fred8033

Beavah - Your mixing your metaphors and confusing Physics Laws with inspirational statements. We're debating advancement because you can violate the rules. "Conservation of Energy" is a Physics law and it can't be violated. Ya can't create get more energy out of a system than put in. Ya can't go faster than the speed of light. But, ya can go rogue with advancement. "Proficiency demands that yeh understand and be able to apply general principles in different contexts..." Absolutely agree. ... But wait! General principles? I thought you just said the were laws? Not some vague general thing. Anyway... That's why BSA doesn't leave us with only two or three sentences to guide advancement. That's why BSA wrote the GTA and went to the trouble to explain "shall" and "must" and "should" and "can". The GTA is our educational guide on how to apply the general principles. I don't have trouble keeping focus on the general principles. Heck, I use the GTA to help guide me toward those general principles. I do have trouble when someone thinks it's necessary to violate the specific to honor the general.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Beavah wrote: - "Qwazse has what I think is the real issue. Most of our boys spend more than the allotted time working on ranks. That's generally the way of things in any troop worth its salt. " I think that hits it on the head. We spend much time arguing the boundary cases. In reality, most Eagle scouts have had plenty of PORs, nights of camping, activities, etc. When I think about our last five years of Eagle scouts, there wasn't one that had less than a hundred nights of camping and an extra year of PORs. We argue over edge cases when things happen

Beavah wrote: - "Yah, I have no problem with the trite little "Guardian at the Gate" article and would agree with the author. But it would be improper to believe that a reflection by one individual represented da views of the entire BSA. " Trite? Really. Improper to use as guidance? ... Ummm ... It's published by the BSA Advancement Team to clarify advancement. It's published to local council and district advancement committees. The BSA advancement team preface says "Occasionally we run across material written by council volunteers that does more to explain the Boy Scouts of Americas advancement program than any of us at the national level have been able to create." Beavah - "General Principles" and "Administration" ... So your saying you can discount very directly specific BSA GTA instructions because you see general statements having a higher calling? That's a pretty slipper slope that just doesn't hold up to the light of day. Your creating your own justification to create the program you want and not the program BSA designed. Heck you say it yourself. "The Guidebook is just a guidebook in that regard." Really! Would you be okay with me using this BSA advancement team guidance? http://www.scouting.org/filestore/advancement_news/512-075_Feb.pdf ... "Mandated Procedures and Recommended Practices" ... "The new Guide to Advancement clearly identifies mandated procedures with words such as must and shall. Where such language is used, no council, committee, district, unit, or individual has the authority to deviate from the procedures covered without the written permission of the national Advancement Team. Recommended best practices are offered using words like should, while other options and guidelines are indicated with terms such as may or can. ... It seems that BSA wants the GTA to be much more than just a take-it-or-leave-it guide. Beavah wrote: "yeh don't yet have a depth of experience" - "yeh have to let go of the book thumping and think a bit on your own" ... Yeah, but fifty years of out-of-date training or misguided experience doesn't help either. That's why we do have BSA publications. That's why we read books. Book thumping is necessary when responding to people who go awall on the program. Once everyone has a common agreement (i.e. the BSA program), that's when we can start thinking on our own. ... Beavah - It comes down to you want a different advancement program. "it was done better when we honored ..." and "some national folks who just got lost in da trees..." let go of the book thumping..." You want a different program. I'm fine with that. It's a valuable debate that should never end and we will all benefit from. I can see pluses and minuses of scouts on BORs. I can see pluses and minuses with an examination oriented BOR. If that's what you want, argue for it with BSA. Promote change. But ya don't go rogue and pretend to be the honorable wise old scouter. Ya don't promote the value of advancement, but not the BSA advancement. Ya don't put Eagle on a platform, but ... ummm ... not the current BSA Eagle. ... And you don't advise scouters who commit to the BSA program with advice that contradicts BSA. Ya need to work within the program until you can get the program to change. That's how you become the honorable wise old scouter.

I wish I would have known about these BSA published articles earlier. Read the one on active. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/advancement_news/512-075_March.pdf SpencerCheatham wrote: "I still do not think this young man should advance to Eagle. It is not a reflection of his character. He is a polite, intelligent, reverent, hard working young man who lives the Scout spirit outside of Scouting. My issue is just that. He made choices which did not make Scouts a priority. These choices meant he was not there as a role model to inspire other Scouts; not there to be a PL or SPL; not there when other Scouts needed him for their service projects; and not there to congratulate or encourage his fellow Scouts when they met or failed a challenge. " "He lives the scout spirit outside of scouting." ... Isn't that exactly the BSA mission. SpencerCheatham wrote: "Instead he chose to be more active in other extracurricular activities. There is nothing wrong with this choice, however there are consequences to choices and I feel the consequences for non-participation in scouts should be the inability to receive the prestigious rank of Eagle. The opposite demeans the rank. " So he met the explicit requirements. And he currently lives scout oath outside of scouting. I think at this point, reading BSA's "Guardian of the gate" really applies. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/advancement_news/512-075_Feb.pdf ... At some point we all need to ask ourselves if your promoting what BSA's program or what you want BSA's program to be.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Ulitimately it's attitude and power control. I recently found a really great article about that. Published by BSA for their advancement teams. Read "Guardian of the Gate" in the BSA Feb 2012 Advancement News. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/advancement_news/512-075_Feb.pdf ... Beavah - Congratulations in drawing a picture of an advancement program, but it's not the BSA advancement program. Your picture is less about describing the right program and much more about justifying a BOR power trip. Now if you want to argue BSA's advancement is wrong. That's fine. If you want to argue GTA needs to change, fine. But I think BNelson had it right when he said if you want to understand the BSA BOR, then read the GTA section 8. http://scouting.org/scoutsource/GuideToAdvancement/BoardsofReview.aspx And I'd add read section 4.2.1.0. And I'd reflect on the writings until they read as internally consistent. Beavah wrote: - "Now, to my mind, I personally think those conversations have a better feel and tone and are more effective when the review is done by youth leaders and scouters who know the lad, because the boy really wants to earn credit and respect in their eyes, where the lad really doesn't care as much about the troop committee and the committee doesn't know him as well." ... That's not the program. Why are you recommending something that's directly contradicting explicit BSA statements. See GTA section 8.0.2.0. Beavah wrote: - "At some fraction of those BORs, the board determines a boy is ready to advance. At many or most of the rest, they review the boy's progress and help him focus." - Huh? I wanted to say your not explicitly wrong, but ... you are. "At many or most of the rest" - no. 99% of BORs do find the scout ready to advance and 100% of BORs exist to do the review for advancement. Now you can probably convene a BOR for some other purpose. Probably no rule against it. But of course BSA does not define rules or guidelines for extra things added to the program. BSA only describes BSA's rules and guidelines for BORs. See GTA section 8.0.0.1 and section 4.2.1.0. Beavah wrote: - "If a lad has a requirement signed off but he indicates he really has forgotten the skill, they advise him on how to review and re-learn." Huh? Your describing your own version of BOR or some BOR version from scouting history. BOR is a review. See section 4.2.1.0 (and sub sections). To enter a BOR per GTA 8.0.0.1, the requirements are done. He's been tested. GTA says "After a Scout has completed the requirements for any rank or Eagle Palm, he appears before a board of review." AFTER Now if the scout forgot a skill, that's feedback saying that the troop isn't doing enough to re-inforce skills. And it's just natural to not retain 100% of what is taught. That's life. The point is he was tested (step 3 in advancement ... GTA section 4.2.1.2) BEFORE THE BOR. The BOR is now guided by GTA section 4.2.1.3. Also see 8.0.1.2 "What should be discussed". Beavah wrote: - "If the lad is havin' difficulty, they play their part in helpin' the program find resources to help him. If they discover a weakness in his instruction and understanding, they address da program weakness and send the boy back to meet the level expected by the BSA and their program." ... Again, that's not the program. Your advocating for a scouting double jeopardy. You passed the test the first time, but now you don't. Requirements go from completed to not completed. It might be a noble attitude, but it's not the BOR program. After being tested, knowledge and skills are retained and strengthened through the unit programs. Again see GTA 8.0.0.1 PURPOSE. Also, see GTA 4.2.1.0 "Four Steps In Scout Advancement" paying special attention to the differences betwen "4.2.1.2 The Scout Is Tested" and "4.2.1.3 The Scout Is Reviewed". ... Ultimately, your going to read into the program what you want to see and if your scouts can live with it, fine. All I can do is learn to the best of my ability what BSA promotes. If you disagree with BSA, that's your choice. I just can't follow down your scouting road as that's not the program I promised to follow as a leader and it's not the program BSA documents. Again, I really suggest reading "Guardian of the Gate".

Real suggestion .... Perhaps the G2A is not the issue. Perhaps it's the training. We get lots of written words without examples and consistent training. PROPOSAL - BSA should create MyScouting.org online e-training topics grouped under "Boy SCout" --> "Advancement" and "Cub Scout" --> "Advancement". As the YP training demonstrated case examples, this training could teach advancement. Have one for MBC and include real world examples of how to interpret the requirements ... "demonstrate" ... "discuss" ... etc. Have one for BORs. Show real questions. Show real examples. Show example problem cases of when you would not pass a BOR. .... Have one for SMC. Show examples how to handle and do a SMC. ... Have one for blue cards and what to do in problem cases. ... And include quizes at the end. Just a thought.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

JMHawkins wrote: "So, short summary: define the goals not the process, and explicitly require the adult(s) approving advancement to use judgement in determining if the scout has earned the award." I think it would really help to explicitly include the goals with the requirements. I would not eliminate using requirements to "measure" advancement, but we scout leaders need more clarification on how to interpret the requirements. I believe that's a key part of the issue. Leaders using different rational to interpret the requirements to match their personal agenda. For example, some leaders believe ranks and merit badges mean "independently capable" and others use "introduced" and others use some combination. Others say the requirement must be demonstrated once and others mean it should be demonstratable on demand at any time. Heck when I read the G2A wording, the advancement interpretations seem pretty clear. Yet when others read it, they hear something very different. Different to the point that I really wonder where they are coming from and I want to actively protect my scouts from those leaders. ... I'm not sure you achieve that much more with JMHawkin's camping 9A re-write "Help your group plan and prepare for each trip. Each day perform your camp duties according to the group's Duty Roster. Sleep each night under the stars or in a portable shelter you helped set up." The re-write is just a very different requirement now. What was fairly clear though people always debated how to interpret nights now includes evaluating planning, preparation etc. I'm not saying that's a bad requirement. It's just a different debate versus how to interpret 20 nights. Yet again we get caught up in what are the goals of planning. How far to take it? Personal agendas. ... G2A is written as it is in an attempt to define a common standard for what the different ranks mean. IMHO, the whole reason is that there's a huge variety of leaders. Perhaps we need to stop expecting ranks to mean the same thing when they never have. The effort and value has always differed by both time (1960s versus 2000s) and by troop. Just like college educations are much different than they were forty years ago and Harvard is very different than most local city colleges. Join the troop you want to be in and Eagle will end up meaning what you put into it. ... People complain that there are more eagle scouts now then in the past and think it's credentialism or lowered standards. But Arthur Eldred earned eagle when BSA was 18 months old. Early 1960s eagles didn't requirement projects. Now I might agree that requirement testing was more systematic. I did hear someone say that scouts were expected to go before a BOR (or similar) to be examined on each requirement as it was completed. No quick meaningless approvals. That could be interesting and very valuable. That would be a huge hit to merit badge fairs, etc. But people have also changed. (statistics being very loose) Don't we have high school graduation rates of 85% now versus less than 50% before 1960. People going to college (not necessarily including "graduates") has more than doubled. In fact, I thought it trippled. Plus more people now recognize Eagle as something worthwhile. People tend to pursue that which is viewed valuable. The fact that we have more Eagle scouts now just does not necessarily bother me in itself. I could see increasing difficulty in areas and making other parts of scouting more relevant to today's scouts. But what does bother me is that we disagree on how to apply something like the G2A! IMHO it's not a statement that the G2A or individual requirements are written poorly. It's that we come from such a diverse background that we can't necessarily agree even on the most basic stuff. Perhaps it gets back to the age old philosophy that fences make good neighbors. Different troops makes friendly scouting. ... I need to go to bed. I'm still upset that the Celtics lost. KG rocks. He deserved another championship. Except KG didn't complete one championship requirement. Celtics lost.

bnelon44 ... I agree on your criteria. The million dollar one is "Scout did not complete a requirement even though it was signed off." IMHO, that would have to be very significant and focusing on the absolute of complete and not on the subjective analysis of the quality of the completion. It ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS reflects a mistake by the SM or by the person authorized by the SM to sign off on the requirement. Not of the type of "we don't think he learned it well enough." The person who was authorized to review and test the scout already blessed the achievement. You don't undo the completed requirements anymore than you undo ranks. GTA 8.0.1.1 Not a Retest or "Examination" makes it pretty clear that's not the job of the BOR. It would need to be more absolute such as he wasn't there he didn't do it. ASM signed in the wrong spot. Scout was never reviewed and tested. (such as in a group setting and the scout gone during the review and testing.) Maybe it was signed based on bad info from the scout. "Yeah I participated in a flag ceremony at XXXX camp" and neither the scout or the leader realizing it was important that he was a cub scout then and not yet a boy scout. Example: First class rank - Valid signature for "securing the ingredients" for a patrol camp out meal for first class rank. "secure the ingredients" means going shopping or raiding parents cabinets or harvesting from troop extras. Anything that supplies the patrol. Pass - He secured the ingredeints and it was a great meal. Pass - He secured most of the ingredients, but forgot some. Pass - He secured the ingredients, but they were poptarts, cool aid, peanut butter and donuts. Pass - He did not go on the camp out, but he did secure the ingredients and provide them to the scouts who did go. Fail - He never secured the ingredients at all, whether assigned to or not. Example: Second class rank - Valid signature for "Show what to do for "hurry" cases of stopped breathing, serious bleeding, and ingested poisoning". Pass - He can explain in detail everything about it. Pass - He can't explain the best, but he was there and was tested and passed by an SM authorized signer. Fail - Someone mistakenly signed off on it thinking they were signing something else. Fail - He wasn't there even though the authorized signer thought he was there. Fail - He was never originally tested on the skills and the authorized signer thought he had been tested. If there is something I'd use as discretionary / subjective it's this from the GTA "A positive attitude is most important, and that a young man accepts Scouting's ideals and sets and meets good standards in his life." ... But this would reflect a more delicate discussion that may or may not result in a pass. But it would need to be pretty significant for me to fail him. More than just a rude or insensitive remark.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Yeah, I don't have trouble with BrentAllen's approach either. Documented expectations. An honest effort to work in the boundaries of the printed BSA program. My issue is when leaders acknowledge the printed requirements but willingly go rogue to refuse to acknowledge when the scout has earned advancement. IMHO, it's not about quality of the program. It's about power control and disempowering the scout.

Duplicate.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Duplicate.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Yeah, I don't have trouble with BrentAllen's approach either. Documented expectations. An honest effort to work in the boundaries of the printed BSA program. My issue is when leaders acknowledge the printed requirements but willingly go rogue to refuse to acknowledge when the scout has earned advancement. IMHO, it's not about quality of the program. It's about power control and disempowering the scout.

BORs don't really determine if scout advances or not in the typical "awarding" mentality. They are checking all requirements were completed, encouraging advancement and reviewing how the troop did with the scout so that the troop can improve the program. If all BOR members don't agree the scout completed the requirements, they are to identify in writing the specific requirements the scout failed to meet and what needs to be done to complete those requirements. SMCs don't really determine if a scout advances at a SMC. The SMC requirement is to have a SMC. There is no requirement to PASS an SMC. With that being said, many scoutmaters reserve signing off on the scout spirit requirement to themselves and will only do that during the SMC. But even that is a conversation with the scout mostly reviewing himself with guided conversation from the SM. ... And now the large debate starts.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Brent Great comments. Cool. I'm really okay with everything you wrote. ... I really like the pay in advance for camp outs. It would be an interesting approach. Less work. More incentive to attend. Not sure we could do it as our events cost about $30 for a weekend. QUESTION - If a scout does not attend an event, does not sign up and lets you know he won't be able to attend, does he get a refund or credit to his account? Or is it a pre-paid use it or lose it approach. ... Anyway ... I really like your approach on things. Nice. Peter

Brent - I'm okay with what your saying. For inactive, I'm hearing specific measurable critieria. For high standards, I'm hearing you don't re-register inactive scouts. I would not necessarily choose the same, but it seems consistent and within your troops rights to set such a policy. ... #1 Your "active" definition seems reasonable. "... misses 4 consecutive meetings/activities/outings with notification ...." I would chose differently, but it seems reasonable, measurable and sounds like it is written down and communicated. Fine I'm sure there will be still challenges such as if scouts don't sign up for activities and outings, do they need to give notice they are not going? Is it assumed everyone participates in everything? Or is notice only needed for an activity / outing only needed if you signed up saying you would go. Pretty much reduces it to four troop / plc meetings. What if the scout says to the PL "I've got alot of homework tonight and can't make it." But the PL doesn't tell the SPL or records it elsewhere? Will there be an attendance form to be filled out by each PL and then reviewed by the SPL / SM? Is notice supposed to be email or other? I'm just saying that some scouts don't stand up for their rights as strongly as others do. It's hard to be equally fair to all. What if the scout says to the PL "I've got alot of homework tonight and can't make it.". If he had not given notice for three meetings, now he just reset the consecutive unnotified absences active window. Scouts could stay active for years by only giving notice once every four troop meetigs and thus being deemed active for years without doing anything as a scout. What if his parent is on the ball and drops an email to the SM saying the scout will be absent. It's notification. I can't see not accept the parent saying the scout will be gone or not use it for notice. The scout hasn't done anything, but will still be active. Yet another interesting point. IMHO, you almost need to remove the notice part. It just teaches scouts to be good with excuses or getting others to cover for them. It removes the teeth from the policy. How about something such as scouts will be considered inactive after any month in which they do not participate in any scouting event: meeting, plc, activity or outing. Easy to administer. No tracking notices. No favoring those scouts who have a good communication channel and those who don't. Again your rule is reasonable. I'm just being a devil's advocate. ... #2 Membership. I do like how you apply the high standard. Right up front. To be a member of your troop scouts are expected to participate. If scouts don't, then you won't be recharter them. Again, I don't necessarily want to be in that troop. But I recognize your troop's right to define such membership expectations. And there are benefits. Devil's advocate: So a scout becomes inactive for some reason (sports, school play, academics, church, job, etc) for say three months ... DURING THE RECHARTERING TIME. Really? I'm betting you will encounter adult leaders in your troop that will argue against unregistering specific scouts. It will be difficult to do it without creating hard feelings. Plus now to become active again, the scout needs to fill out a new application to join the troop. It would be interesting to see how that plays out. I'd bet some attend to avoid that reprecussion. Or give better notice. I'd bet others use it as an excuse to end their scouting careers. But if you do recharter them, now they are pretty much determined to be "active". Heck per your own words, you wouldn't recharter inactive scouts. So rechartering is a troop statement of the scout being active. Again, I prefer to leave the scouts on the roster if we think they like scouting and will participate in activities at the level they can. Have scouting be their safe haven. Scouts go through alot of stuff during their transition from 11 years old to 18 years old. Girls and jobs. Alcohol and drugs. Death, divorce and disease. It's nice to have scouting there for them ... both to grow while in the program ... and as a friendly safe haven to retreat into when problems occur ... and as something they can have as part of themselves that that stands for high values and high expectations. They might not be as involved as you want, but I've seen it helpful for the boy to identify himself as a scout. The boy makes better choices in life. This last reason itself has proven valuable in the past. .... Anyway, your policies seem reasonable. Nice job. It's a good step forward. I don't think you will avoid all challenges. But at least it's published and communicated.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

pack or troop?

Beavah - Hmmmm.... I have alot of respect for ya, but now your just blowing hot air. Your mis-framing this debate into two camps. Requirements focus versus quality of scout focus. That's not the case. And it has never been the case. It's not two camps at all. It's about multiple topics. - How do you deliver a good program? - How do you set expectations? - What do you do when you get a scout from another troop? - What do you do when a troop messes up? - What do you do when you don't think a scout deserves advancement? I think we're in pretty strong agreement on several, but we're clearly differing on others. I think we agree on how to deliver a good program and accepting a scout from another troop. .... How do you set expectations? - IMHO, expectations are either enforcable and not enforcable. We need both types. But to make an enfoceable active participation rule, you make it measurable, write it down, establish it at the start, communicate it and make it consistent with BSA publications. Beavah: "Yeh just have to have a common sense of character and commitment that's consistent." Yeah I don't buy that at all. It scares me. That's how we damage people and create grudes ... usually when leaders change or people disagree. Ya just can't enforce intangibles. GTA page 21 says "Units are free to establish additional expecations on uniforming, supplies for outings, payment of dues, parental involvement, etc, but these and any other standards extraneous to a level of activity shall not be considered in evaluating this requirement." (requirement being active participation). GTA also says "his unit's pre-established expectations that refer to a level of activity". So units need pre-established expecations. IMHO, they are not pre-established if they are not written down. So if the scout is not meeting your unit expectations for behavior, supplies, dues, parental involvement, etc, then you can ask him to change or leave the troop ... because he's not meeting your unit expecations. But you really can't say he's not fulfilling BSA's active participation requirement. To target active participation, you pretty much have to establish percentages (i.e. ... LEVELS ...) of troop meetings, camp outs, activities, volunteer service, etc. And ya write it down at the start. Not three years into the scout's membership. And ya definitely don't say "well we just don't feel you are active enough". And it's just not right to say "we just don't feel you are committed enough". Did the scout do his POR? Then he's committed enough. ... What do you do when a troop messes up? Depends. But for advancement, a completed requirement stays completed. We're not talking about forged signatures. We're talking about a BSA leader after-the-fact wanting more. At that point, the requirement is done. So a scout sat in the troop for four years. In the 4th year ... because he wants to earn eagle ... now you want to tell him he's not active enough? Come on. A dis-service has been done to this scout for the last three years! Whether or not he's going for Eagle, you should be letting him know pretty quick that he's not meeting troop expectations. And ya do it really quick because he only needs six months (or four for earlier ranks). But in his forth year? Too late. He completed the requirement with his POR. He completed the requirement again with his first six months in the troop. And again with his next six months. And again with his next six months. And again with his next six months. etc etc. Heck if it was swearing, you'd talk to him. You wouldn't go thru three years of swearing only to learn he's going for Eagle and then talk to him about his swearing being incompatible with advancement. This is about when troops mess up and don't deliver the scouting promise. A weak program. In-appropriate signed offs. Not establishing unit expecation. Not communicating expecations until the 4th year. When the troop messes up, ya don't blame the scout. You fix the program and move on. ... What do you do when you don't think a scout deserves advancement? This is my main concern. At that point, you do fall back to the BSA requirements. When two people disagree, you fall back to the original agreement. That agreement is the BSA rank requirements. Nothing more. Nothing less. If we are to be honorable leaders, then we honor the requirements as published. ... IMHO, a key principle is scouts control their own advancement. Not the adults. That's why there is explicit criteria laid out in 280 approximate requirements. You complete those and you earn advancement.

ZZZZZZ zzzzzz ......

Beavah wrote: "SpencerCheatham's unit did meet with the lad well nigh a year in advance, explain that he hadn't yet met and wasn't meeting their active and Scout Spirit requirements, and spelled out clearly what the expectations were. They reinforced that several times. From where I sit, they met all of the unit expectations detailed in the current Guide to Advancement." Yeah - well I sort of see that as three years too late. Here's the points that I see. .... #1 The scout had a POR somewhere. I'm assuming it's with his previous troop. If the scout completed his POR, he's been "active". Otherwise, he don't credit his POR. I'd really enjoy being on the Eagle BOR and asking why a scout was credited with POR but not active. It would be very interesting. And I don't think the scout would be the one feeling the pressure. Perhaps a good debate is do you accept completed requirements from a previous troop if they are not reflected in ScoutNET or some official source. IMHO, you do. But it really seems here that this is the issue. I know when we've had transfers we've called the previous troop SM to ask questions. Reasonable thing to do. #2 It's not active in the last year. It's active for six months cumulatively since becoming a life scout. So we're talking about a FOUR YEAR SPAN where the scout paid dues, was on the roster and attended meetings. 30% of meetings, but meetings still. #3 Standards for performance need to be established BEFORE, not after. Four years in the troop! Approaching him in his last year saying you expect more is moving the goal posts and denying credit for where credit is due. It's trying to slip a fast one by the scout. So if you notice a scout is not active enough, talk to him one or two months into the time frame. Using the GTA POR policies, I'd also ask him how much time he thinks he should receive as "active" and go with it. But at least going forward for the next four months expectations have been set. #4 Standards are only standards if applied to everyone. By definition, a standard is not on a case by case basis. Yes per the GTA troops can establish their own reasonable standards for active. Write the standard down. Publish the standard. Communicate the standard at the start (or at the point of change). So unless every scout is being asked to organize and run a camp out and activity, then it's not really a "standard" by any sense of the word. .... IMHO it comes down to that BSA has designed plenty of discretion points into the advancement program. There's about 280 of them.. Ten for the scout badge. Ten average for each of the six ranks. Ten average for the twenty one merit badges. So we have a scout who's been deemed acceptable on all but one ... "active". It really makes me wonder. Could more have been done to engage the scout, sure. Could the scout have done more to be a strong member of the troop, sure. Give credit where credit's due. He met BSA's expectations. If the SM and CC don't feel the scout met some unwritten definition of "active", that's their business. IMHO that says more about the troop and it's leadership than it does about the scout. ... Just don't play a games with advancement. High expectations are great. I'm all for it. Don't sign off on requirements until they are done. But to "game" advancement after-the-fact is just mean and a bad example for our scouts.

I've seen several scouts like this. I don't have any magical advice other than to work thru it. But I would love to hear some good advice.

Sure advance him. It's an honest conversation. I'm sure there are many kids in his situation. At least he was honest and not hiding things.

Weird as it is, I like reading IRS and state tax revenue documents. It's fascinating stuff to try to really understand. Really. Anyway, it's not entirely correct to say the bottom 50% pay 2.7% of the tax. It's more like the 14% of the population in the 36% - 50% of income bracket pay 2.7%. The lowest 36% pay no income tax. The lowest 25% get "credit" for taxes paid that amount to around $60 billion or about 5% of all income taxes collected. Just saying that if you factor in credit given, the bottom 50% of the population actually pays a "negative" 2.3% of the taxes collected. I'm not arguing against EITC. I'm just saying taxes are no where as punitive as stated.

Beavah wrote: "Now the lad who struggles with his chosen sport, who comes to every practice for four years, who makes every game even though he rides the bench much of the time, who cheers for and supports his comrades - in many if not most sports programs, that boy will get a Varsity letter in his senior year. He has demonstrated commitment and character throughout his career." Yeah well... Probably not the best analogy. We don't hand Eagle out to any scout who stays long enough. In fact, I know plenty who argue against awards for just being there ... including you I believe. You need to demonstrate the criteria laid out for the achievement. I think this is why BSA has worked pretty hard to define explicit criteria for each rank. So that it doesn't become an attendance reward. So that it stays under the control of the scout. So that everyone knows what's expected. IMHO, I think scout A did fine. If he moves on, fine. Maybe for him, he's got all he can get out of scouting. Let him learn more life lessons elsewhere. ... Ya know Eagle only requires six months of being active. Odds are if a life scout is in your troop for four years, he's probably easily fulfilled the active requirements. I'd be more concerned with the scout pushing the other envelope the other direction and trying to advance with five months and 25 days when six months are required. ... On a side note, I find it interesting that Arthur Eldred completed his eagle requirements in about 18 months. But his board of review did include practical tests on merit badge expertise. Interesting.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

OldGreyEagle - Eagle. Every scout has his own path. Some fast. Some slow. Some outstanding. Some just scraping by. Each scout has his own path. I remember a scoutmaster who kept singing the praises of this young scout and kept saying the scout was definitely eagle and SPL material. Yep the kid earned eagle and became SPL. But in the end, the kid lacked humility and empathy and was sort of pompous. I kept thinking that this kid was affected by the SM's special comments in the same way kids are affected when parents say the kid can't camp without them. ... As a devil's advocate... Perhaps if cases like this are tough, then the real option is to not accept those scouts into the troop. You won't have enough explicit requirements to use to hold the scout accountable. Oh. A 13/14 year old life scout and only have four badges and one project left??? Already got the POR / active part done? Hmmm... Probably not a good fit for our troop as there's not much left in your scouting journey. I'm not really advocating for this, but it's sort of what I'm hearing. The scout could have camped more. The scout could have stepped up to help others more. BUT ... he'd already completed the BSA requirements. There's usually alot of wishing involved when we talk about shoulda coulda woulda. Just be happy the scout valued scouting at the level to finish the badges and perform the project. Congratulate him on his achievement. ... On a side note, it feels like there's a joke in here somewhere. An Eagle BOR is staffed by a pastor, a laywer and an engineer. (Switched priest to pastor to avoid Catholic bashing). They face a 14 year old scout with 70 nights of camping and 30 merit badges. The pastor congratulates him for being such a dedicated loyal scout. The lawyer congratulates him for completing the requirements as published. The engineer questions the scout's commitment to the Scout Oath's mentally awake because the scout had 49 more nights of camping and 9 more merit badges than needed. I wish us engineers were better at writing jokes.

I've heard of people using insulation sheeting (Owens Corning Foamular F-150 1 inch x 48 inch x 84 inch). One sheet should be plenty to cut into numerous boats. Get some dowels. Get some construction paper. Nice quick craft project. Only concern I have is the mess from cutting the foam. I'm not sure how messy it is though. We were planning to try it.