Rapid Advancement

[MrsSmith]

I know that Scouting is supposed to be fun, but most boys dont need to be told to have fun - that comes naturally. Rather, most have to be told to get to work.

 

Maybe thats why the mission of the Boy Scouts of America is not to teach boys to have fun, the Aims of Scouting dont include having fun and the methods dont mention fun, but they do specifically mention Advancement.

 

I think you are sending mixed messages. On the one hand, the boy is told he is being turned down because he lacks maturity and leadership ability. On the other he is told to slow down and enjoy the journey and stop thinking of becoming Eagle before 13. I say dont punish an overachiever. Would you rather have a troop of underachievers? Besides, for an overachiever fun is achieving more than is expected of you.

[KoreaScouter]

I agree that the BOR members need a vector check before they do this again. And, I think they should get an opportunity within the next 30 days, when this Scout meets his next Life BOR.

 

I think maturity, at varying levels, while not a requirement, could almost be considered a pre-requisite for advancement, in the sense that he wouldn't be sitting in front of a Life BOR without having the necessary maturity to pursue goal-oriented behavior, for starters. So, by definition, if he's there, he's displayed maturity. It's not the BOR's place to add a requirement, but if they seem to be, they can check that one off by default if the lad's there to begin with.

 

On another level, I have a problem with how this unfolded. Call me thin-skinned, but as an SM myself, I've already determined that the Scout has demonstrated leadership abilities when I signed him off on his POR, on Scout Spirit, and his SM conference. If this happened to me, I'd be going mano-a-mano with the committee chairman. I make the tough calls at my level; if a Scout hasn't measured up yet, he's going to hear it from me, not from a BOR I've passed him off to so they can deliver the bad news. Now, if he's otherwise ready but melts down in front of the BOR, I have no control over that, although I do give them advice on how to "present themselves".

 

As others have advised, I wouldn't try to create artificial drag to slow him down. In a way, the program is self-leveling. The MBs, the Eagle project, and the Eagle application process itself tend to slow down all but the most focused and motivated; that's why such a small percentage make it.

 

I wouldn't demonize his mom because she's personally involved, either. I wish all my Scouts' parents were involved in their sons' Scouting advancement.

 

I also wouldn't worry about whether or not he's rushing through the program on overdrive. After all, the journey's not over at Eagle, whenever it's earned, unless he decides it's over. Will he have earned Eagle too young? Maybe, who knows? But, if he does, that's also something he can learn from. If this is a laboratory intended to teach them to make ethical decisions over their lifetimes, I'd rather have him do something like rush through the advancement program, realize he made a mistake, and vow not to do that again, than rush into a marriage, a career, or fatherhood, then realize he made those mistakes...much greater consequences and implications.

 

Everywhere I've been, I've heard the sentiment that someone's advancing too fast and we have to slow them down -- lots of concern and well-intentioned micromanagement, to include artificial roadblocks, toward someone who's set a goal and is motivated to accomplish it. Does anyone who buys into that ever put the shoe on the other foot, focusing their concern and good intentions on greasing skids, cutting corners, etc., because he's "advancing too slowly" and "we have to speed him up"? Is there a difference?

 

We present a program with all its opportunities; we encourage the Scouts to take advantage of it; we tell them they're only competing with themselves. Why try to retard their throttles if they take our advice?

 

KS

 

 

[Zahnada]

Acco and Bob,

 

Didn't we already have this discussion about active service? Well, I'll repeat my understanding of the rule for all who missed it.

 

When a boy enters into a position of responsibility/leadership, the SPL and SM must explain to him what "active service" is. It is then their responsibility to assure that the boy serves actively. ie. "Why haven't you been at any meetings this month, James?" If it is determined that the boy cannot serve actively (he may have football practice every Wednesday night at 7), then the SPL or SM should discuss with him if there is any way for him to still be what they would consider active. If not, then they should ask him to hold off on this position of responsibility until a time when he can actively serve. This way is better for the Troop, the patrols, and for the scout himself. (note: this does not apply to a struggling leader who tries. This isn't a critique of leadership skills as much as activity)

 

Therefore, if the boy makes it through 6 months, it should be assumed that he was actively serving to the satisfaction of the SPL and the SM during those 6 months. Otherwise, he still wouldn't be serving.

 

The moral of the story is that if the boy enters his BOR and has held a position for 6 months, then the BOR cannot refuse to sign him off for his service in that position. He has fulfilled the requirement.

[scoutingagain]

While I share the desire for this scout to slow down and enjoy the journey, I agree that if he has met the requirements as described in the literature, he has earned the rank. In this instance, it sounds as if the BOR may have overstepped their authority.

 

BW's advice in this instance seems pretty sound to me.

 

SA

[Bob White]

"then the BOR cannot refuse to sign him off for his service in that position."

 

BORs do not "sign-off" on any requirements. They either unanimously approve the advancement or they site which requirement(s) still need to be completed and how completion will be measured in accordance with the BSA advancement policiesand procedures.

The BOR varifies that the advancement was earned according to the conditions of the requirements, as established by the BSA. They also talk with the scout to learn more about him, his feelings about the troop program and to evaluate the performance of the adult leaders in the troop.

 

In the specific case we are discussing, that was not done correctly. The scout was held to artificial requirements created by the BOR and not by the BSA. The scout should recieve a new board where the policies and procedures are followed correctly.

 

 

 

 

[LPC_Thumper]

I agree with many, BofR is NOT the place to turn a kid down because he isn't mature. I think the idea of focusing in on the long haul is important, it is also important to ensure that a job is done. Let the scout go and do his thing.

 

What's the worst that can happen? I'm a CC (just to give you a reference point) a buddy of mine (actually my son's former CM) was on the fast track to Eagle. Had everything done, and was at his Eagle BofR. They asked him what the Scout Oath was. He immediately jumped up extended his right arm straight up, extended two figures and started, "I, Jim promise..."

 

That's about as far as he got before the chairman of the Board thanked him and told him to come back in six months. Six months later he was back. And has told me more than once that the BofR did the right thing back then.

 

Just food for thought...

[evmori]

They cite lack of maturity and demonstration of leadership abilities

 

The focus has been on the lack of maturity part. There is another part - demonstration of leadership abilities. Now this could be the lack of a POR. Or the BOR felt the way the Scout handled his POE needs work. We don't know.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Zahnada]

"BORs do not "sign-off" on any requirements. They either unanimously approve the advancement or they site which requirement(s) still need to be completed and how completion will be measured in accordance with the BSA advancement policiesand procedures."

 

I apologize for my use of terminology that may be considered misleading in regards to the actions and responsibilities of the Board of Reviews. My word choice was improper and I'm sorry for any confusion.

 

"The BOR varifies that the advancement was earned according to the conditions of the requirements, as established by the BSA. They also talk with the scout to learn more about him, his feelings about the troop program and to evaluate the performance of the adult leaders in the troop."

 

No arguments here. And you're not disagreeing with anything from my post except for my use of the wording "sign-off". I actually think we may be in agreement on this one.

 

"In the specific case we are discussing, that was not done correctly. The scout was held to artificial requirements created by the BOR and not by the BSA. The scout should recieve a new board where the policies and procedures are followed correctly."

 

I couldn't agree more. Actually, I don't know if I expressed it clearly, but this was one of the main points of my arguments. My understanding of the situation is that the boy did in fact complete all the requirements.

 

[Herms]

I can relate to what Thumper is saying. At a camporee recently, I watch two Cub Scouts (a bear and a 4th grade webelo) perform better on a knot rail than a Life and two Star scouts. During the same camporee I saw a wolf Cub Scout do better on a compass course. Are we really doing our scouts justice by simple showing them something and then signing the book rather than ensuring that they have REALLY acquired the skills? It is up to all of us SMs and ASMs to make sure that our boys are not only advancing, but that they are having fun and REALLY learning the skills. You never know when those First Aid skill those boys are suppose to learn may be needed to save YOUR life.

[MrsSmith]

Requirement says:

"While a Star Scout, serve actively for six months in one or more of the troop positions of responsibility listed in requirement 5 for Star Scout (or carry out a Scoutmaster-assigned leadership project to help the troop)."

 

Demonstrate leadership ability is not there - just serve actively. Doesn't this mean that a poor leader who is active should be advanced over an inactive great leader. Maybe the point is to encourage active participation. Not all kids are cut out to be leaders.

[Herms]

Not all kids are cut out to be leaders.

 

Im sorry MrsSmith, but I completely disagree with you. That is one of our jobs as Scout Leaders is to work with our boys who will be the leaders of tomorrow. Everything in scouts has an element of leadership, and EVERY boy has the potential to be a great leader.

 

Ive seen boys who were shy and self-conscious when they started turn into outstanding leaders over the years. It is up to us to work with them, to find out what they need to achieve there full potential.

 

[Eamonn]

I'm sorry MrsSmith.

On reading your posting I couldn't help but think of Hard Times the novel by Dickens.

"Now what I want is facts... Facts alone are wanted in life.

"A man of realities.A man of facts and calculations. A man who proceeds upon the principle that two and two are four and nothing over,and who is not to be talked into allowing for anything over."

While there are many that still hold with the Gradgrind philosophy of education. I don't.

I sincerely hope that when it comes to Advancement in Scouting that the day I tell a Scout to "Get down to work." That some kind person gives me a swift kick in the pants.

Please, Please take a look at the Vision Statement of the BSA. It is there that you will find : Offer young people responsible fun and adventure. In fact this is at the top of the list.

To my way of thinking, fun is what makes this program work. We as adults do all we can to offer responsible fun, that in turn helps us meet the Vision and Mission of the BSA. The methods are tools that again help and enable us to meet the Vision and Mission.

Sure we have Scouts that tend to lean toward one method more then another. Some Lads are steeped in the outdoors, while others focus on advancement. We are here to help and support these Lads using the program. We do this best when we treat each Scout as an individual and meet his needs. In the case of this 12 year old, it could be that this isn't happening. Advancement is up to the individual, his goals, his patch and if he wants it his Eagle.Some Lads are happy to be active in the program and may not want to work on advancement. Does this make them any less of a Scout? If we were to measure success by Advancement and then state that only 4 or 5% of all Scouts reach the rank of Eagle Scout, we would be doing a very poor job.

Eamonn

[dan]

Herms

The requirements do not say to master the skills, it says to do it. Are you saying you would not sign off of a requirement until he has mastered the skill? Are you not adding to the requirements?

 

Mrs. Smith

If a scout is not fulfilling his POR, he should be told this, during the POR not afterwards, and our jobs as leaders are to help him improve.

[evmori]

If one is a SPL, AS PL, PL, etc. one must demonstrate leadership abilities to serve actively. They go hand in hand. Serving actively isn't just wearing the POR patch.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

I agree Ed, wearing the patch for 6 months does not mean the scout has fulfilled the requirements of the position, however, if at the end of the six months it's during the Board of Review that the scout finds out that he hasn't done his job correctly, shame on every adult in the troop leadership for not communicating this to the boy. A scout can't fix what he doesn't know is broke.

 

You can't just "flunk" a kid in a BOR without giving him a plan to follow to advance.

 

Thumper, that guy in the Eagle Board of Review is an Ass, to reject a scout for being excited and making that error is inexcusable, it just a some guy excercising power because it makes him feel good. He is of no value to the program.