Ask the Expert: The BSA’s ‘active’ requirement

[Beavah]

Too often you see postings where the youth didn't do their job, and then the scoutmaster wouldn't sign off on the position when it came up for review/signoff. Its like no one thought about making sure the kid was doing the job, and if not, remove him from office before hand.

 

Yah, I don't get this negative attitude about fellow scouters.

 

Far more likely, it's da Scoutmaster has been working actively with the lad to try to get him to do the job, teach him responsibility, overcome his reluctance, help him to manage his time...

 

and the boy hasn't learned yet.

 

For every other requirement, "A Scout Learns" is da first step, eh? We don't sign off for da swim requirements after a boy has tried once every two weeks for 4 months (missin' half da sessions). We sign off when he can swim, and we keep workin' with him until he can. And we don't remove him from swimming opportunities when he can't (yet) swim.

 

Same with PORs. We shouldn't sign off because a lad has held a title for a period of time. We sign off when he has really demonstrated responsibility for a period of time. And rather than remove him when he hasn't (yet) demonstrated responsibility, we work with him until he learns.

 

Yah, yah, sure, occasionally the boys have to remove a non-performing leader for their own sake, or occasionally the Scoutmaster has to remove a leader for behavioral reasons. But that shouldn't be da regular practice just because a lad hasn't yet learned all that Scout Law stuff about "Trustworthy and Loyal" and such. Yeh keep workin' with him until A Scout Learns.

 

But yeh don't sign off until he has learned. A Scout is Tested is the second step to advancement. And the requirement is the test. So to pass da requirement, he has to swim 100 yards. And to pass da POR requirement, he has to serve actively and responsibly for 4-6 months. Not just hold a title.

 

Beavah

 

[John-in-KC]

I like your comment in the other thread B, from R&R ... the one where the Corporation itself defines Active.

 

I also like your approach ... work with the young people. Sometimes I think we take Patrol Method and hoist it on the sacred altar ... (just as people do uniforms, Advancement, etc) ... when Adult Association is also a method.

 

Removing a youth member should be the last resort...

 

Lord have mercy. We're talking about BOYS. Our youth need development. That inlcudes have mature, reasoned, caring responses shown them day in and day out.

 

Thanks for the writings, both here and on the other Active thread

[Twocubdad]

I'll agree with da Beav. While I'm sure there are SMs who do nothing to help a Scout through a POR then refuse to sign at the end of the term, I think it's more likely that SMs do everything they can to drag Scouts across the finish line. I know I've painted myself into that corners by continuing to work with boys who show little initiative far past the time they should have been removed from office. I think most of us in Scouting are here to help boys succeed and are pretty loathsome to fire a 13 year old.

 

National's policy make sense if you're sitting in an office in Irving and are trying to avoid conflict and keep your job easy. But it STINKS as a way to run a Scout troop.

 

I just spent two months crawling through that pile of broken glass. We had an Eagle candidate (I may have written about him before) who did a poor job in his POR. By national's way of thinking, in July I should have told him, sorry, your not making the grade, no Eagle for you. Because of his looming birthday, he had no chance to try another term. Instead, I left him in the position for a total of nine months and spent a great deal of time working with him.

 

So at the end of the nine months, what are my options? Did the extra time and effort pay off? Or did the boy continue with the sub-standard performance from the first six month. According to National, it doesn't matter. When the calendar page turned to September and the boy was still in the position, he completed the requirement, regardless of what I think. My willingness to DO MY JOB and work with this Scout means I give up the ability to judge his performance?

 

Back to attendance -- I've got boys who attend something short of the 50% standard we like to see for Scouts wanting to advance. Does national really want me to expell them from the troop? Can you just imagine showing up at the council office on a routine basis with letters asking for boys to be dropped from your charter for lack of attendance? What do you think is going to get more notice from council? A unit that enforces attendance standards or which routinely boots kids from the program?

 

An odd way to run a railroad.....

[Abel Magwitch]

I believe you hit the nail right on the head when you posted this:

 

National's policy make sense if you're sitting in an office in Irving and are trying to avoid conflict and keep your job easy. But it STINKS as a way to run a Scout troop.