maybe next time

[jr56]

Lisabob, I've been in you shoes also. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you have followed all procedures correctly. You are to be commended for not giving in, and providing meaning to the attained rank. It is, after all is said and done, up to the boy to rise to the necessary requirements, or not. If he does, it will be to his own benefit, and will help his development in the long run. After all, that's our purpose in scouting, to encourage the proper development of the youngsters.

[evmori]

RememberSchiff,

 

The SM Conference is not a pass/fail requirement. All the Scout must do is participate.

 

Lisabob,

 

I understand you wanting to not reveal all the details. And I, too, don't think you violated anything in denying this Scout his advancement. A BOR is not a rubber stamp requirement! Based on what you posted, most of us would have done the same thing.

 

 

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10 (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[FScouter]

It would be unfortunate if a board determined that a boy does not live the Scout Oath and Law in his DAILY life (Scout spirit) on the basis of "attitude" during a 20 minute board of review.

 

If through questioning the board cannot determine whether the Scout spirit requirement, or other requirements have been met, because of a communication failure between the board and the boy, it would be appropriate to adjourn the BOR to another day. Come back next week and let's talk again when we're all a little more comfortable.

[Gunny2862]

Thanks Evmori,

for your response to me and your most recent one.

[Eamonn]

Of course I wasn't at this BOR.

I don't have any real interest in what went on or what didn't.

Communication is a leadership skill.

I would hope that when the Eagle Scout Leadership project was reviewed communication and all the other leadership skills were looked at and taken into account.

If the Board felt that the project wasn't up to snuff due to poor communication. That might be a reason to the Scout not meeting the Eagle Scout requirements.

I have not seen it posted that this lad is not living or doing his best to live by the Scout Oath and Law. If the Board found out that he wasn't. This would a reason to deny the Scout Eagle Scout rank.

If however all the requirements were met?

It would seem from what has been posted that he is being denied Eagle Scout rank because he failed to communicate well and impress the members of the board.

I'm sorry but I fail to see this as being a reason to deny a Scout who has met the requirements Eagle Scout rank.

I think if this were to happen on a board that I was a member of, I would after the board had met to discuss the merits of his application and the Scout returned to find out what the board had decided. I'd make him aware of how very difficult he had made things for the board and let him know that in the days to come he will have to go to job interviews and maybe performance evaluations?

In fact as I think about it I more than lightly would let him know during the first interview that he wasn't doing a very good job and wasn't doing much to help himself.

Maybe going as far as to ask him to leave the room for a moment and restarting everything again!

As I say I wasn't at this BOR.

Of course there could or might be a lot more going on than has been posted.

Eamonn

[CA_Scouter]

Sorry for the minor hijack...but...

 

What LisaBob said... is right on the money. Ed's follow up is equally accurate. I've been on the receiving end of this attitude also - I tire of the constant implications that everything is the adult's fault.

 

I dare say this is contrary to Scout Spirit i.e.. "...but rather by how he helps bring out the best in others as a reflection of his own character and attitude in his daily life".

 

In my travels, I've found that ticking people off is not a good motivational technique. How about bringing out the best in others, rather than put us on the defensive. SHARE your knowledge with humility and with service to others. That is what will make it useful and what will implement change.

 

 

 

 

[Lisabob]

Eamonn,

 

To clarify, this wasn't an Eagle BOR. In fact one of my concerns is that if we don't make clear to boys what the expectations are at the lower level BORs (especially star and life) then they'll end up being blindsided at an Eagle Board. And there, I think, it is really far too late. At that point I think it would be fair to say the scout had been failed by his adult leaders' unwillingness to help guide him down a better path, earlier in his career. I'd have preferred not to have any BOR be the place this guidance occurs - far better, if it occurs long before the scout gets to a BOR - but that's what happened.

 

Thanks for your input. I hope that this will be an extremely rare situation (has been so far, I have no reason to expect otherwise going forward), but many of you have given me helpful things to think about for the future.

 

[troutmaster]

Lisa;

You are to be complimented on having the backbone to deliver a rational verdict and not pass, if, as you indicate, there are some very strong issues of spirit/attitude. As pointed out, hopefully the SM will address this before it ever comes to the board, but sometimes they do not, for whatever reason. Personally, I have passed a few to the board, but with specific reservations which I have made known to them. They have generally addressed the reservations as fairly as possible, and rendered their verdict with options if it is a negative. Only once has it been challenged by a parent, but the boy was not allowed to slide. Fortuneately, he seemed to get the picture and overcame the incident.

We never do a scout any favors when we do not hold them up to the higher expectation, especially as they progress above first class. There is a lot of evidence in the schools that "good feeling" advancement to the next grade, especially at the lower levels, often just makes the problems passed over worse at the next level. There is nothing wrong with holding a student back if they have not reached certain capabilities; nor is there anything wrong with similar action in a troop or other unit.

 

 

[John-in-KC]

Lisa,

 

PM sent.

 

John

[Lisabob]

Thanks John, PM received and I agree with your assessment.

 

Something Eamonn said gave me pause and I'd love to hear what folks think about the ups and downs of this approach so that I can learn from your experiences. To quote the Great E ( ) :

 

"In fact as I think about it I more than lightly would let him know during the first interview that he wasn't doing a very good job and wasn't doing much to help himself.

Maybe going as far as to ask him to leave the room for a moment and restarting everything again! "

 

Have you tried this? Did it work? Are there situations where you wouldn't want to do this and might expect it to backfire? I think if I were a still teen and a group of adults did this to me, I'd have been rather intimidated. For that matter, for those who have postponed a BOR without advancement, do you typically set up a new BOR with different people for the scout on the next go-round, or do you typically expect to re-convene the BOR with the same people?

 

 

 

 

[troutmaster]

Generally would want to use the same individuals if we could, due to their having made the original decision. Improvements easier to judge that way.

 

 

[John-in-KC]

I've not tried that technique before, Lisa. I think much depends on how well folks know the Scout in question, and whether or not each of us, as the committeeman/woman on the ground, think it will make a difference.

 

Much depends on the young man, the challenges he's facing, and the other pressures he may be under. If he's facing a big history test tomorrow, and he'd rather have blown off this Scout meeting and study, then nothing may work. He wants to get to the books.

 

Equally, he may have been on the wrong side of grownups all day at school. He may want re-assurance that we aren't going to do him over all the more!

 

I'm writing not so much to Lisa as to all of us now...

 

More than anything, if a BOR is going in the tank because there's no communication, then maybe there's a need for a quieter, more intimate visit... sometimes the comfy chairs in the corner and a cup of cocoa will do wonders to draw the block out. CAUTION: Be prepared to listen, though. Be prepared for the possibility of tears. Sometimes a kid wants to get something off his chest, and it's a matter of finding the emotional keystone.

[Eagledad]

>>"In fact as I think about it I more than lightly would let him know during the first interview that he wasn't doing a very good job and wasn't doing much to help himself.

Maybe going as far as to ask him to leave the room for a moment and restarting everything again! "

[Beavah]

Yah, I've found that technique can work well for really nervous boys, eh? Or sometimes for dealin' with an adult on a BOR who is pushin' too hard (ask the boy to step out and take a breather, coach the adult, bring the boy back in to a changed tone).

 

I haven't seen it work for the monosyllabic.

 

I think the kids who come in, lay back, and grunt at adults are askin' a simple question: "Do you care?" Do you care enough about me to expect me to do my best, to push myself, to be prepared and respectful?

 

Or is all you care about whether I have signatures on a piece of paper?

 

How each of us answers that question determines how successful our scoutin' programs really are, eh?

 

I've sometimes stopped or come to the end of a BOR and asked a boy if he felt that really was his best effort. Kids are honest, mostly. The lad says "no," and then we schedule a BOR for a few weeks down the line where he can show us his best. Just one more arrow for da quiver, if it works for yeh.

 

Anyway, good job, Lisa'bob. I think yeh gave the lad the right answer - "Yes, we do care."

 

Beavah

 

[Gunny2862]

I tried that approach in a job interview but haven't done it in a Scouting venue.

The fellow didn't get the job - he chose not to use his second bite at the apple. It was a shame he was by far the best candidate, on paper.

 

I think it might work though, might even be a good discriminator on those who care v. those who don't.