The New Eagle Scout Service Project Workbook

[OldGreyEagle]

stlscouter,

 

Since an Eagle Project can't benefit the Boy Scouts of America in any way (That part hasn't changed), then the development of this new version of the Eagle Scout Proposal may be a good servce project, but its no Eagle Project

[Twocubdad]

How will the national advancement team enforce these changes? Because our council EP review committee works about the same as Moose's. One size fits all and it dang well better be extra-extra large. They have had stuff rejected on appeal at national, but six months later they're right back at it again.

 

I'm generally pleased with the new manual. But can already hear the ignore, evade and side-step machinery cranking up. I think it's pretty naive to think these guys who have spend YEARS creating our byzantine EP bureauracy will go down without a fight. I'm not optimistic, especially when the new guidlines leave the appeal of EP proposals within the council.

 

They're not following the current guidelines, why should we believe they will follow the new ones?

[moosetracker]

All I'm saying is everyone who has to judge if a project has enough meat to it to showcase that the boy has learned leadership, and if it is a project with enough impact and value to be considered worthy of an eagle project (Which the book does state is still something the board has to come to a concesses on.) Has to have some sort of a mental yardstick of comparison in which to judge.

 

A person evaluating projects over a time period would get a sense of it by comparing psst project and comeing up with an average and from that what would be not enough or what would be too much. A person starting out, may have a more concrete yardstick by which to judge similar to the 100 hour, until they get enough projects under their belt to get that internal meter by averaging all the projects they have seen over time.

 

Whatever concrete yardsticks the new guy uses though, it shouldn't be a rule, more a guideline that can be ignored when something presents itself that common sense says it is not necessary to apply.. Over time, you get enough exceptions that all of a sudden you will find you are slowly moving into judging by experience, rather then by a concrete yardstick..

 

From what my son stated, he sounds like he is moving out of the concrete yardstick phase, but just is not yet ready to let it go.. And yes, still a little of that youthful it's right because I say so.. bureaucracy be d**ned!! That may take a while longer, and in some cases has it's place.. But as you say, in this case will play out to the scouts favor if he chooses to fight..

 

Luckily, from what I know except for the one scout I mentioned when it was brought up by one board member and voted down.. Our board takes up this 100 hour thing at the proposal, not to deny the boy after the project is completed..

 

Like I said, best the board internalize their reasoning as to why a project lacks enough proof of leadership, and just state that based on the collective experience of the average Eagle project the project at hand needs a little more proof of leadership.. Then make the suggestions on what can be done to beef the project up.. Because with the wording in bold neon sign at the front of the new book, they are going to run up to more opposition if they keep using it.

 

I guess it does state if a scout feels his project meet criteria, he can ignore the boards recommendations, do the project and then ask for someone else to validate the project was sufficient.. Although if it were me, I would not want to do a lengthy project on a gamble that during arbitration, someone else will see thing my way..

 

But, then that is the youth thing and bureaucracy be d**ned!! So we may have a few choose that path.

 

 

[bnelon44]

Twocubdad,

 

When councils recharter each year they, like units, agree to follow BSA policies and proceedures. If they deliberately go against BSA polices they put their recharter at risk.

[Twocubdad]

As I said, I generally like the new guidelines, but I'll have to say this section on "Give Leadership...." is one of the weaker ones. It's a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, harking back to the old definition active -- long on what we can't require, but silent on what sort of leadership we should expect from a Scout.

 

Committees abhor bureaucratic vacuums, so when establish a requirement to "give leadership" but only define what that ISN'T, folks are going to insert their own definition of what it IS. The old suggestions that ESLPs should be of sufficient scope to allow the Scout to demonstrate his leadership abilities, was better. Of course that led to folks defining "scope" as 100 man hours. But depending on how that was applied it's not a bad thing. My job is to estimate construction projects. I can look at a project and tell you how long it should take. My rule of thumb is if two qualified trades people could finish a project in a day or two (that is, about 25 man hours), it's probably a decent Eagle project, (that is, something over 100 "scouthours" -- Scouthours being considerable different from manhours).

 

So back to the new description of "Give Leadership" -- it basically defines leadership as anything goes, as long as two other warm bodies participate. I have higher expectations than that from my Eagle candidates. As a Scoutmaster helping boys develop their proposals, I ask they plan for at least one of their workdays include a cross section of the Scouts in the troop. Particularly if physical labor is involved, leading three other guys from your football team is a much different leadership problem than leading 10 11-year-old Scouts. And of course, involving Scouts from the troop is a beneficial thing for those Scouts and the troop program generally. It's not an unreasonable request and I will continue to request it.

 

That approach is what I'm liking about the new guidelines, but is what is missing from this section. The old book seemed to be written broadly to cover the last 0.001%. The new one generally provides the broad principle which should apply in the main, but also some flexibility and with exceptions. I like that it usually provides some reasonable discussion of the ins and outs of the policy.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think this section does that.

[OldGreyEagle]

I am pretty sure when the town "fathers" and perhaps even a town "mother" knows when they set the speed limit on city streets, that for some people, these speed limits are more like "guidelines... argghh the pirate code"

 

Just because some people will weasel their way to do what they want does not mean the BSA should not try to be as explicit as they can. THis version is a big improvement, could be better, but we have had worse. The weasels will weasel no matter what, "its what they do, its all they do" to paraphase John Connor

[moosetracker]

I have yet to hear anyone comment on if they think that a scout picking up trash in a park for 2 hours with Mommy & Daddy as the other two warm bodies is a good Eagle project..

 

If "Yes" why?

 

If "No" what was it you internally used as a measurement for figuring out if the project met sufficient Leadership? After all there is no time element, and the scout has 2 warm bodies.. Now what? What else are you going to use to figure out if the project meet the criteria of showing Leadership?

 

Would it be an acceptable project if it was scout and two of scouts friends rather then Mommy & Daddy? total 6 hours picking up trash.. little leadership unless scout is running around pointing to trash and saying "Here is something to pick up.. Now over here!!"

 

I want to see some positive, constructive suggestions on how to classified an Eagle project meets the standards of Leadership, and impact for the recipient of the project in a non-weasel-ly way..

 

I mean it is easy to condemn something as being wrong, it is much harder to establish the "right" way of doing things..

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmm....

 

Gotta agree with TwoCubDad here. This section needed another round of editing. Yeh can certainly see a whole group of people readin' it just the way moosetracker is readin' it, and that really does seem to be what it says, even though I don't think it's what they intended. Leadership is havin' two other people around. No time requirements. No common standards allowed. There are references to "impact" and "complexity" and tailoring a project to a boy, but they're followed almost immediately by stronger language saying that holding boys to standards is not allowed.

 

Seems like they were tryin' for balance, but got a bit too caught up in thinkin' about the district boards that go hog-wild for demandin' 50-page detailed reports without also considerin' the ones that roll over and allow a high school valedictorian to retire a few flags.

 

Beavah

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Wouldnt picking up trash come under the heading of routine labor? The book makes an example of pulling weeds on the football field. Actually, long about November, having weeds on the football field was not a bad thing, anything but cold mud was a bonus but I digress. if you can't pull weeds from a football field, you can't pick up trash either

 

 

I think

[moosetracker]

OK.. you got me there OGE.. So we need to change our project..

 

How about if mommy, Daddy and scoutSon build a single bat house and hang it up..

 

Or they can plant a single sapling tree on arbor day..

 

Send out one care package to a soldier over seas??

 

Spend an hour at a nursing home socializing..(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[MoosetheItalianBlacksmith]

Basementdweller.....that statement was more in terms of knowing the people on the board not me...although I also agree with that statement

 

Because as my mother is making apparent now....the workbook makes it all too possible for Eagle Projects to become a joke in the not too distant future.

 

There needs to be leadership in it and a reasonable amount.....our board uses the internal gauge of 100 hours but we do not live by that.

 

The project we denied on Sunday had a lot of hours but not enough leadership with the new work book that project could have passed......I dont think I want to live in a world where the term eagle project is a joke and has no integrity to it and there is no strength an backbone behind it.

 

If the projects get weaker then peoples perception of eagle scouts in general will get weaker...and where will we be then.

 

So on top of telling us what in your mind makes a good project.your internal gauge.Id like to know if you really want possibility of weakening our eagle projects.

(This message has been edited by MoosetheItalianBlacksmith)

[John-in-KC]

First,

 

Thanks to the OP for this. I downloaded the draft and emailed it (and the words from the advancement letter) to my DAC.

 

TCD,

 

How will the National Advancement Committee enforce this? There will be some Eagle candidate, somewhere, turned down for Eagle. He'll appeal to National. They will award the Eagle, and there just might be a message to the SE of the Council concerned, cc the Pres, cc the Advancement Chair.

 

Moose,

 

One bite of the elephant at a time. Pick the battles wisely...

[MoosetheItalianBlacksmith]

I have not picked any battles..Im merely stating where this will go. Years of history in many differnt feilds show us that.

 

Only way I can see it not going that way is if they tighten it up or the districts and councils continue to maintain a standard that can be associated with an Eagle Scout project. Thus making sure it continues to be a worthwhile Endeavour.

 

And in case you havent come across me on any other forums I am very direct and I will tell it to you like it is. I dont pull punches.

 

[BadenP]

The problem with Eagle projects for years now, like the boy scout program, has been "dumbed down" so has the Eagle Project to make it much easier for a boy to do a simple good deed and have it qualify. It doesn't matter what the book says because many leaders just interpret it their own way. In addition too many EBOR's just seem to accept almost any mundane project as qualifying for Eagle.

[OldGreyEagle]

There is a section where the scout has to explain what he thinks will be the most difficult thing about leading the people who are helping him with the project. I guess I would have to see what leadership skills are verbalized