4th Grade Webelos wants to cross with 5th grade bother

[acco40 95]

To "crossover" one has to join a Boy Scout troop. To do this he has to be at least 10 years old and no older than 18 and meet the following: be at least 11 or earn AOL or complete the fifth grade. Also, to become a Scout (not a rank) he must meet the joining requirements listed in the Boy Scout Handbook (something that is often overlooked).

 

To earn the AOL the Cub Scout must be active in his Webelos den for at least 6 months since completing the fourth grade or for at least six months since becoming 10 years old, and earn the Webelos badge along with many other non-age/grade based requirements.

 

So a 4th grade Cub Scout may not earn the AOL unless he is at least 10.5 years old (August of 2007 for this example) as stated by SWScouter.

 

Of course, he would also need a willing troop to accept him. This is what is in the realm of possibility. All the other emotional issues (should he?, is his father just looking for convenience?, etc.) is for the parties of interest to determine.

 

 

[Oak Tree 15]

greenSM,

 

You ask "Why are so many scouters so intent on bending and distorting not only the rules but the entire program? "

 

First off, I'll say that I don't see any Scouters on this thread who are advocating bending the rules. Other threads, yes, but not here. But nevertheless, I'll go ahead and answer your question, based on a previous thread on this forum.

 

Herewith, the canonical reasons why people bend the rules (a collaborative effort):

 

1. The rule is unjust. (I think this can justify even secretly disobeying a rule--such as failing to turn over Jews to the Nazis and lying aboout it).

 

2. The purpose for the rule clearly does not apply to the particular situation. (This may be the case with Kahuna's visit to the waterfront. Another simple one might be the requirement to "take a number" when there is nobody else waiting.)

 

3. The rule is routinely violated and rarely enforced. (This is probably the true reason most people speed a few mph over the limit.)

 

4. The rule is silly. (Perhaps the fact that although it is shaped like a pocket flap, a Tot'n Chip is not supposed to be worn on the pocket flap of the uniform.)

 

5. The rule is inconsequential, and the consequences of violating it are too small to matter. (This is in the eye of the beholder, of course--perhaps wearing green socks that are identical to Scout socks, but without the red stripe, under long pants.)

 

6. The rule is inconvenient. (Ignoring two-deep leadership because a second adult wasn't available would be an example.)

 

7. You just think you know better than the people who make the rules. (Taking scouts to play laser tag or paintball, maybe.)

 

7a. The person really does know better than the rulemaker, because of unique personal expertise, or insufficient time/attention paid by the rulemaker.

 

8. Following the rule will cause one person to be singled out/embarrassed (I've seen this happen, in a case where #5 (inconsequential) also applied, in my judgement) This might be similar to #1 (unjust), although it's not that the rule itself is unjust, it's just that the penalty for breaking the rule is unjustly out of proportion.

 

9. Other substantial negative consequences to following the rule (maybe, in Cub Scouts, one family's tent collapses during a rainstorm in the middle of the night, and they move in with another family who has a large tent.) This might be a version of #6 (inconvenient), but just calling it "inconvenient" may not capture the effort/consequences of following the rule. When I hear "inconvenient", I think that someone is just trying to avoid some work, but the effect of following the rule might be more than that. Another example might be when a pack is going camping, but their one BALOO trained individual gets sick on the day of the trip. Following the rule may require cancelling the trip, affecting the plans of dozens of families. That would be more than inconvenient. And if there is another capable leader ready, the consequences of violating the rule may be too small to matter (a version of #5).

 

10. It's the spirit of the rule that matters, not the letter of the rule (maybe allowing a couple who has been together for 15 years, but isn't technically married, to share the same tent)

 

11. There is an overriding reason of a health or safety emergency (often comes up in these discussions, but is non-controversial in reality, as everyone tends to agree it's ok to break a rule to save a life). Possibly a subset of #2.

 

12. The rules suck all the fun out of the activity. (maybe the rule is you have to listen to a one-hour safety lecture before firing a bb-gun. Or, at a local camp-o-ree, here are the local rules, which were thought up by someone who seemed to have no experience with actual Scouts)

 

13. The rules, as written, appear to be bizarrely complex (say, doing a flight plan with all its details, for a program run by Young Eagles). This is also the effect that the local "Camp Nazi" had on some of the parents in my pack when she came by at the camp-o-ree and ran down her checklist of all the rules we were supposedly violating.

 

14. The rulemaker exceeded his authority in making the rule.

 

Oak Tree