Another advancement issue...too fast too soon

[qwazse]

I'm with CP. If the boy held a POR for four months, and nobody questioned how he was doing his job at at the time, then he's good to go.

 

If only other boys' parents would help them live up to their position!

 

But I would ask the boy if he would like to do things differently for his next rank. Maybe he would like to do the position differently. More help from a friend inatead of a parent, for example. maybe a different position, like instructor which may challenge his communication skills.

 

this information will help his new SM get him plugged in to troop life.

[qwazse]

Sorry, double post.(This message has been edited by Qwazse)

[qwazse]

sorry, triple post.(This message has been edited by Qwazse)

[Eagle732]

CP, For the record the OP described the POR as minor, not me.

I mentioned Librarian and Historian because those are two jobs that seem to attract Scouts who don't want any actual responsibility.

I'd still like to know what the POR was. If it was Assistant Patrol Leader, well that's a problem.

 

[Beavah]

Yah, evilleramsfan, this sorta thing comes up a lot 'round da forums (and other places). Having a lad with a disability is just an added twist.

 

Inevitably in all youth work, some boys/parents will test the limits of whatever systems are in place. That's boy nature, and human nature. So while in a troop with a positive culture yeh can say that most lads are doin' what they should be, there will always be a few who try to figure out what the lowest limit is. And if enough do that, that becomes the new troop norm and then there'll be some kids and parents who test even lower limits.

 

What happens next is that good scouters are confronted with one of these lower limits cases and go "Hey, wait a minute! That's not what we want Eagle/First Class/etc. to be!" And they quite frequently are right. Da problem is, at the SM Conf/BOR stage for Eagle or other ranks, things are too far along. Yep, that's when the adults are confronted with the outcomes that they didn't want, for sure. But it's not the spot to fix it. Yeh get the outcomes that yeh worked for. If yeh want different outcomes, yeh have to work harder earlier in the process.

 

So a lad who has been signed off and is leaving town gets a bye. Yeh do the conference, have the BOR, give him the rank and wish him well. Then, if yeh didn't like the outcome yeh sit as a group and figure out how you're goin' to do things better for all of the boys, and especially for boys like him in the future. Maybe it's time to eliminate do-nothing positions like Librarian in your troop... or beef them up somehow so they're the equivalent work and responsibility of other positions like Patrol Leader. Maybe it's time to appoint a senior member of the committee as Parent Coach, to have conversations with parents who are pushin' and doin' their kid's work a bit too much. Maybe it's time to take a hard look at who is signing off requirements and when, and whether those sign-offs really represent proficiency in the skills. Maybe it's time to focus less on advancement in your program and more on outdoorsmanship and service and just having fun. Maybe it's time to forbid all of the Merit Badge Mill/Fair events and expect boys to have a real merit badge experience.

 

Whatever it is, if yeh find that yeh don't like an outcome, the usual way to address it is by improving your program along the way, not by trying to block the outcome at the 11th hour.

 

The only time when yeh throw the flag at the SM/BOR level is when a boy has been counseled repeatedly and is deliberately choosing to test the adults in some way. In that case, yeh need to pass the test, and say "no" in a mature and forthright fashion. That doesn't sound like da case here.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[SaintCad]

I'm a little confused here.

 

Was the boy given accomodated requirements because of the disability and the SM is questioning if they were appropriate?

 

Is the SM questioning that he met the requirements for tenderfoot-2nd class-1st class? Maybe but if that is not taken care at the scoutmaster conference or the BOR (and yes, a BOR can reject advancement if the boy has not met the requirements. It happened once in my troop because of a misunderstanding by the scoutmaster over whether a requirement was completed and was a miror issue corrected within a week. I heard about another troop where the boys were getting signoffs a little too easily [not doing the reqirements at all] by the SM and the BOR felt it was a quality control issue.) then too late now.

 

Minor leadership position and TLT? Not an issue. It's either on the list or not and TLT is not a requirement. The only issue is bugler that is a POR for some but not all ranks.

 

Is the difficulty in explaining how he lives the oath and law in his everyday life? Not required. He needs to DEMONSTRATE how he lives a scouts life. Can his parents, teachers and neighbors tell you how he lives the oath and law? If so, then he has met the requirement.

 

"If we say no, his parents will likely be very angry and describe our decision as unfounded, biased, or based on ignorance, but I still don't think advancing him would be the right thing to do. We do meet with him within a few days and he will have a chance to prove himself.....but my gut says he won't convince us."

I agree with the parents. A scout does not need to "justify" (your word) advancement. They either met the requirement or did not.

 

Unfounded - Did he meet the requirements yes or no? If so, how can you deny the advancement?

 

Biased - "If he did not have the disability". If you start out a sentence like that, be very careful of what you say next. Even if you are not biased against him because of his disability, you are biased in that you have prejudged whether or not he will meet your arbitrary requirements.

 

based on ignorance - Yep. You are unaware yourself of what the requirements are. A scout does not have to explain anything to you. He has to demonstrate it and I gave you a variety of sources that can verify what he has done. Plus the fact that you included TLT as part of the leadership requirement shows you are unaware of the requirements.

[evilleramsfan]

OK, more information and an update...

 

The first thing you need to know is that I am the SM and what has been leading up to this has been coming for awhile. I have been SM for 4 years and ASM for 3 prior to that. I am an Eagle...having earned it one week before my 13th birthday. I know a little on the subject on early advancement. However, when I earned it, I had served as Scribe, Patrol Leader, SPL, and several other positions. In addition, I earned the rank not only from the current requirements at the time (late 1970's), but also from many years prior. I learned Morse code, had earned Lifesaving, etc.

 

First of all, it is important to note that dad is an Eagle and has been pushing really hard. As soon as jr had been signed off on First Class, dad was asking for him to be assigned a leadership position. Forget the fact that the troop elections and positions were assigned 2 months prior. Dad has been an ASM since joining the troop last spring.

 

The boy is a delight as far as that goes. I have no problem signing off on scout spirit and living by the oath and law. He is active and always has a smile on his face. He has problems with retaining what he has learned. At other times, however, I have been surprised at what he does know and usually enjoy our conferences together.

 

One big problem has been that the troop grew quickly over the last 2 to 3 years. We went from a troop of 20-25 to a troop of 50+. We have a very active program and it has been a challenge to keep things well oiled and moving in the same direction as when we were smaller. A benefit of getting bigger is that it makes it easier to make sure patrol method is used. The negative is that some of the critical advancement quality control has gotten away from us.

 

We are in the process of reigning in the quality control, but some cases such as this have slipped through as a result. We have created a policy in the last few months where, for example, we do not just "one and done" on signing off on a requirement. We require that the boy demonstrate that he knows how to do the skill and then comes back no less than two weeks later to show that he has retained that knowledge. If he can still demonstrate it, then we sign off for it in his book. For years, when a boy met the requirements at summer camp, we just transferred it to his book and signed off on it. At one time it worked because we had a chance to work more closely with the boys, but have found that recently the quality and retention to be lacking. We now require any skill requirement to have the 2 week lag time to show retention.

 

This boy was one of the ones who got a bunch of items signed off because he went to two different summer camps. As a result, most of his First class was signed off and just needed time to happen. He did not earn First Class, but received it anyway. Ultimately, I am responsible. I feel I have taken actions to stop the hemorrhaging, but in some cases it is too late. Many of you were right in pointing out that what is done is done and I can only go by the Star requirements. He has met those. He was assigned Troop Historian and has done a good job, all things considered (although I do question if he really did the work....I did ask him point blank if he did the work and he said he did....I have to take his word, imo..). He did attend Troop Leadership Training and was active in it. I had a conference with him and felt I had no choice but to sign off on it.

 

I will likely have some serious fallout over it. My Adv. Chair and one of my ASM's are livid over it. I may lose some active and valued adults as a result. In many ways, I am sick over the whole thing.... Thanks for your input everyone and at some point later, I'll share our advancement process that we developed to try to minimize these problems....

[evilleramsfan]

One note... The whole point of mentioning TLT, was not that it was a requirement, but the fact that he attended it is a positive addition to his leadership experience, not that it met the requirement..... I hope my last post helped to explain the issue more fully. Due to time restraints over the last week, I just had time to post the question and unfortunately did not explain my dilemma adequately. I am fully aware of the requirements, but wanted some additional input. All of you have done so wonderfully, and I thank you. You, in essence, confirmed what my experience and training was telling me (even though I believe he did not truly earn the prior rank). In a nutshell, it comes down to what is done is done and we can only enforce what is current with the boy.

 

BTW- I have had many discussions with others over the purpose of the Scoutmaster Conference and the BOR and in each case I do not see where we could have refused him. As many have stated here, he met the requirements for Troop Historian, he was active for the period of time, he met the merit badge requirements, he shows scout spirit and lives by the oath and law, and he had plenty of service hours. At this point, my hands are tied as are the BOR's (from what I have been told from many others who have been in scouting for a long time).

[airborneveteran]

Be assured that there is almost always turnover when there is growth. Companies, churches, packs, troops all have this common element. You did the right thing. Train your new advancement chair to follow the rules while showing grace and I'm sure things will be fine later down the line.

 

Honestly, once someone threatens to leave it's generally time for them to go. Help them land softly elsewhere if you can.

 

You know you did the right thing in an imperfect world. That's all you've got. That's enough.

[shortridge]

IMHO, and this is only my opinion, meant as constructive criticism -

 

By emphasizing advancement and quality control and making that your priority, you're implicitly telling Scouts that they need to focus on checking the boxes and reading the rules. That's a skewed focus.

 

The emphasis should be on program and outdoor adventure, not advancement policies and procedures. Advancement will happen naturally in a troop that has a good outdoor program, almost accidentally. There's no need to worry about retention of skills, because the Scouts are using them every month.

 

It is harder to do, especially in a troop with lots of aggressive parents. But it is the way Scouting was intended to be done.

[Twocubdad]

Our troop defines leadership as motivating others to work toward a common goal. That is exactly what is required here.

 

One of the really good sessions in Wood Badge is on managing change -- just what you're going through. It's been 6 or 7 years now, but as I recall some of the main points of the session are, 1) to clearly communicate you vision for the future, 2) be prepared that not everyone will buy into your vision, and 3) you may lose some folks along the way.

 

If you've not done so, you need to sit down with the ASM/Scout's dad and explain to him your vision for improving QC within the troop. Explain why this is important. What your ultimate goal looks like. What you need from the leaders and Scouts to achieve the goal. And in particular, how the changes you see in the troop program impacting his son and what you are prepared to do to accommodate his disabilities.

 

I can understand your frustration and that of your AC and other ASM. Been there, done that, got the scars. Disability or not, it's easy to see the problem with the troop trying to head in one direction and this boy and his dad being Exhibit One of what you don't want.

 

Perhaps it's time to bring in the folks from the council with experience in working with disabled Scouts. Ask them if they will come in and conduct disability training for all the troop leaders. It would be a tremendous olive branch to the dad (plus good info you need.) It may be time to develop an alternative advancement plan for the Scout. Maybe the dad doesn't want to do that -- I imagine he wants his son to complete the requirements like all the other boys. But then you need to explain to him that the bar is now higher. The boy is going to have to be more transparent with his position of leadership and do the work such that you or other troop adults can evaluate his performance. (Of course the point is, you're creating a situation where the dad can't do the work for him, but you've got to be delicate about it or the dad will throw up a wall.)

 

Be positive. Of course you want his boy in the troop. Of course you want him to succeed, have fun and earn Eagle. But the troop is evolving. You will be willing to make any reasonable accommodation you can for the Scout's disability, but your primary responsibility is to deliver a quality program for all the Scout.

 

Then take the AC and other ASM out for a coke and make sure they understand the situation. They -- and you -- can only move as fast as the rest of the troop is willing to go. As we tell our Scouts, when you are a leader, it's good to look back and check if anyone is still following you.

 

As everyone has posted, you're stuck with the Star requirement completed and signed off. You can't fix the past only move forward.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[Beavah]

Yah, Scout Salute to yeh evilleramsfan! First, for keepin' your focus on the Aims yeh want to achieve for each boy, and then for havin' the courage and vision to do what yeh need to do with your program to achieve those Aims.

 

Camps really shouldn't be signin' off T-2-1 requirements, and when I do a camp visit I sometimes need to have that conversation with the staff. Camps help troops by providin' instruction (Step 1: A Scout Learns), but when it comes to rank requirements, it's up to the troop to provide the testing (Step 2: A Scout is Tested). There's also nothin' at all wrong with TLT being a requirement to hold a position of responsibility in a troop, and therefore indirectly to be a requirement for Star, Life, and Eagle.

 

I think when these things come up, it is worth thinkin' for a moment if a boy (or dad) has intentionally tried to scam signoffs. That is to say, they knew the troop's real expectations and are deliberately playin' fast and loose. Testing the limits, if you will. When that happens, I think it merits a somewhat firmer conversation and perhaps a "no", because at its core the question is "do you care enough to tell us no?". However, yeh have to come at that with clean hands, eh? If your communication or practice were at all a contributin' factor, then I think yeh have to give the boy the benefit of the doubt. Still, yeh can have a conversation on the next campout about him really needin' to go back and improve his basic skills, because that's the only way people will really respect him as a leader for Life rank.

 

One thought if you're havin' quality control issues that I saw one troop do: for a stretch, do no sign-offs on anything at meetings or outings. None, zip, nada. Instead, signoffs at least for T-2-1 happen at a testing day or overnight that yeh hold once a month or once every other month or so. No instruction at all, just challenges. It's game day, not practice. The boy has to come with proper gear. He has to do the five mile hike with an older scout observer/buddy, he has to do a meal plan on his own and yeh stop at the supermarket on the way out where he shops within budget, do a fire on his own and cook on it, use proper first aid to treat a burn scenario from the fire, etc.

 

Then yeh have a bunch of adults and older boys there together, and yeh discuss before signing anything off. It really helps everyone get on the same page when yeh can actually see what "knows how to plan and cook a meal" looks like or doesn't look like, and the boys themselves pretty much recognize immediately whether they've done a good job to merit a sign off or not. It also helps the adults sometimes if the Patrol Leader is there sayin' "At this point, I couldn't trust him to plan the patrol's meals on his own, and that's what the signoff should mean."

 

Plus, from what I saw, these things seemed like a lot of fun.

 

Beavah

 

[Tampa Turtle]

All good comments and I understand the dilemma. A problem is if the boy came from a unit that the boys did not exercise their skills they can lose them. So I have seen boys who got a rank, probably passed it at the time, and promptly forgot it all. But they got signed off.

 

I have battled some of the POR credit issue for "Leadership". I have to admit in a lot of cases I have looked/asked around and the boy HAD done more effort than I was aware of, especially from his perspective.

[evilleramsfan]

Thanks for sharing that idea Beavah. I'll bring it up to the ASM's to ask what they think.

[fred8033]

shortridge wrote: "By emphasizing advancement and quality control and making that your priority, you're implicitly telling Scouts that they need to focus on checking the boxes and reading the rules. That's a skewed focus.

 

"The emphasis should be on program and outdoor adventure, not advancement policies and procedures. Advancement will happen naturally in a troop that has a good outdoor program, almost accidentally. There's no need to worry about retention of skills, because the Scouts are using them every month.

 

"It is harder to do, especially in a troop with lots of aggressive parents. But it is the way Scouting was intended to be done."

 

 

 

100% agree. Great response. In another thread, it was asserted that some troops are "kid focused" and others are "program focused". I've yet to reach a position on that. Perhaps because it wasn't a strong deliniation in my mind. BUT, this one is.

 

Program focused versus advancement focused? Scouting is program based. It's about doing. Getting outdoors. Learning. Exploring. Building friendships. The scout in question apparently has done this, has been a good member of the troop and has met BSA advancement expectations. Why even talk about testing the lower limits? Why even talk about advancement quality control? To me that's just misfocused and needs an attitude adjustment.

 

IMHO, the real question is how to celebrate this scout's achievement before he moves out of town.

 

...

 

If you have any quality control question, perhaps the question is how do you make sure it's the scout's scouting experience and not the parents. It's hard to save a scout from his own parents and especially a scout with such a disability. In our troop, we've got two with significant autism, one with muscular dystrophy and several others with more mild conditions. Often, the parents are there just to help out.

 

But we've also had pushy parents. Usually after listening to the parent talk / vent, the answer is a friendly smile and a "have your son come talk to me." Often we don't even discuss advancement with the parents. Explain yes. Discuss no.

 

...

 

"too fast too soon" is as often an adult leader issue as much as a scout issue.