Follow
Star, Life and Eagle rank all require leadership tenure. For each rank the requirement states:
positions of responsibility ”
- He is registered in his unit (registration fees are current).
- He has not been dismissed from his unit for disciplinary reasons.
- He is engaged by his unit leadership on a regular basis (Scoutmaster
conference, informs the Scout of upcoming unit activities, through
personal contact, and so on).
This is not an interpretation, this is official BSA policy of what active means towards membership and, by extension, leadership. So not only are metrics a bad idea but they are prohibited by policy.
Does this mean that a Scout can be elected to a leadership position, do little else than wear a patch, not show up to any meetings or outings and still fulfill the leadership requirement? In a word yes.
Before you fire off a scathing comment consider this – if Scouts are active enough to be elected to a leadership position and then do nothing it is not the Scout who has failed, it is the Scoutmaster. If we engage the Scout on a regular basis through conferences, information and personal contact and cannot get them to participate then it is likely not the Scout’s fault but the way we present the program.
The Scout who shirks all responsibility, never shows up and then appears a month before his eighteenth birthday and wants to finish his Eagle may actually exist here and there but he is largely a straw man. That being said I’d accommodate this Scout without hesitation – he is at least showing some interest and he became a Life Scout somehow.
But what about the quality and integrity of the advancement program? We have to maintain standards don’t we? What needs the most maintenance is our clear conception of the success of the Scout realized in giving his own best effort.
Here is how I evaluate leadership at a Scoutmasters Conference. It takes a few simple questions.
“How have you fulfilled the leadership requirement for this rank?”
“How do you evaluate the job you did?”
“According to your own evaluation do you think I should sign off on your leadership requirement?”
During this exchange I can support or challenge the conclusions that the Scout reaches, encourage him to do better or congratulate him for a job well done. It is not within my power to withhold my signature if he has fulfilled the basic active requirements as interpreted above.
What if the Scout has done a really awful job? How can it be responsible or fair to him to sign off on a poor job? Discuss the positives and the negatives, work with the Scout to improve his performance, instill him with confidence and watch him grow.
How is this fair to the other Scouts? The Scouts choose their leaders, they get what they vote for good bad or indifferent. They have the power to change their leaders when enough of them want to.
Won’t they all just shirk their responsibilities when the realize that I’m going to sign off no matter what they do? Scouts aren’t that stupid and irresponsible, they want to excel, to do a good job of things.
Somehow Scoutmasters get into their head that they are the ones who control things, that they are guardians of quality and standards. I’ll reiterate that the Scoutmasters position is purposefully designed to be powerless in these matters. They cannot appoint or remove youth leaders, they cannot withhold their signature based on their personal evaluation of a Scout’s performance in a leadership role.
That being said Scoutmasters wield the tremendous power of their personal example, the ‘bully pulpit’ of encouragement, exhortation and mentoring.
I have to agree with Walter Underwood on this one. The BSA definition specifically states what is meant by the phrase “to be active in your [unit]…”. To take that rather specific definition and apply it to leadership position obligations to “serve actively” is a misapplication of the the definition for “to be active”. They are two very distinct, different terms using different verbs. The term “serve actively” has the verb SERVE. Our troop has clarified that this is defined as “To perform the duties belonging to, or required in or for.” Note that “to be active” has the simple verb “to be”, which generically means simply to exist. Big difference. One requires action, the other does not. With no official wording on how “serve actively” is determined or measured, it becomes subjective like so many other rank requirements.
A while back, we had some problems where we had a couple older Scouts who believed all they needed to do was wear the leadership position patch for six months and that would count towards their next rank. They did absolutely nothing in regards to their position. Not one single thing was even attempted on their part – zip – nada. These Scouts would openly defy the SPL’s requests to do things the troop needed done and were part of the duties of their positions. The tasks they should have been doing ended up getting done by other Scouts. Then, sure enough, when one of these Scouts had their SM conference leading to their Life BOR, our SM expressed his concern that the Scout had not “served actively” in their position because they had made zero effort. When he didn’t sign off their rank requirement, the parents threatened to contact a lawyer. Their argument was ‘nobody ever told him that he wasn’t doing what he was supposed to do’. Which was not true, but lacking any way to prove otherwise, the SM relented and signed off so the subsequent BOR team (begrudgingly) approved the Life rank.
We learned the hard way that some Scouts (and parents) are intent only on achieving ranks, and with as little effort as they can get away with. The “Straw Man” does indeed exist, and we were caught off-guard. So be forewarned.
As a result of that incident, this year our unit implemented written job descriptions (straight out of the SM Handbook) along with written self-evaluations for all leadership positions. We do one mid-term evaluation (3 months) and then another at the end of the 6-month term. We use a simple written form that asks a few open-ended questions like “Give at least three examples of things you did specifically in performing duties of this leadership position”, “What did you enjoy the most while performing the duties of this position”, “..the least..”, etc. The Scout then discusses his self-evaluation with the SPL and ASPL with either the SM or an ASM listening in. In the case of the SPL and ASPL, they discuss their own evaluations with the SM, but since these two boys are in regular contact with the SM, there are no real surprises. As much as I hate having Scouts do written stuff, it gave us something we could present to anyone, like the parent, to show that the Scout was completely aware of what was expected. If the Scout indicates that, by their own admission, they had not done any of the duties of their position by the end of the six month term (as self recorded in both the mid-term and end-of-term evaluations), the Scout would not get their rank requirement signed off.
So in that sense, I do agree with Clarke Green that it is best to have the Scout to make their own determination whether or not they fulfilled the duties of the position and “served actively”. We just recently had a “mid-term” self evaluation, and the Scouts seem to appreciate having formal feedback prior to the end of their term. And, we had a couple Scouts admit that they hadn’t really been performing their duties as Troop Guide or Instructor. One was our prior “straw man”, now an Eagle candidate. So the SPL and SM worked with each of them to make a plan (specific tasks and schedule) they agreed to do that benefits the troop and fulfills their positional responsibilities over the next 3 months. They understand that if they don’t put forth any effort before the end of the term, they will need to wait until the next election and try to get a new position to do towards their next rank. The particular Scout who weaseled his way out doing any actual work for his position to earn Life has been told in no uncertain terms that his current position cannot be counted towards Eagle if he doesn’t show any sincere effort to do any of the duties of his position. And we now have a piece of paper in his own handwriting that says has hasn’t done any of the duties the first half of the six month term. As such, the SM has the discretion of not counting the past 3 months as “serving actively”. He’s going to wait and see if this Scout upholds the action plan he’s agreed to do over the remainder of the term before deciding to give full, partial, or no tenure of service in the position.
The important thing I want to point out is that we do not judge how well a Scout performs the duties of the position. All we expect is effort, and we have a process in place that allows the Scout to come to their own decision whether or not they served the troop. Which gets me back to my first point. If a Scout cannot explain how he performed the duties of his position, by his own admission he hasn’t “served”. We don’t expect every Scout to perform the duties of his position without some missteps, omissions, or mistakes. But we expect them to at least make a reasonable effort. Whether or not his effort constitutes “serve actively” is still the Scout’s subjective call in the end. But we did draw a clear line that zero effort means they did not fulfill their rank requirement. We’d much rather see any potential “straw men” at least make some token effort rather than advance them for doing absolutely nothing.
Our troop seems to think we should hold off the scouts until they are older (ie end of Junior Year) to do their Eagle Projects and try to control the pace of advancement in the troop because they want the scouts to be more “mature” and stick around to lead the younger guys. I see some value in this, however, if a scout is motivated and fulfills the requirements needed, shouldn’t he be allowed to advance at his own pace? It becomes discouraging rather than motivating. Is there a policy we can point to in addressing this concern?
I have never advocated “flunking” a Scout on leadership.
I do what the SM conference training suggests, discuss performance with the Scout when there is a problem and make sure they understand the obligations. I also help them with self evaluation at those conferences and advancement conferences.
On the other hand, Scoutmasters should “fire” Scouts from positions if they are not fulfilling the obligations, according to the BSA. The Rank Advancement FAQ says: “However, unit leaders must ensure that he is fulfilling the obligations of his assigned leadership position. If he is not, then they should remove the Scout from that position.”
I have never fired a Scout from a position, though I have had one Scout decide that his previous performance did not measure up in a conference for his new position.
The Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures states the ‘active’ policy on page 24.
I don’t read anything that says Scoutmasters have the authority to refuse a Scout’s leadership tenure based on the Scoutmaster’s evaluation of the Scout’s performance.
Quite to the contrary any problems are to be discussed as they arise, expectations should be made clear and Scoutmasters should not ‘flunk’ Scouts.
There is mention of a Scout’s self evaluation as a reason to delay the next rank – not the Scoutmaster.
Think about a varsity team that has a 0-10 record. The team did meet expectations, they lost every game, yet the players still qualify for a varsity letter.
We provide opportunity and recognize individual effort. Scoutmasters who ‘flunk’ Scouts miss the point altogether. Ant Scoutmaster worth his salt can find some positive reinforcement and draw the leadership skills out of a Scout. They should not flunk scouts nor have the power to do so.
Also, be careful about calling something “BSA policy”. Not everything published by the BSA is a policy. In the Guide to Safe Scouting, they use boldface for “rules and policies”. That is in a note on the first page.
http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/GSS/gss01.aspx
As far as I can tell, advancement policy completely covered in “Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures”, a book that every Scoutmaster should have, even though it was written for council and district committees.
Take a look at the training module for the Scoutmaster conference. That content is missing on the redesigned BSA site, though there is a link to it. I presume that is a bug, not a change in policy.
Here is the cached version from Google (sorry about the extremely long URL): http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:2IN6lFmp7CQJ:www.scouting.org/boyscouts/trainingmodules/scoutmaster%2520conference%2520training.aspx&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Here are two paragraphs from the section on the Star and Life Scoutmaster conferences. It specifically supports delaying the advancement if the Scout concludes that he needs to work further on leadership.
From Scoutmaster Conference Training:
As a Scoutmaster, you may be evaluating how a Scout has done in his leadership positions, but this is not the time to tell a Scout that he was a poor leader. If that is the case, or was the case, it should have been the subject of a Scoutmaster conference long before the advancement conference. Leadership skills should be reviewed as they are exhibited, not held over to a Scoutmaster conference where the Scout is flunked for failing to meet expectations.
On the other hand, it may be that a Scout will conclude that he needs to work on certain aspects of leadership before he achieves the next rank, and you should be supportive of this concept.
Well, Walter we’ll just have to disagree. This isn’t a matter of opinion, it is policy.
Scoutmasters don’t evaluate or judge the quality of tenure, leadership, or skills at a Scoutmaster’s conference nor do members of a Board of Review.
They may discuss these things but they don’t have the power to withhold their approval tenure or leadership if the requirement has been met.
I’d be happy to change my mind if you can show me specific written policy from the BSA to the contrary.
I disagree on your interpretation of the Rank Advancement FAQ. This clearly applies to the membership requirement, but it isn’t so clear about the leadership requirement.
The Q part of the FAQ is specific to “be active in your troop and patrol.” If they also meant it to apply to “Serve actively in a leadership position”, they would have said so. Those are two different requirements.
For leadership positions, we discuss the responsibilities of the position with each Scout as soon as they are elected or appointed. At that time, we ask each Scout to set one or two goals. The Scoutmaster and ASMs check back with the Scout on these goals and the SPL asks PLs to report on them at the PLC. If there is a question about whether the Scout has fulfulled the obligations of the position, we have a Scoutmaster conference, and talk about how the Scout has contributed to the troop in his position.
The FAQ recommendation about removing the Scout from the leadership position is hard to implement, because most problems take a while to appear. If the Scribe misses three PLCs in a row, then is removed, do the three months count towards Star?
For the Eagle project, the Scoutmaster must evaluate whether the Scout provided leadership. Some projects, like blood drives, are generally considered as not requiring enough leadership to qualify. This will not be a surprise to the Scout if they have been required to serve in their leadership positions for Star and Life.
I agree completely.
Right now the troop SPL is not the most outstanding leader we have had. I am coaching and encouraging him AND allowing him to fail when he doesn’t pull the group together to plan adequately. Will he meet the advancement requirements – absolutely. Only once have I thought that one of the troop leaders should maybe not get credit for a leadership position and that was a kid who was appointed by a patrol leader to be his assistant patrol leader and then made 1 meeting during the term. But that turned out not to matter becuae he had other requirements to meet and by the time he met those he had served in another position and showed up much more frequently during that term.
Right on, Clarke. This is outstanding and this is the only way the program really works. I have plenty of disagreements with you, but when it comes to applying Scouting as laid out and envisioned by the Boy Scouts of America, you have wonderful insights about how and why the program works. These insights have been helpful to me as a Scoutmaster who strives to deliver the program to the Scouts as envisioned by the Scouts.
Greetings Clarke,
These last few columns have been very good. During my career as a Scouting volunteer, I’ve probably made or thought about making every mistake you mention. It’s amazing how well things work when you actually try to adhere to the written policies. The scouting program is extremely subtle tho. It is even harder as a Committee chair, watching and helping your SM, without getting in the way and messing things up.