I think it's just fine for nolesrule's troop and CO to choose to do what he suggests, eh? To say "Hey, we have no problem with him being absent this last year and putting his part-time job as a priority." They think that shows fine character and scout spirit and merits an award. I'd support them in that approach. I might even agree with 'em.

 

I also think it's just fine for ASM206's CO and unit to say "No, we believe that citizenship and character demand active participation, and that's the example we want to set." To satisfy all da pink book lawyers out there, they might then cite the Rules & Regulations and say that the lad is only on Associate Member status right now, and to proceed with advancement they expect him to return to Active status. I'd support them in that approach. I might even agree with 'em.

 

I think it's OK if another troop feels very strongly about the issue and lays out its expectations in advance, and drops the lad's membership for being inactive. That is, after all, what most other high school extracurricular programs would do, eh? I'd support them in that approach, though I might not agree with 'em.

 

I think it's fine if a troop or CO feels that their goal is to get boys to move through the ranks quickly, adhering to the minimums to develop a habit of obedience and guided achievement. There are a fair number like that, eh? Some that do it because their program continues with Varsity or Venturing to further develop other aspects of character. I'd support them in that approach, though I might not agree with 'em.

 

There's all kinds of ways of approachin' this, eh? No one right or wrong way, no one "BSA Approved way." I know fine troops that use each of these approaches and more. The outcomes they get for kids depend on their choices. So ASM206's unit should select the outcomes they want. What's their CO's and unit's vision of da Aims? Remember, every other boy and parent is watching. What they choose to recognize and award tells everyone in their program what they value, what they feel is worth the challenge and the striving for.

 

The only thing dat itches my fur a bit is settin' the bar substantially lower than other high school aged activities, and then claimin' that Eagle Scout is as (or more) valuable than those activities. To me, that's just dishonest. So if a troop makes a big deal about earnin' Eagle Scout, celebrates it as a fantastic accomplishment with Eagle Charges and formal ceremonies and letters from da governor and such, then I think they have a duty to make their expectations for achieving that honor match up with their rhetoric.

 

Or if we feel that a boy should get an award as long as he's a nice dues-paying fellow who shouldn't be punished for anything, then we should also be honest and say that Eagle is not somethin' appropriate for a resume, college application, or banquet.

 

Beavah

 

[John-in-KC 311]

I'm beginning to see something here: Forget the Active=Registered debate for a moment.

 

If a young man leaves the nest of the Troop, say at 16, and recharter comes aroung, then unit serving Scouters have a choice: The can choose to re-register him, and keep his official association with the Troop going.

 

Otherwise, they can choose to drop the Scout from the Charter: While active may not equal registered, inactive can = removed from charter can = not a member of the Boy Scouts of America.

 

At that point, the unit serving Scouters have some small degree of control over the young man... they don't necessarily have to accept his rejoining youth member app.

 

Youth membership can be something of a two-way street.

[nolesrule 58]

John, that's part of my point. The whole active = registered argument (regardless of which side anyone falls on it) isn't even relevant to this discussion because the only requirement where it applies to ranks is tenure and POR, both of which had already been completed at some point prior. But this issue has gone on for a year. At some point they went through a recharter and had the opportunity to drop him from the troop roster and then not accept his application when he tried to re-register. The troop chose to keep him on as a member.

 

The other part is that he had the discussion about his attendance with his scoutmaster a year ago-- before he stopped showing up regularly. Nothing was said AT THAT TIME about this issue not being good enough. Nothing was said at the 12 or so troop meetings he attended where he was being "helpful" over the course of that year. Plenty of opportunities for a scoutmaster conference on this issue, or maybe even a non-advancement board of review. For the last year, he had every expectation that he could continue his advancement process until his 18th birthday, because his registration never lapsed and he was not informed that he could not continue his advancement opportunities. Now that he's had a chance to resume while school is out, they want to tell him he can't finish what he started?

 

And what's their reason? Is it that he's not worthy of being an Eagle Scout? Nope. It's so they can make an example out of him in order to ensure their other scouts show up to meetings. Are you kidding me?

 

This whole scenario is deceptive and manipulative (and yes, I'm going for the negative connotation there) and conflicts with more than one point of the Scout Law...at least 4 by my count.(This message has been edited by nolesrule)

[desertrat77 1144]

I recommend helping the scout earn Eagle.

 

True, he may not have been to all the meetings and such. But he's got work ethic and scout spirit, two important qualities.

 

 

[Beavah 205]

This whole scenario is deceptive and manipulative (and yes, I'm going for the negative connotation there) and conflicts with more than one point of the Scout Law...at least 4 by my count.

 

Yah, we're always so good at seein' fellow scouters as being ugly, bad, deceptive, manipulative, unscoutly trolls around here.

 

Da facts in evidence don't support the conclusion.

 

Yah, sure, a troop can choose to drop everyone who falls below its definition of active from it's roster. In which case the lad gets dumped from all chance of advancing a year ago. Some troops choose to do that (I think it was my third or fourth option above). I suppose it makes it all neat and tidy for da folks who spend their nights on campouts readin' ACP&P.

 

Me, I'd just as soon keep da light on for the lad, make him welcome at the few meetings he shows up for. There's no reason he shouldn't continue to think of his troopmates, young and old, as friends.

 

But that's not da same thing as feelin' he's ready to be given an award for his character and scouting spirit, or held up as an example to da younger fellows and the community. I'd keep the light on for a lad who was strugglin' with drug addiction myself, but that doesn't mean I'd recommend him for Eagle.

 

Happily, I'm pretty sure that it doesn't have to be a choice between the two. I listed at least five options that I've seen troops use pretty well, and I know a few dozen others. Yeh just pick one that makes sense for your CO and your adult leaders and your boys, eh?

 

Yah, sure, some adults and CO's really value da notion of commitment. That's not unreasonable since every other youth organization which gives out awards expects it. Other adults or CO's may not share that same value, and choose to run their units differently to achieve different character goals.

 

Of course, my role in Scoutin' these days is to help a wide variety of COs and unit leaders use the program to advance their own values and goals, eh? So my perspective is just different. Unit leaders by and large are proud of their troops, and naturally feel their way is always the best way!

 

Only thing that's not OK is if da two of 'em forget all those things about bein' Reverent and Courteous and Kind and Friendly and Clean and start accusin' each other of being bad people. That never serves Scouting or boys well.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[theysawyoucomin' 10]

Until National comes out with more specific guidance we are all just left to arguing this situation.

 

I have the same deal with a kid that did his Firefighter 1 certification. Would he have been a firefighter is he missed 4 months of classes?

 

Why do we allow him to earn Eagle when his participation is bad.

He earned it but only because there is no better National standard. I sat on the BOR and felt that I saved a lot of time with appeals. The kid's mother was so self righteous she would not have quit.

 

HEY NATIONAL UP THE STANDARD AND THE BOYS WILL ADHERE TO IT!!!!!!

 

back to the original: 25% one meeting a month. I would be happy with that.

[dg98adams 18]

* The boy told the scoutmaster he wouldn't attend a lot of meetings due to his work schedule. When he does attend he is helpful.

 

* He has been working on personal management for the past month.

 

If he can get his Eagle requirements/workbook/project completed assuming he has fulfilled his POR for life, the only thing to say is:

 

"A lack of planning on your part, does not make it an emergency on my part." And go from there providing support.

 

 

[sherminator505 10]

I say work with the kid! It seems from what I'm reading that although his time for Scouting has become very limited, he is making a genuine effort, which is A LOT more than can be said about some other Eagle candidates I've read about on these forums.

[qwazse 4342]

Award Eagle to any boy who meets the requirements to the letter. (That includes providing evidence of noble character outside of the troop. E.g. working to help mum with finances.)

 

For the boys who have excellent attendance, give them a certificate (with coupons to the scout shop if you think it would help).

 

Remember that 25% attendance four 4 years amounts to more meetings than 100% attendance for six months.