Eagle Project Workbook

[oldsm]

Much time has been spent on this forum debating what constitutes adding to requirements for rank advancement and merit badge completion. I don't want to rehash that. But I am curious about the Eagle Scout Leadership Service Project workbook requirements.

 

In my district, the Advancement Chair has been trying to improve the quality of work submitted for Eagle projects. While I believe his goal is laudable, I wonder if it places an undue burden on the candidate scouts.

 

For example, the DAC has published a lengthy list of what needs to be included in the proposal and the writeup for the completed project. He expects everything to be typewritten, without spelling errors, with proper grammer, subject/verb agreement, rigid adherence to captioning and numbering of pictures (and reference to each in the text), etc. There had better be a spreadsheet showing the anticipated cost of materials, the actual costs, and the fair market value of donated materials so that a "project value" can be determined. The DAC is a retired college professor, and I think his background to some extent influences what he wants.

 

There are some problems doing everything on computer. Sure, you can download a .doc version of the workbook, but you have to have Microsoft Word in order to use it. The RTF version does not yield the same appearance as the printed book and can be frustrating to work with. The PDF version is useful only if you can't get a printed book (you effectively print it yourself, with no effective gain in usability). And not every scout has access to a computer!

 

Part of the DAC's reasoning is that Eagle is supposed to represent the very best that Scouting produces; therefore, the project proposals and writeups should be of the very best quality. I have heard from several other SM's that the DAC frequently returns proposals for grammatical and spelling corrections. (My son's was noted with 3 spelling errors, but the project was approved anyway -- corrections were made in the final report. Whew!)

 

Not every Scout is college material - not even all of the Eagles. Some just aren't interested, some have other interests. And I'll bet that a lot don't have particularly good writing skills.

 

In addition, our Council Advancement Committee now requires contemporaneous notes made "as your project progresses, including dates worked, your time spent, and the names of those assisting you and their time spent. Use one or more pages as needed for these notes and summarize notes in your final project report. Be sure to include your project planning activities and team training, if applicable."

 

To my way of thinking, these are all adding to the requirments.

 

By counseling and encouraging a scout as to what makes a good project proposal and report, we would be serving in very much the same manner that an MBC does in sharing personal knowledge of a subject, encouraging discovery, etc., without adding to requirements.

 

But when we put these "requirements" in writing, and they don't come from National, it seems to me that we are imposing additional requirements on boys preparing for Eagle.

 

In case you're wondering, this is not about my son! He just had his writeup approved, and the DAC wants to use it as an example of "how to do it". My son isn't the best writer (he's fair in that department), but I spent 15 years doing technical documentation writing and editing. I guided my son through several revisions and edits before he submitted his writeup. Not everyone has their own personal editor available, and not every high school teaches college-level writing skills (witness the remedial classes so often required of college freshmen). I am concerned about those still coming up through the ranks.

 

I'm curious as to what others think about this. Is this common practice in other councils/districts? Is there something from National that hasn't made it into print yet?

[evmori]

There is nothing anywhere in any BSA publication that states the Eagle Project Workbook must be typed or all spelling must be correct. My son hand wrote his. Requiring additional spreadsheets is also wrong.

 

This is the Scouts project, not the DAC. It is the Scout's decision as to what to include. The DAC can ask for additional documentation or more detail but requiring it be in a specific format is not their call.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Lisabob]

I don't think this is common practice and I do think it can be taken too far. On the other hand, I sat on an EBoR a little while back where the notebook was a downright embarrassment. The boy didn't even spell his own last name correctly, I'm not kidding, and there were MANY, MANY other errors that were pretty bad. Not only had he not spell-checked, he also obviously had not proof-read the document and it certainly looked as though it had been thrown together at the last minute. It made the document painful to read. In this age of computer-based everything, how hard is it to spell-check? Are we doing a service or a dis-service to these young men to let it slide if it is truly sloppy?

 

And as for computer access, true, some boys do not have computers at home. Nearly all have access to computers at the public library or at schools though, and I'm willing to bet several adults in practically every troop have computers in their homes that they'd be happy to allow a boy to use. That does increase the burden on some boys, I agree. And there might be cases where that's a legitimate problem. But really, again I think it is not so awful to expect most boys to have used a computer for at least some parts of the workbook. If the DAC continues to insist, you might want to talk with him about the format issue, which he may not be aware of. (doesn't everybody use Word these days?? Well no...)

 

So my guess is that your DAC has sat on some EBoRs where the workbook was a real mess, probably far worse than anything that you'd let a boy from your own troop submit. He may have over-reacted. But at the same time, presentation matters. You can be brilliant, or a great potential leader, but if you cannot communicate your ideas and vision in an effective manner or if people perceive you as being a walking organizational disaster, then not very many people are going to follow you.

 

Maybe a better way for the DAC to handle this would be for him to talk with unit leaders (don't SMs have to sign off on the workbook?) about raising the bar a little bit within their own units. This could be done at a roundtable, for example.

 

Lisa'bob

[John-in-KC]

I just looked at our Council's dowloadable for the ELSP workbook.

 

Four signatures are required:

 

1) Benefitting organization rep.

2) Scoutmaster OR Coach OR Advisor (depending on membership of youth).

3) Committee Chairman

4) Council or District Representative (from the text: "council or district advancement committee")

 

Sooo... to my way of thinking, the DAC has some degree of influence in the quality of product presented to him.

 

As far as oldsm's initial post to this thread goes, there are two basic ways for him to influence the action:

A) He needs to get himself onto the Council Advancement Committee.

B) Convince enough COR's to raise a "vote of no confidence in the Council Advancement Committee" at the council annual business meeting.(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[oldsm]

Lisabob, I'm pretty much with you on this.

 

The DAC has addressed the quality issues with scoutmasters at two RT's that I can recall. That's when he handed out "the list" of what he expects. (I did have to chuckle when I found a number of errors in his list: lack of parallelism, inconsistent "voice" and structure...and a typo!) I guess the attempts to work through SM's has not worked because for next month's RT, they are inviting all boys who are approaching Eagle projects to come and get personal direction.

 

As much as we would like to be believe that the whole country is computer-equipped, that is not the case. My daughter teaches school in North Carolina in a small school where about 70% of the children are below the poverty level. NONE of the kids have a computer at home, and there is no library around that they can go to. It changed how she assigns homework! These are kids whose idea of going away for summer vacation is "spending a week at a lake 5 miles from home".

 

And, not everyone has Word at home (at least not legitimate, non-pirated copies). The retail cost of MS Office is prohibitive for many people ($400 for the Standard Edition); even Word by itself is overpriced ($230). There are some other alternatives (WordPerfect and the ubiquitous WordPad come to mind), but they won't convert the .doc workbook properly. There is the free open-source program OpenOffice.org Writer. Most people don't know about it and many are loathe to try open-source (if they even know what it is). I tried it, and it does not convert the .doc file very well (many formatting issues).

 

I did just notice on the NESA site that it states "You should print, type or write legibly using black or blue ink. You may add as many pages as needed to thoroughly complete the workbook".

 

The DAC has stated that the workbook should be used like a lab workbook in school - sort of like a vehicle to gather notes and serve as a rough draft, after which everything should be written up nice and neat.

 

Any thoughts about the Council Advancement Committee's added requirements?

[oldsm]

John-in-KC,

 

I agree that the DAC should have SOME degree of influence. After all, that's what we expect from MBC's, no?

 

To my way of thinking, the vote of no-confidence is a rather nuclear approach. I don't think it will do anyone much good. And I certainly don't have time to sit on the Advancement Committee. I'm busy enough with my troop.

 

The DAC can be a rather insistent and abrasive person. But I think I have developed a pretty decent working relationship with him. I'd like not to damage that.

 

What I'm looking for is reactions to the situation that exists to help me find ways to gently influence what needs to be influenced, and not influence those things that should be left alone.

[ljnrsu]

Keeping notes of hours the Eagle candidate worked on planning and completing the project,along with the names dates and hours worked of who assisted in the project is a necessity. One of the pages in the workbook asks the number of hours the candidate spent in planning and carrying out the project. It also asks for the names,dates and hours worked of those who worked on the project.

 

Considering what the workbook requires in hours spent I do not think what your Council Advancement Committee is asking is adding to the requirement. I think they are only helping the candidate in what he needs to have available in those regards.

 

As for the DAC's wanting everything on computer I will defer to Lisabob's reply.

 

I can't comment on not having MS word. The computers I have purchased since 1999 that program was included in preloaded software package.

 

 

 

[evmori]

This is supposed to be the Scouts project. Nowhere does an Eagle project require a computer or correct spelling. Not all Eagle Project Workbooks will look the same. And they shouldn't. I have sat on quite a few Eagle BOR's and you can tell which Scouts did all the paperwork themselves & which didn't.

 

Uniformity is nice but in this case it is adding unnecessary steps & requirements. Wait till one Scout is given his workbook back & is told to type it or it won't be accepted & the Scout appeals & wins. That will end all the silliness from the DAC.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[SemperParatus]

oldsm,

 

I swear it sounds like you are in our district, only our DAC have been requiring this kind of information for 15 years or more. They may not be as picky with the spelling and grammer but there is an extensive checklist of things they are looking for in the book. Most project plan workbooks in our district are probably 50 - 60 pages. My own son's was 180 pages (but that is another story). Granted, it is not so much about size as content - and some scouts have used fewer pages to convey the detailed work and leadership plans that is required. Obviously, this has caused many years of consternation and complaints within our District especially when we see neighboring district projects with comparably 'small' workbooks. There have been protests over the years but they usually fade away and folks have learned to work within the system and try to allot plenty of room for the plan development and approval process. In our troop, I generally tell boys to expect 3-6 months between initial project selection and final workbook approval, provided they are diligent in their work.

 

Originally, I was one that seriously questioned our DAC's high expectations and stringent 'requirements'. However, after having worked with a fair number of scouts on their project books, I can say that most of what our district requires is not unreasonable to ensure that the plan is complete and adequately developed. A detailed time budget is better than a guess and helps the scout allocate resources and understand the scope. A detailed financial budget is better than an estimate and helps the scout truly understand the value his project contributes to the community. Detailed work plans instead of a summary of what will be done ensures that the scout has considered all aspects of his project and is well prepared for the challenge. So, I guess you can say I am a convert.

 

Now, I do agree that kickbacks for a few spelling and grammatical errors is a bit much and scouts should be able to handwrite their project plans if they feel more comfortable, but a project plan should reflect a scout's mastery of his project and a few pages of summaries, guesses and estimates does not typically demonstrate a serious effort on the part of a scout.

 

Our DAC is well aware of the prohibition of 'adding to the requirements'. By the same token, they understand that there is a very fine line between that and interpreting the requirements. I am not aware of any specific appeals on some of these grounds. However, it is difficult to argue that something less than a complete and well developed plan that reflects detailed thought and project understanding is what we want to strive for.

 

I think everyone wants to see the scout do his very best and utilize his skills and talents to the fullest extent possible. In some cases, these 'local requirements' may have initially started out as helpful guidelines that have morphed into overreaching requirements. I think we must always be on the alert when that happens and use common sense.

 

In the meantime, I will use our District's guidelines as a tool to help scouts achieve a thoroughly well thought out project that they can be confident in carrying out and proud of its value to the community.

[AvidSM]

Boys hate paperwork - I think that's the reason only 3 to 4% make Eagle. The Workbook has to be legible and it must convey the information needed to prove the scout has met the requirement. If it needs corrections, the scout's advisor needs to tell the boy what they are in a timely manner. If the advisor is indeed a nit picker, he needs to given a different job in the district.

 

It does not have to be perfect, but is shouldn't look like it was written by a five year old. If a boy has poor writing skills, he needs to get help from a teacher or his parents. Perhaps his workbook was the first thing he has written where he has been really called to task to make it right. Scouting helps these boys move into adulthood and that includes writing like an adult - especially an Eagle Scout.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Trevorum]

I think I support - in principle - the DAC. Our job should be to challenge Eagle candidates to strive for excellence, not rubber stamp the first rough draft effort of every candidate.

 

I agree that not every kid is a wordsmith and we shouldn't expect perfection in grammar, spelling, syntax or any other aspect of the write-up. Certainly no insurmountable obstacles should be erected for the candidate and if he does not have access to a word processor/printer, neatly handwritten is fine. However, I have no problem with a DAC or the SM requesting a revised draft IF he thinks it will help the candidate (1) do a better job, and (2) give an important lesson. I think this particular DAC knows this from his career in education.

[EagleInKY]

This sounds very much like our DAC. He's been doing it this way for 20 years. In general, I'm supportive of the process. While things can occasionally be taken too far (like Semper's 180 page workbook), requiring neat, accurate work for something this important is not unreasonable. We've watered down the standards on so much, I think it's reasonable to demand the best for this highest honor. I'm not saying College level (or even advanced high school English-level), but a reasonableness factor should be employed.

 

I abhor adding to the requirements, but if work is illegible, what good is it? I've rejected blue cards where I couldn't read the name of the scout or the Merit Badge. The DAC should have some latitude in demanding a quality product as well.

[Beavah]

Yah, oldsm. The expectations you mention are pretty much the same in our council. Fact is, I wish we were a bit stricter about it, havin' had a hard time with some really marginal workbooks that make it difficult for a BOR to do a good job for the scout.

 

I think sometimes that Eagle Projects are the first time many boys have to do a practical writin' assignment with some "formality." Too bad, but that's the way it is in modern education. Better that they learn from us than not learn at all.

 

Remember, our purpose is to help boys become honorable men and productive citizens. Our purpose is not a one-sentence excerpt from a 60 page guidebook that says "don't add to requirements," and our purpose is certainly not handin' out awards. If being explicit about what a good writeup is helps a boy to understand and develop skills he'll benefit from, then we should be all for it. The fact that it requires some energy and hard work on his part only makes his eventual victory all the sweeter.

 

Yah, of course I'd forgive a lad if he chose to write in Northern Midwest dialect, eh?

[FScouter]

In my company, managers requesting capital expenditure funds are expected to present a case supporting their project, not unlike what we expect in the Eagle project workbook. I've seen and reviewed many corporate projects requiring 10's and 10's or even $100,000 that would pale in comparison to the most basic requirements set forth in the Eagle workbook.

 

It would seem our Eagle candidates are already 10 steps beyond what we require in the corporate world.

[Trevorum]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the quality of the documentation (and of the project itself) should be commensurate with the abilities of the individual candidate. Specifically, a 13 year old should not be expected to perform at the same level as the 17 year old who had his EBoR last week.