|
What’s “ACTIVE”
All About?
Troop problems are not
solved by punishing Scouts.
Scouting is a volunteer movement. The primary volunteers are the youths
themselves, and we adults who have chosen to serve them serve at their
pleasure. Our responsibility is to deliver the Scouting program, as
written, to the very best of our abilities, always seeking to improve
and enhance our delivery. Although, to borrow an oft-used quote, 80
percent of success in life is the result of showing up, it is in no way
mandatory that a youth do so, in Scouting. It is often said that
“Scouts ‘vote’ with their feet,” and they will walk away from a Scouting
unit that under-delivers or mis-delivers the Scouting program as
described to them in their Handbook. Exit interviews with youth
who have disengaged from Boy Scouting in particular reveal that the
majority have done so because the unit they joined either
under-delivered or mis-delivered what they were told they’d be getting,
per descriptions of how their troop and patrol would be functioning, the
roles of their fellows Scout elected and appointed leaders and
Scoutmaster, and so on, in their Boy Scout Handbook.
In the past six
years of writing this column, a significant number of the questions
asked by Scouters, parents, and Scouts themselves, relate to
advancement, and within this arena, asking about the term, “active” (as
in “Be active in your troop or patrol…”), comes up regularly.
Unfortunately, what also comes up frequently is the contesting of the
BSA’s intention in this regard, including attempts to justify denying
rank advancement to a Scout who hasn’t, according to some misguided if
not pugnaciously mis-delivering bunch of adults, met their artificial,
arbitrary, and prohibited by policy rubrics for “active.”
In the advancement
arena, one of the BSA’s most practical, intelligent, realistic,
compassionate, and youth-sensitive decisions was to not attach
percentages, numerics, or any other sorts of rubrics to the term
“active.” Instead, the underlying principle of “active” is simply “Do
Your Best.” In the same arena, one of the biggest mistakes a troop can
make is to attempt to make up their own “rules” for this, and, further,
to fail to understand that “active” extends well beyond mere troop
and/or patrol meetings and outings. You’ll see why in just a few
moments…
Let’s look in on a
board of review for an Eagle candidate who up until now has concluded
that he’s completed all requirements for the rank. We’ll look in on a
pretty much average Scout, in a troop that mostly (but not entirely)
understands how they’re supposed to be delivering the Scouting program
(their “Achilles Heel” is their misunderstanding and subsequent mis-use
of the “active” requirement).
As a Life Scout on
the cusp of Eagle, this young man is about 16 years old, and has been a
Scout for about five years. In this time, advancing through the ranks
of Tenderfoot through Life and on to completing the requirements for
Eagle, he’s taken at least one camping trip for Tenderfoot, participated
in no less than five non-meeting activities for Second Class, then ten
more for First Class, then at least six hours of non-meeting service
time for Star and another six for Life, and then perhaps as many as 100
or more for his own Eagle leadership service project. In addition, in
the earning of no less than 21 merit badges, he’s met with his
Scoutmaster an equal number of times to secure signed merit badge
applications, plus up to another 21 times turning in his “blue card”
stubs for recording. In the course of earning these merit badges, he’s
met with his merit badge counselors at least four to six times per badge
(almost none can be earned in single meetings), for a total of, on
average, over 100 non-troop meeting-related meetings, plus his hours
spent independently to fulfill the requirements of these merit badges.
Moreover, in the course of earning the twelve required merit badges,
he’s at a minimum done these things: Attended two town council or school
board or court sessions, interviewed a government employee or elected
official, carried out eight hours of non-Scouting related service,
prepared and delivered a public presentation and a public speech,
visited a national landmark, toured a state or the US capitol, toured a
federal facility, participated in an international event, written an
issue-based letter to an elected official and another one to a news
media editor, planned and conducted a personal interview, planned and
led a troop court of honor or campfire, had both a physical and a dental
examination, carried out a comparison-shopping trip, participated in two
family meetings, carried out an emergency service project and
participated in a troop mobilization, visited an environmental study
site on at least four separate occasions, camped overnight for at least
20 days and nights, and either taken six hikes covering a total of 70
miles or seven cycling trips covering 150 miles. This is, of course, to
say nothing about his activities in pursuit of the remaining nine merit
badges he needs for Eagle. He’s likely gone to summer camp between
three and five times, accounting for, on average, another 30 or so days
and nights. As an elected or appointed youth leader in the troop for a
minimum of 16 months, he’s both led his patrol and/or troop and met with
his Scoutmaster on numerous occasions for the junior leader training
that is the mandate of all Scoutmasters to provide. He’s had no
less than six Scoutmaster Conferences, in which expectations for his
advancement, involvement, and leadership, among other non-Scouting
topics, have been discussed. He’s also participated in five boards of
review, with similar discussions ensuing.
As we’re observing him in his board
of review for Eagle, we know, from the procedures described in various
authoritative BSA literature, that had this Scout fallen short of BSA
standards in some way, this would have been revealed either through any
of his six Scoutmaster Conferences or his five boards of review, or in
his junior leader training conferences with his Scoutmaster, and he
thereupon would have received a written description of the
shortcoming(s), instructions for correction, and a time line for
successful conclusion. Receiving none, he would naturally have no
reason to believe he his falling short in any way.
Now if Eagle Scouts have one thing in common, it’s that they’re not just
involved in Scouting; they’re involved in many things. In addition to
their Scouting activities, Eagle candidates are likely to be seriously
involved in their religious institution and its youth group, at least
one if not several sports programs, school clubs such as debate or
mathematics or language or chess and so on, service clubs such as Rotary
International’s Interact Clubs for high school students, student
government, and the list goes on and on, in a variety of combinations,
so that Scouting represents hardly the whole of their non-academic
away-from-home lives.
From these perspectives, let’s now return to our “average” candidate, as
he’s conversing with the members of his board of review for Eagle.
Here, he now discovers that his level of activity as a Scout is being
called into question, despite all of the foregoing. He’s told that, in
the estimation of the board members, he hasn’t been “active” enough to
qualify for the rank of Eagle. He’s shocked. He’s well aware of the
multiple and multifaceted activities he’s carried out in pursuit of the
Eagle rank. He’s even more shocked when it registers with him that
there have been no less than eleven prior opportunities for his
Scoutmaster and the troop’s committee to bring up this subject, and that
hasn’t happened.
Has this Scout somehow, this night, failed Scouting or his troop in some
way? No. The troop has, in fact, failed him.
Does this Scout have the right to seek remediation and the recognition
he’s earned through the channels the BSA has established for him to do
so? Of course he has. Does the troop warrant censure?
Unquestionably.
WE’re here to SERVE YOUTH. Let’s start by (to borrow a phrase) RT*H.
Andy McCommish
(Copyright © 2007 Andy McCommish)
|
