Life Scout - is he ready?

[rour 10]

Upcoming BOR fo Life,Scout completed requirements, but weak on leadership. age 14 needs to mature

Best way to tell scout and active parent?

[OneHour 11]

rour,

 

If the scout finished all requirements and one of which is to hold an approved position of responsibility for 6 months, then why doesn't he get the Life ranking? This going touch off the old debate of young Eagles, but showing maturity is not a requirement of a Life ranking. The exact requirement is:

 

5. While a Star Scout, serve actively for 6 months in one or more of the positions of responsibility listed in requirement 5 for Star Scout (or carry out a Scoutmaster-assigned leadership project to help the troop).

 

If the scout is weak on leadership then he should have been sent to JLT or being coached along the way during his tenure in office (ie. Scoutmaster conferences). Being 14 is not a requirement to be a Life Scout. Our troop has a young 14 Eagle who blossomed into a fairly strong SPL. After his tour as SPL, scouting took a back seat to Track and Field and Football for this young man.

 

I was taught that if the boy finished the requirements (no more and no less) after he was tested, signed off, served, conferenced, and reviewed, then he has earned his rank.

 

If you are doing the scoutmaster conference, then the game is not over. You can point out why he has not been active or why he has not served his position as expected. You can defer sign off requirement #5 if he indeed did not serve his position; however, if he served and did not get any guidance or training from anyone SPL, adult leadership ..., then he is not to blame. He has done his best according to his interpretation of the position. You indicated that this is a BOR. BOR is where the scout is to recount his experience going through the requirements for Life Scout. It is the time for the Board to check to make sure that he has completed all requirements (not testing but to make sure that everything was signed off, including the Scoutmaster Conference). It is the time for the Board to get feedback from the scout on the program, what he likes and doesn't like about the program and how it can be better to serve him and his friends. It is the time where the scout can reflect on his experience to date and projects his future and aspiration. It is not the time to tell the scout that he has not been a good leader because you think that he is immature. You can reject his BOR if he has not completed all of the requirements.

 

If he has done his job and SM have signed off and the BOR has signed off, I would tell the scout and his parents, "congratulations, looking forward to your final step to Eagle."

 

My son and two his friends are BOR away from Life and they all are 13. The SM signed off the position requirement without hesitation, because he indicated that each has served his position (eventhough I, too, thought that my son is too young to get Life scout). Looking back, the three boys have done everything that was asked of them. Their immaturities are there, joking around, goofing off, etc., but each served as PL, QM, and Scribe very well, not as the ideal PL, QM, and Scribe, but they got their jobs done. They took it upon themselves to get their requirements done for Star and now Life and that is what the adults in our troop want for them to do, self-sufficient.

 

My 2 cents.

 

1Hour

 

 

ps: By the way, welcome to the forum.(This message has been edited by OneHour)

[Mike F 10]

rour,

 

This is going to be long - sorry - I've been down this treacherous path several times.

 

I'll assume the BOR members have an issue with the way he accomplished his position of responsibility (POR). If the BOR is the first to tell scout he didn't serve adequately in his POR, then a lot of other folks weren't doing their job.

But that doesn't mean you have to just pass him off and send him on his way. There are alternatives, but lots of pitfalls, so step carefully.

 

Don't just tell the scout he didn't do the job adequately and send him away. These situations have turned into ugly appeals starting at District and sometimes going all the way to National.

 

First of all, you need to find out exactly what guidance, training, coaching, and feedback he got during his tour of duty. Did he have a written job description? Was he trained to the point where he understood everything required? Was someone working with him to help him be successful - giving him guidance and feedback along the way?

If he was trained, guided, coached, and received explicit feedback on areas that needed improvement and still failed to meet clear expectations, this is fairly easy and won't be a surprise to the scout.

 

If the troop let him down and didn't make sure he had everything he needed to be successful, then you have a mess on your hands. (More on that later.)

 

First of all, it's too bad the SM didn't step up during SM conference to explain that scout hasn't really benefited enough from his leadership growth opportunity. Ive seen it done successfully at this step usually with a SM-assigned leadership project to help the scout develop areas hes missed so far. At this point it can be done quietly without embarrassing the scout. Also best to let the parents know whats going on. The real point to make is that the scouting program is about developing leadership in stages and its not in the scouts best interest for him to advance to a rank when he hasnt really benefited from the growth opportunities at that stage. If he is advanced when he and the other scouts question it, his self-confidence and status in the group are diminished.

 

This all gets harder at BOR with more people and more publicity. Consider having BOR members meet with SM to express concern (without scout present) and see if they can all agree on a recovery plan, then have the SM and a board member discuss it with scout and his parents.

 

NOTE: The sticky issue is whether or not the scout held the position for the full term. Its always better to remove a scout from a position within a few months if he has been trained, coached, and counseled - and still doesnt perform. Two reasons for this: 1) The troop needs all leaders to be doing their job for the troop to run, and 2) Theres no arguing later about whether or not he should get rank advancement credit if he was removed from the job.

 

Now, for the worst scenario: Scout not fully trained, not adequately coached, received little/no guidance or feedback, held the title for full term (in this case, at least 6 months), but clearly did not perform adequately. (Its no surprise he didnt do a good job the troop let him down.) You want him to benefit from a good leadership experience so he has the chance to grow into the Life rank.

It can be done, but you need to do two things:

1) Admit we let him down by not properly training and coaching him, but we want to support his growth with the following opportunity. Then present a get-well plan. (SM assigned leadership project, other POR, etc.) Involve scout and parents in this.

2) Tell the scout and his parents that if they disagree and want to appeal your decision to hold up his rank advancement a bit, they can contact the District Advancement Chair to start an appeal.

 

Heads up if the scout (or really, the parents) wants to make an issue of it and the troop didnt document training, position responsibilities, evidence of couching, etc., then the troop will usually not win a vigorous appeal. But I still recommend you take this approach of holding him off its in the scouts best interest to grow the proper amount at each step. Youre not punishing him by holding him up youre offering him the time and help to improve.

 

Finally - work is not over. It's time to have a program review with the SM to determine how you got here in the first place. One of the troop committees jobs is to review the troop program and to work together to make sure the troop is delivering the promise of scouting. Take a good look at training program, make sure every leader gets the coaching he needs to grow and be successful, put feedback points in place to correct problems early, consider documenting decisions and discussions so a record exists in event of issue or confusion (more important if youre a big troop with a lot of leaders its easy to forget who youve talked to). With an understanding of the pitfalls and a little up-front effort, its really not too hard to avoid this kind of thing. Leadership development is one of our most important jobs.

 

Good luck!

 

-mike f

 

[OneHour 11]

Hi Mike ... how is it going? Long time that I haven't talked to you. Great advices (much better than mine)!

 

ror, thanks to you, I just learned a new way to dealing with a couple of similar issues.

 

Thanks, Mike. Hopefully, I'll see you at the Scout Fair and we can catch up!

 

1Hour

[SemperParatus 1]

Welcome rour!

 

He completed the requirements so...yes he is ready.

 

I don't see any requirement, even for Eagle, that says, "demonstrate strong leadership..."

 

Follow the good advice of Mike and OneHour, work with the scout to help him develop his leadership qualities, not as a means to advancement but as a means to helping this young man develop his character and understand himself better.

[Hunt 11]

In my opinion, if this is coming up for the first time at the BOR stage--if the SM has signed off the requirements--it's too late to do anything to delay this boy's advancement to Life. There is nothing more demoralizing to a youth than for adults to appear to be changing the rules after the fact. The best you can do is to counsel him how to do better in the next phase.

What you can do, however, is take a look at your program to see how you got to this point, and take corrective action to prevent the next boy from facing the same issues.

[VAordeal 10]

I can say that as a fourteen year old boy about to make Life in May or June, i would not be happy if i was barred from getting the rank because of a non-exsistent requirment. If the scout however has not done all the leadership months that are required then by al means do not let him advance.

[Vicki 11]

I agree with Hunt - if the SM has signed off and this is just coming up now at the Scout's BOR then to make the Scout do any kind of "makeup work" is exceeding the requirements. The most you can do is do some real coaching as he completes his Eagle requirements.

 

Now, all the suggestions for improving the program so that this isn't a future issue are great and well worth the effort.

 

We're having discussions now in our troop as to how to make PORs more meaningful...

 

Vicki

[EagleInKY 14]

The problem here is a failure to understand the program. I see this with some of our parents. They think Scouting supposed to turn them into great leaders. They don't understand why a 13 year old mis-communicated with the boys, or why a 14 year old SPL didn't make the right decision. Maturing and growing is part of the program. Two important points in that sentence. First, the ing on maturing and growing. They are never 'there', they are working to get there. Second, it's part of the program. The program has not failed if Johnny didn't turn out to be the most mature one of the bunch. Perhaps Johnny spent more time doing outdoor stuff and having fun with his friends.

 

I sat on an Eagle BOR for a young man who had never been a PL or a SPL . He did not like to lead in front of the group. But he did like to serve. He served in several positions. Outside of the troop, he had his own business. But, according to some parents, he hasn't been a "real" leader.(This message has been edited by EagleInKY)

[evmori 11]

Explain "weak on leadership". Has he meet the requirements in the Boy Scout Handbook? If so, then unless there is a Scout Spirit issue, you can't slow him down.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[EagleInKY 14]

Sorry, my last rant kept getting errors when I tried to post. Bottom line, I get very frustrated with adults trying to tweak the program because it doesn't fit what they think it should be. This part of the program is very clear. Let the boys learn, lead and grow, and stay out of the way.

[SeattlePioneer 144]

This is an interesting discussion.

 

 

There are three boys in the Troop wwhere I serve as a Troop Committee Member where the issue of "actively serving" in a Scout office might reasonably prevent advancement from Star to Life Scout.

 

Two Scouts are very active in sports, which impairs their ability to function in their offices as Patrol Leader and Assistant Patrol leader. Indeed, their patrols have dissolved for all practical purposes, with the remaining boys going into our remaining patrol. Occasionally, these two scouts show up for an activity or campout, such as our swim last night, where they played with each other but made no effort to help teach other boys or test them in swimming advancement requirements.

 

These aren't troop offices the SPL can take away from them. What should the Scoutmaster do and when should he do it, since they appear only infrequently?

 

One boy's father is ASM, and can be very helpful with the program, but he coaches sports and also participates sporadically since January or so.

 

The third boy is significantly mentally retarded, but still able to do Scouting reasonably well. He is the Troop Bugler, but he hasn't bugled for the troop since a Court of Honor in October. In an effort to counsel him and offer him opportunities, I offered him the opoortunity to be Staff Bugler for Camporee and Bugler for our upcoming campout with a Cub Scout Pack, but he refused those opportunities as being too much work, having to get up too early, and just not willing to do the practice needed to demonstrate his skills. My requests that he bugle at Troop meetings have produced no bugling. I joked with him that he is a Troop Bugler who has apparently taken a Vow of Silence!

 

In addition, he mostly just stands around when work need to be done, if he can get away with it. He will work if an adult coaches and directs him, but tends to quit and stand around as soon as he gets the chance. As a senior Scout, my theory is that he should be providing the coaching to younger boys who need training and motivation to do needed work.

 

His father is Committee Chair, and works with him a lot, including working with him to get him to work, which I have done as well.

 

These are things which don't appear to be especially related to his retardation (according to his father and my own observations). He just tends to be somewhat lazy and has discovered he can often get out of work.

 

So in this case, he HAS received coaching and training from me and from his father, repeatedly. The Scoutmaster didn't have a very productive Scoutmaster conference when this boy received his Star Scout award a year ago (he's 14), getting mostly monosyllables to questions from the SM. I've suggested that the SM hold another SM Conference to discuss these issues with the boy, issues which the SM has said concern him as well. But he hasn't done so.

 

While I'm registered as TC, I function as an ASM as well in this small Troop. I've made a definite effort to counsel and guide the Bugler, but have had little contact with the other two Scouts since January.

 

I know these issues concern the SM, because we've talked about it. But he hasn't taken any action to address these issues. Any comments on what I might do? Any suggestions on what actions the Scoutmaster might choose to take to address these issues?

 

 

 

Seattle Pioneer

 

 

[SR540Beaver 116]

Seattle,

 

In our troop, we always counsel the boys at election time. We discuss the responsibilities of the POR. We make known to them that if they decide to throw their hat inthe ring and do get elected, we do expect them to fulfill their obligation. We also tell those who play sports, that if they are considering running during the season, they might want to consider running off season. If they can not be present to lead their patrol, there is no valid reason for running. We won't prevent them from running, but we do make known our expectations if they take on a POR. A scout is trustworthy, helpful, loyal and courteous. How can he serve his patrol if he is not there?

 

Note that the requirement says actively serve, not successfully serve. He can be there for every meeting and learn leadership by trial and error and still fulfill the requirement. If he isn't there, he has not fulfilled the requirement and the SM should have a conference with him to determine if he is going to step up to the committment he made or step aside for the good of the patrol.

[evmori 11]

Assistant Patrol Leader isn't a POR that can be used for rank advancement.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[AwHeck 10]

In our troop, every scout elected/appointed to a POR must sign a leadership contract. It specifies an attendance expectation (75%) among other things specific to the position. At the end of the term, the SM and outgoing SPL meet to discuss each boy and whether they met the requirements or not. If they didn't they are informed and they do not get credit for the POR. This doesn't mean that they have to be perfect but they do have to BE THERE and do their best to fulfill the responsibilities of the position. A quartermaster who only goes on 1 campout during the 6 months isn't apt to get credit.