Advancement - what is "active"?

[Bob White 20]

I am happy for Ed if he feels he has a firm grasp on the word active. If only leadership was that simple.

 

My conversation is with ps56k. As he and I discuss the matter I think he will discover the scouting solution. You are welcome to listen in and talk with hinm as well.

 

BW

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Scoutmaster Ron 12]

Ask the individual scout what he considers active, believe me he wont advance anyway if he's not there..hence he will not be considered for leadership positions out of site out of mind. The troop I'm serving has gone from 23 to 10 within the past 4 months due to 50-50 active rule and not allowing females to go on outings.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I am very much against defining Active with some percentage number. Lets say Troop A has a 75% attendance at meetings and 50% of events policy and Troop B has a 50% Meeting and events policy and Troop C has no numerical formula. In Troops A and B scouts routinely drop out and do not advance and look back on their scouting careers and think, boy, I wish I had done more in scouts but with band and baseball (etc) I couldn't fit it in. Then there is Troop C. They have scouts who are active at different times of the year and then arent so active. These scouts advance when they show up and do the requirements. They can look back at their scout career and think, wow, scouts were fun and I was able to do all those other things as well. The added kicker is if any of the scouts of A, B, or C earn Eagle, they earn Eagle. There is no asterisk attached to any of the Eagle Certificates delineating the attendance record of the scout.

 

But, I digress, the question at hand is how to define active. Here is how I look at it. To advance in ranks up to and including first class, certain requirements have to be met. Shopping, Cooking, Camping, attendance at a set amount of troop activities. When the scout accomplishes these requirements, I think you have to say the scout was active; after all, he accomplished all the requirements that were presented to him.

 

Now, when a scout is First Class, things do get interesting, in order to advance he has to complete (make that satisfactory complete) a position of responsibility for at least 4 months. As is normal all the requirements say the scout is to be an active member of the troop, patrol ect, to advance. Now, I dont think a scout can satisfactory complete 4 months in a position of responsibility for 4 months and still not be defined as an active scout. The key is the way the position of responsibility is handled. The scoutmaster or designee goes over the job description with the scout and assures the duties and expectations are understood. On a periodic basis the scoutmaster or designee reviews the scouts performance and highlights strengths and they talk about how to improve weaknesses. When the four months is through, there is no question that the scout was active, he had to be to complete his job. Then the scout becomes Star and a six-month Position of Leadership is required. Again, the job description is reviewed, the expectations set and the monitoring begins. After six months, if the job is done well, the scout had to be active. The Scout is now Life and in another 6 months he could be Eagle, the cycle being followed again.

 

Lets say a scout joins a troop on his 11th birthday. Its a really happening troop and he goes through the ranks and becomes a first class scout on his 12 th birthday. In 4 months he becomes Star and 6 months later Life and indeed 6 months after that, when he is 13 and 4 months old he reaches Eagle. He has satisfactorily completed the requirements. He held three positions of responsibility and always understood the expectations and always met them. He attends 90% of the meetings and 80% of the events. Then after his Eagle Court of Honor, he is never seen again. Well, he is seen, just not as a scout. He completed his requirements and in Irving, he is listed as an Eagle.

 

Then you can have another scout. One of many interests and an eclectic lad by nature. He also joins at 11, and he takes one year to make first class. But then after his 4 months stint as historian, satisfactorily completed, it takes him another 12 months to accomplish the required merit badges for Star. After earning Star he drops out of sight for 6 months and them comes back, assumes the Quartermaster position and goes great for 6 months then when his stint is over, it takes him another 6 months of spotty attendance but he makes Life. Then it takes him 18 months to make Eagle with 6 months of solid ASPL work, but due to band and baseball, little else. It takes the second scout considerably longer to achieve Eagle, but as both met the requirements, in Irving the names are in the same file, under Eagle Scouts. Was the second scout as active as he could have been? No, Was the first scout? No, But if they both met the requirements, and performed them satisfactory, so I would say they were both active.

 

[evmori 11]

Where did you get your numbers from, Bob?

 

And if your conversation is ONLY with ps56k, I suggest you PM him. Then you two can talk alone. Otherwise, I am just as entitled to post here as you are. I would PM this to you but the last time I PM'd you it ended up here so I figured why waste the time.

 

You can't see past your books to answer the question posed!

 

Active is not well defined by the BSA. Maybe they wanted it that way to allow for flexibility. I don't know. What I do know is I do follow the BSA program. I just don't follow the Bob White program.

 

If you don't like my posts, Bob, block them!

 

Scouter Terry,

I apologize for this tirade and will accept whatever restrictions you dole out. I will not sit by and be ridiculed for no reason.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Adrianvs 10]

Bob,

 

Putting aside whatever arcane feud between yourself and Ed that has surfaced itself here, I would like your input on the question of "active." With all due respect, there is not much of a conversation going between you and Ps56k. I believe that you do have some more insight into the "active" question, but you haven't given any of it yet. Do you have anything more or not?

 

Is there more than the word "active" than what we have said? Don't tell us to "recall our training" and somehow cognize the correct answer in virtue of that recollection. We are asking because we have already done this and seek further understanding of how to apply the principle to actual situations. At least tell us HOW Ed is wrong on this point; it might give us some clue as to what a proper understanding is. You seem to say that Ed is wrong in thinking that "active" is open to interpretation. Fine, it is NOT open to interpretaion. That means that there is ONE PROPER interpretation.. WHAT IS IT???

 

Ron and OGE have given seemingly good advice and guides for making this decision. What is you opinion? It seems to me that they agree with Ed that "active" is open to interpretation depending on the circumstances.

 

Yes, Ed is being a jerk or whatever. Even so, please answer the question to the best of your ability. I don't think that Ps56k is willing to play your investigative question game. Sometimes the teacher must abandon the Socratic method and just give a good lecture. I think that we can handle the information in its pure form. Can you give it out?(This message has been edited by Adrianvs)

[dan 10]

evmori wrote If you don't like my posts, Bob, block them!

The last time he did that, you whined about it in just about every other post! Because he could not see you and your buddies slams against him.

 

Adrianvs wrote Sometimes the teacher must abandon the Socratic method and just give a good lecture. I think that we can handle the information in its pure form.

 

Bob White has quoted and explained and gets slammed for it, so he tries to get other posters to think and find the reference, and now you whine and scream about that!

 

I like the info straight with no sugar coating, but it seems most of you cannot take it without someone sugar coating it for you.

 

ps56k

Stick around it is possible to get good info from this site, once you decide which posters have the goods.

[Hunt 11]

I'd like to commend OGE for demonstrating how to respond to a question like this on the merits. He answered the question of how should a troop measure active, and I agree with his analysis.

 

The issue of how BSA wants troops to do this is a different one, and harder to answer. The Handbook is vague, and this isn't spelled out in other advancement-related documents I've seen. I'm not aware of any document in which the various advancement requirements are analyzed and explained in detail by BSA--if there is something like that, I'd sure like to have a copy. I suppose BSA may deliberately leave some of these things somewhat vague, to allow units leeway to make their own interpretations, but that can lead to some pretty bad decisions.

[goodkidsmom 10]

As is clear from the posts above, it's relative. Pardon me for being grumpy here, but this one touches a sore spot because of the SM of our former troop. For GoodKid, about a dozen campouts (not a dozen nights, a dozen events) and participation in about a dozen service projects, all in a year (most in about 9 months), wasn't active, according to the SM. Most of those had been during the previous summer/fall and GoodKid had slowed down in the winter months (think school and homework and colds/flu), so SM said his recent participation wasn't enough. On the other hand the same SM considered far less than that to be active participation for a scout who had moved out of state months ago, and came back just for his SM Conf and BOR once the calendar said his time was up. Go figure.

GKM

[PNScouter 10]

I like OGE's discussion on the topic. It was right on.

 

Eagles Rock.

 

I used to be and eagle.

[EagleInKY 14]

I believe OGE was spot-on in his analysis. A boy can be "active", and meet the requirements for Eagle, and still not live up to the level of "active" that many may expect of an Eagle Scout. However, both scouts may have been extremely valuable to their troop during the period of time that they were active. We certainly don't want to discourage these young men from participating to whatever extent they may participate.

 

When I think about active, I often look at the first year program. To advance to First Class, he must participate in 10 activities or events (not meetings). I figure most troops have 5-6 events per quarter (3 campouts, 1 COH, 1 Service project, 1 other activity). That means, in order to meet this requirement during the first year, the scout only has to attend about 1/2 of the activiites.

 

However, I don't believe a scout that only attends 1/2 of the activities will make First Class during the first year. Unless a troop repeats the advancement work 2 or 3 times a year, the likelihood is that a boy that makes it to only 1/2 of the events will not get taught and tested on the requirements for everything through First Class. The point is, advancement shouldn't be driven as much by a percentage as it is whether they are active enough to do the work required.

 

Another observation I've had... I have two boys (out of 9) that have still not made First Class from last year. 18 months have gone by now. They each have one requirement to do. I (and others) have worked with them, encouraged them, etc. But they just aren't getting it done. These boys are active, in terms of their attendance percentage. However, they take little interest in doing the advancement work (any work, for that matter). So, they come, they sit, they play, but they don't advance. Are they active? Well, physically they are there. But they have not actively engaged their hearts or mind. There were 3 of them that were in this boat together. One recently completed FC. I was hoping that peer pressure may encourage them to move on. But that hasn't happened yet.(This message has been edited by EagleInKY)

[John D 10]

Several posters have noted the tendency of scouts to vanish after getting 1st class, could this be because they are too young? Perhaps the FC/FY rush places immature boys in PORs and the 12 year old Life candidate is just too young to manage his priorities well. The mad rush to 1st class is placing 12 year olds in jobs that should be held by 14 year olds. When I see a boy doing the "bums rush" to 1st class in one year I tell him to relax a bit, smell the flowers, make sure his school work is not neglected, 18 months is plenty soon enough and 2 years is no disaster. We recently had a 12yr old Star scout on a campout, a product of a MB mill (father is ASM), crying like a baby when he hit his thumb pounding in a tent stake. Had another 12yr old Patrol Leader, kid with 15 merit badges( another MB mill)who sat in his tent and played with toy dinosaurs rather that participate in activities. Seems to me frenzied competition between Troops pushing FC/FY is doing these lads a disservice. No wonder they wander off after getting 1st class.

[John D 10]

part 2... Contrast this with our new SPL. He's 14 and Star, he's tall, his voice is deep, he's a natural leader, the guys follow him. Under FC/FY dogma the guy's a loser. Not in my book.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

John D, what does First Class First year mean to you ?

[Hunt 11]

I'm not familiar with the part of the advancement requirements that would prevent a 12-year-old from crying when he's hurt.

Although I'm not a FCFY zealot, when I look at the requirements for Tenderfoot, 2nd Class, and 1st Class, I see little to prevent a boy in an active troop from doing them all in a year. It takes some attention by the troop leadership (such as making some opportunities available, like a place to swim and an orienteering course), but it shouldn't be all that hard, especially if the year includes a week of summer camp. As for Star, after two trips to summer camp, most boys should be there or pretty close, if they have any gumption. I would agree that the younger boys should have a POR they can manage--but that's why there's a choice of PORs.

[jokehh 10]

It is amazing how many different answers on this subject I have heard over the last month. Our troop had a policy that defined active as attending 70% of the meetings and 50% of the campouts. Although this seemed a bit high to me the PLC wanted it to be part of our policy. Last month a boy was denied advancement and his parents were upset at the requirement. They took the matter to the Council office and we were forced to remove the definition of active from our policy. This is the direct quote from our Council Program Director

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

A Troop cannot tie attendance to advancement. We had this issue with another Troop full of lawyers and it went all the way to the National Council. What they are doing by requiring a certain percentage of attendance and telling a Scout he cannot advance due to his not meeting that attendance requirement is absolutely against National policy. I have had many discussions with National about this.

 

I do not want to get into Troop politics either, but a Troop cannot make up by-laws or policy that violates National policy. In the case of the other Troop, their attitude was "we're going to do it anyway". National Council said "you can do what you want, but you can't call yourself a Boy Scout Troop any more" "Your charter will be revoked". The Troop backed down and finally followed the policy.

 

I understand what the Troop is trying to do here, but they can't tie attendance to advancement.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

We also received this from our District Executive

 

National currently states that putting any number on being "active" is against their policy. I have asked to get clarification from national on what "active" then means if a troop cannot define it. At this point it is an undefined term and troops are not permitted to define it.

.................................................................

In our discussions on this matter we were told active can only be related to the payment of dues.

 

I think OGE provided the best direction in his post and I am going to use his advice as a guide for our PLC to make new policy.