The Active Equals Registered Thing

[FScouter]

We hear it repeated over and over a ridiculous notion that BSA says active is nothing more than being registered. I see it a only a cheap ploy to discredit BSA, somehow advocating an idea that BSA is crazy, therefore we can do or not do anything we want.

 

I also see lack of meeting attendance is taken as a personal affront by the troop adults. Whaddaya mean you dont want come to my meeting?? How dare you, you ungrateful dopey kid!

 

Heaven forbid Ed, a boy actually do Scouting outside of the "official required troop meeting". The nerve!

[evmori]

BTW, who signs the book, a Scoutmaster designee or the BSA?

 

Other than the SM Conference, does it matter?

 

Heaven forbid Ed, a boy actually do Scouting outside of the "official required troop meeting". The nerve!

 

Ya missed the point Frank. If a Scout comes to minimal unit meetings & campouts yet completes all the requirements is he active? According to National, yup! A Scout will win on appeal every time regardless of how many unit meetings & campouts he has attended!

[asm 411]

There is troop near where I live that has a membership waiting list. The troop has near 100% attendance at every weekly meeting and on most campouts. I was amazed to find this out. I asked the Scoutmaster why he thought was. His answer was "I run the program as designed."

 

Since then I have done everything I can to understand and implement what that simple statement means. I read several forums, I have read many old and current Boy Scout and Scoutmaster handbooks. I have brought to my troop as much as I can as an ASM the "program as design." Our Scoutmaster is on the same page with me. We have higher attendance than in past years. We don't have a waiting list ... yet.

 

If Scouters would take more time running "The program as designed" there would be no need for the "Being Active" requirement.

[Beavah]

 

If Scouters would take more time running "The program as designed" there would be no need for the "Being Active" requirement.

 

Yah, if that were da case, then why is the being active requirement a part of the program as it's been designed? Seems like someone felt it was an important design element to include, eh?

 

 

I also see lack of meeting attendance is taken as a personal affront by the troop adults. Whaddaya mean you dont want come to my meeting?? How dare you, you ungrateful dopey kid!

 

Yah, hmmm.... thanks for sharin', FScouter. You'll forgive me, but I find this to be a really unusual viewpoint. I wonder if you had some really bad experiences as a youth with a particular scoutmaster that yeh still are holding onto?

 

Never in all my years of Scouting have I seen any adult leader take anything close to the approach that you are seeing in your mind. I honestly don't believe that such folks exist in the real world.

 

We hear it repeated over and over a ridiculous notion that BSA says active is nothing more than being registered. I see it a only a cheap ploy to discredit BSA, somehow advocating an idea that BSA is crazy, therefore we can do or not do anything we want.

 

FScouter, like the case above, I think your projecting an odd scene in your brain which doesn't correspond to what anybody is really doing or saying.

 

I think what's really happening is that a lot of scouters are looking at a set of guidelines and an approach taken by one small part of an organization, and comparing it to other work by other parts of the organization, and critiquing the work because they care about the organization and its mission.

 

But I'm a bit concerned. If you're finding that you're getting similarly agitated about other non-scouting things where you're "seeing" things in similar ways, that can have underlying medical causes. I know yeh just went through some health issues, and it might be worth a mention at a checkup. We can all get curmudgeonly at times, but sometimes it's better to be safe than sorry.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[OldGreyEagle]

"Ya missed the point Frank. If a Scout comes to minimal unit meetings & campouts yet completes all the requirements is he active? According to National, yup! A Scout will win on appeal every time regardless of how many unit meetings & campouts he has attended!"

 

The College that I got my bachelor's degree from had a Grdaduation requirment of 120 hours, no distinction was made for those who completed 120 and those who may have amassed

many more. Those who met the requirements graduated

 

If a scout meets the requirements, he met the requirements. Requirments, I may add that have been signed off by the unit leaders, not the BSA.

 

 

Beavah, F Scouter is not the only one who thinks the way he does. I have seen Troops in the Disitrct I serve brandish attendance requirements because it's only right that the boy avail themselves of the program the hard working leaders have assembled (so much wrong you know). When you require something its because people wont natrually do it. If a scout won't natrually come to scouts, why not develop a program that he will come to rather than require him to attend what you have?

[Buffalo Skipper]

What I have not seen touched upon much here is the wording of the "active" requirement. For S-L-E it says you must be active for 4/6 months as a F-S-L scout.

 

What I see happening (in many troops around here) is a scout who earns Life by 14 or 15, remains active for another year or two, but then goes almost 100% inactive, and finally shows up 3 months (or less) before their 18th birthday to finish their project. Arguably they were active for one or even 2 years as a Life Scout. Nothing says they must be active for the few months before they complete their Eagle requirements.

 

There are plenty other ramifications resulting from this attitude, but those are not really the focus of this thread (see---I can stay on topic!).

[Twocubdad]

Highcountry, I believe you're problem has solved itself with at least one of your scouts (if I'm following the post and don't have the two Scouts confused. And as a point of style, an occasional paragraph break would make your posts much easier to follow.)

 

You wrote that the one boy earned Life in December with seven months to go before turning 18. Since then he has done nothing, including -- I assume -- his Position of Responsibility. Do the math. That ship sailed. I'm figuring his birthday is July-ish and here we are in April. He cannot possibly get his six-month POR in.

 

But you've got to be proactive. If he is technically registered in a POR, you have to take steps to remove him from it due to his failure to perform. At the end of six months, you can't then say, "sorry, that didn't count." Don't wait for him to show up with the blue cards and a project proposal. You need to meet with the Scout AND HIS PARENTS and let them know what the score. It will probably get ugly, but a whole lot less ugly that it will in three months after the kid has busted his hump for the merit badges and a project.

 

Put it all in writing and give the Scout and his parent a letter at the conclusion of his meeting. Include in the letter the information about the POR. The other thing you must do is to document all your conversations with the Scout. All those conversations you and the other leaders had trying to get the kid motivated and moving need to be included. You need to show that the troop provided the boy every opportunity to complete the requirements and finish Eagle, but he chose not to take advantage of them. His attendance is secondary. That he was told that he needed to get involved and demonstrate leadership but failed to do so is the point.

 

I'm not sure what to tell you about the other kid as you didn't give us as much info. But the thing that jumped out at me was Den Chief. Maybe that's his calling. If we exclude goofy, disconnected teenagers from the program, troop meetings are going to get pretty lonely.

 

One other thought about older guys who don't attend. The troop I inherited was full of 16 and 17 year old who tended to disappear for a couple years only to show up a few months before their 18th birthday to finish Eagle. Of course it bothered me to sign an Eagle app for a kid I had laid eyes on only a couple of times.

 

Naturally, I had to rely on the input of the ASMs and committee members who had been around longer. But the way I finally got comfortable with the situation was to ask if the Scout had "walked the walk prior to taking his break from Scouting. In my first couple years as SM I probably had 6-8 Eagles in this situation. I had a couple boys who remained active until the day they left for college. And I had one who sounds a lot like Highcountry's Scout who never "walked the walk." He was the source of my initiation by fire to the appeals process and ultimately he was never awarded Eagle.

 

That a boy takes an 18-month break from the troop should make no difference to us. If a boy dropped out of Cubs but came back to the program at age 13, or of they left for a couple years half-way through First Class, but later rejoined, we would celebrate their return as a success. What's the difference if they take the break as a Life Scout with 20 merit badges and a half-finished project?

[asm 411]

Hi Beavah!

 

"Yah, if that were da case, then why is the being active requirement a part of the program as it's been designed? Seems like someone felt it was an important design element to include, eh?"

 

Ah, you have surrounded me with my own words. LOL

 

Lincoln

 

 

 

[acco40]

GetOutdoors: acco40, So what happens if the scout doesn't participate in 50% of the activities? I see you don't allow them to advance. Per my DE, you don't have the power to do so. They consider that "adding requirements."

 

GetOutdoors and others, I think you may have misunderstood my post. A Scoutmaster is in charge of the advancement program in the troop. It is the Scoutmaster, or his delagate, that determines if requirements are met. I try to set expectations and fully realize that the national council does not allow us to set attendance requirements. Look at my post again, I use the phrase "Generally, ..." This sets up an expectation. Now, if a Scout does not meet my expectations and I see no reason to change them, I usually don't. However, if a Scout comes to me and explains his situation - for example, our local high school holds a "mandatory" marching band practice during the same time as our troop meetings so mid-August to mid-October we usually miss a handful of Scouts - I work with the Scout and make accomodations. If the Scout never approaches me, regardless if he is in the marching band, I may not make accomodations.

 

I have lots of "silly rules" in the parents eyes. I discourage a Scout from running for SPL if he is not available or unwilling to go to summer camp. Is that fair? Fair to whom I ask? The troop needs a seasoned SPL for summer camp. I realize that Scouts have choices - they just need to learn to deal with the consequences of their choices.

 

If I decide to show up two hours late for work one day my supervisor may not look upon that too kindly and I'd have consequences to deal with. However, if I talked with him in advance and told him that I need to take care of some personal business before work on Tuesday, expect to be about two hours late and have made arrangements so that all of my work gets done on time - he may look at it in a totally different light. The Scouts need to learn that they have an obligation to their patrol and to a lesser extent, their troop. If they are not present, their patrol suffers - regardless of the reason.

 

Teenagers have enough trouble realizing the "but I didn't mean to do it" excuse is not valid. Intent or reason sometimes is irrelevent. I think we owe to the boys to teach them that we have committments and we should try to keep them. So many see advancement only as a personal endeavor.

[Beavah]

LOL, thanks ASM 411. Is that a real Abraham Lincoln quote, or are you a real Lincoln? Congrats on growin' your troop program and your troop, BTW. Yeh should start a thread and share the tale of what you did that you found was successful.

 

OGE, da college analogy is apt, eh? The issue here is that you've got a college board which has set graduation requirements of bein' active with some fairly reasonable definitions, but you've got a dean who has published a pamphlet that says "active means you've paid your tuition". Though it ain't consistent with the college's mission, it's really convenient. Fewer complaints, fewer disputes, more money, doesn't take up as much of da dean's time. Naturally, the faculty and alumni who care about their institution and the quality of (character) education it delivers are concerned about that, eh? And just as naturally, a student or family who is only interested in gettin' a diploma wants to hold everyone to the dean's letter. Such things are generally resolved in da student's favor when litigated (appealed). But that doesn't mean that the dean's perspective is the right choice for either the institution or for the individual faculty or for the students they serve. I expect lots of good faculty are goin' to approach this the way acco does, eh?

 

When you require something its because people wont natrually do it.

 

Really?

 

So all those T-2-1 requirements and merit badge requirements and whatnot are because kids won't naturally go campin' or learn to rescue people or be excited to lead folks? We can abolish the entire Boy Scout Requirements book?

 

Nah. Requirements can be used for all kinds of things, eh? Includin' setting norms and expectations for a community, or settin' a challenge before a kid, or pushin' a lad a bit to help him grow. Especially when they're tied to awards, not membership, they help lads set goals and work toward 'em.

 

That's why requirements are such a big part of the program design, eh?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[asm 411]

Lincoln is my name.

 

I think I will spin off a thread. Thanks.

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Beavah, you missed the point. A College has requirements to graduate, the BSA has requirements to earn ranks. No College I know of says if you pay your tuition, then you will graduate and neither does the BSA say if you are registered you will earn ranks. Yes, you are listed as aa active scout, just as paying tuition says you are a student enrolled in a course of study. The crux of the situation is can you perform as the professors in your classes expect or not. In the BSA, have you done the requirements or not. The requirements for Eagle have several requirements going much father than merely being registered. One could think, seeing some sentiment about the active=registered argument, that some are givng out ranks just because they are registered, if that is happening, then that is an outright corruption of the BSA Advancement program. To be a Tenderfoot, Second Class, etc, Scout you have to first be registered in the organization. To be a Grand High Knight of the Beaver Lodge, you have to be a member in Good Standing, this is the same thing.

 

You have to fulfill requirements as judged by the unit leadership, being registered alone does not get you any rank

 

 

And Beavah, when I said "When you require something its because people wont natrually do it." I can see how you misunderstood.

 

I knew what I meant, but I guess the written word took away my message. I wil try another approach. Rather than require attendance why would not a unit attempt to develop a program that would make attendance requirements moot? Perhaps that is a better expressin of my sentiment.

[Beavah]

Nah, OGE, I didn't misunderstand your college analogy. I just didn't agree, and offered an analogy I thought was closer, based on the BSA havin' multiple definitions of "active". I like the "To be a Grand High Knight of the Beaver Lodge, you have to be a member in Good Standing" bit though, eh? The notion of us furry critters bein' knights tickles my tail. The question is what constitutes "Good Standing."

 

Rather than require attendance why would not a unit attempt to develop a program that would make attendance requirements moot?

 

Rather than require a swim check for First Class, why would not the BSA attempt to develop a program that would make swimming requirements moot? Surely an organization as vast and experienced as ours could come up with an active outdoor program where all the lads learned to swim well and strong (in their first year) just because it was part of the program and they wanted to. That would make swimming requirements moot.

 

And yet we don't, eh? Because we recognize that settin' requirements for awards is a way to help kids set goals and work on things that might be hard for them that they would otherwise avoid. Not every kid, but some kids. So we use requirements as part of the program because it helps kids. And we even recognize that our choice of imposin' this requirement will mean that some kids who hate swimming may quit scouting, just as some kids who can't be active because of year-round hockey will quit scouting or not make Eagle. We'll do all we can, of course, but we're only part of da puzzle.

 

Same with every other "requirement." Rather than requiring Citizenship in the World MB, why don't we come up with a program that would make world citizenship an essential, fun, core component of every outing that would make da badge requirements moot? But we don't, eh? And we even accept the fact that some lads won't make Eagle or will drop out because they just aren't interested in these required merit badges. I expect your council has "required" prep-trips for its Philmont contingent, eh? Why doesn't it make the prep trips so fun that da requirement is moot?

 

What I think you're missin' is that there are at least three independent components to helpin' kids develop in Scouting. The program is only one. The parents are another. The scout is the third.

 

The BSA and troops use requirements as part of the program so as to communicate expectations to parents and scouts, to help 'em set goals, to achieve our aims and all that. If it makes yeh feel better, whether it's the Boy Scout Requirements book or a troop's expectations for what constitutes loyal, courteous and committed membership, yeh can think of requirements as our way of communicating what we care about to our members. But da parents and the boys still need to do their part, eh?

 

Ain't nuthin' wrong with communication of expectations, if da word "requirement" sticks in your craw. Point is just that we expect a First Class scout to be able to swim.

 

Ain't that "we expect a First Class scout to be able to swim" both nicer and more accurate than all da other falderol? Like claiming we're callin' the boy a failure, blocking advancement, denying the lad first class just because the adults with their "my way or the highway" egos expect boys and families to kow-tow to their arbitrary swimming requirement, and don't they realize my boy has a life outside of scouting and is an honor student and cross country runner and swimming isn't a priority right now and it's your fault because your program doesn't make swimming lessons more fun than video games and what does swimming have to do with character anyways??!

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[FScouter]

Beavah makes quite an eloquent speech about the need for requirements. So what? Nobodys suggesting there should not be requirements for rank or awards. The Handbook has a long list of requirements for every rank. Everybody agrees there should be requirements and that awards should not be handed over merely because a boy is registered. The difference of opinion centers on whether BSA has or has not declared that attendance is not required, and whether a troop may add an attendance requirement in addition to all the other requirements.

 

Quite obviously, BSA clarified the active definition declaring that units may NOT impose attendance requirements for rank advancement, simply because units were doing just that, instead of developing a program such as OGE suggests.

 

Completing rank requirements is rather difficult if not impossible to do without attending, yes? How else does a boy participate in ten separate troop/patrol activities, serve as your patrols cook, demonstrate, show, successfully complete, serve in a position of responsibility, etc. etc. etc. if he does not participate and attend?

 

If a troop feels the need to have a separate attendance rule that would only seem to prove that the unit is improperly signing off other rank requirements, and has not been successful in keeping boys interested, happy, and engaged. Surely theres a better solution than writing an attendance rule? BSA doesn't have one, because it's not needed.

[artjrk]

(cautiously wades in...)

 

If I recall for Star/Life/Eagle, the time commitment for being active is the same as the time commitment for a POR.

 

As SM I understand I am responsible for signing off both items in the book.

 

With the debate over being active, I look at the POR. There are more definite guidelines of the responsibilities each scout must do. I don't look at them as a check list though. Whta I have done is developed a "blue card" for POR I have the responsibilities listed as the are from the leadership training guide. I also have a list of suggested goals and tasks for the scout in that position. During his term he can have his direct superior check off Items he has done, ie bugler signed off by ASPL. At the end of his term of office I can sit down with the scout and look at his "record" I ask him, Do you think you have done all you can to fulfill your duties? If we agree then we can sign off and move on. If not we can discuss a plan complete, be it an extension of the term or some other project.

 

In the end if a scout has fulfilled his role in a POR he has also fulfilled his role as being active in the Troop. All this in mutual agreement between the scout and myself.