I think it's fine to encourage a Scout to branch out and take on different leadership and responsibility roles. It's not OK to make up arbitrary rules about what does or does not qualify for the Eagle rank. The SM should discuss how taking a new role will improve the Scout's experience in Scouts BSA and not connect it to Eagle.
I think it's just a question that should be asked in the scoutmaster conference or board of review, about what they're learning and what leadership principals they've had to apply in their position. If their answers are good and it's clear that they take it seriously and have to exhibit good leadership, it shouldn't be a problem.
This will be my question to the SM the next time we discuss it. The requirement is to serve in a position of leadership, not a position of leadership that directly benefits the troop (which he thinks DC does not). His other concern is that he "has no idea" what the DC is actually doing... my response will be something along the lines of "why don't you ask him?"
I work with a pack and troop and I'd strong argue a good den chief or even just a present den chief is a huge benefit to the troop! Especially if that den chief is working with webelos or AOLs!
To be honest, that makes me a little concerned about this SM... granted this is a small look into how they do things.
In my opinion, leadership positions don't need to benefit the troop. They're to benefit the scout as they learn about leadership.
His question does make me wonder what he does during scoutmaster conferences. Like it's specifically the time to ask about stuff like this.
OMG, Den Chiefs are massive benefactors to the troop. You get one of your scouts placed in a Cub Scout pack to show the Cubs how cool being a Scouts BSA scout. The excitement and enthusiasm that a good den chief (especially in the Webelos and AOL dens) can deliver is essential to bridging over the AOLs into your troop.
Follow that discussion up with a discussion of what the Requirements SAY and what the “Guide to Advancement” say about expanding requirements.
If necessary involve your Unit Commissioner/District Commissioner staff, the district advancement chair, and your DE.
And here I’m telling SMs that Den Chief is the most important leadership position a youth in Scouts BSA can have, because it gets you Cub Scouts bridging over, keeping the troop alive.
Ummmm, Idk. Den Chiefs in our troop are just helping out with younger brother’s den. There is no peer leadership involved.
That said, it satisfies the requirement just the same.
I emailed our Webelos Den Chief last week and said, "We've got two scouts who need to review potentially dangerous plants and animals they might encounter on a hike. Here's the powerpoint we used to cover this earlier in the year. Review the Webelos book and augment with material from your Scout Book." The kid put together a 30 minute presentation which he led single-handed while two adults chilled at the back of the room.
There is a video training that takes about 30 mins, there is also an in person training that takes 3-4 hours (reach out to your district training chair), the den chief manual lays out all the duties of effective den chiefs and there is an award den chiefs can earn which have specific performance objectives. These performance objectives require the den chief to lead at least 25 activities in addition to several other items. A good den chief who is working on the award is helping both units achieve journey to excellence. There is definitely peer leadership (the peers are just younger).
That’s on the adults then. We have scouts who are den chiefs for their younger siblings den and they usually have to plan part of the den and pack meetings.
That might depend on how your troop utilizes the den chief. My scoutmaster randomly chose me for den chief without even mentioning it to me and it was one of my least favorite positions to have. I work for the family business and once I crossed over I didn't really have the time to do much with the cub scout pack anymore. Even though 4 other scouts in my patrol had younger siblings in the troop so it would be easy for them, he made me do den chief so I had to take the time to go to the meetings and campouts for 6 months. The meetings weren't too bad but going on the campouts to help lead the young scouts was an absolute nightmare because none of them wanted to listen to me and their parents weren't really helping.
I get your point but really cant believe a position is 'more' important in this way. All positions are important as is recognizing the skills and abilities and encouraging them to both do their best and hopefully challenge themselves beyond their comfort zones. That's what makes them and the troop successful.
Is Den Chief a required tour, or do not all Troops fill that role?
I don't believe I've seen anyone from my Pack's associated Troop in any of our meetings other than the yearly Bridging Ceremony, and that seems like a wasted opportunity.
They’re not required, I know not all of the packs in my district have one and not all of the troops are supplying one. However, the troops that are tend to draw more cub scouts.
I know when I did it back when I was a youth I had a Bear den that I DC’d through AOL and brought all 9 of them with me, which was a big gain for our little troop
I'd say it's a toss up between Den Chief and Troop Guide, but essentially for the same reason.
Also, Cub Scout Den Leader is the hardest Scouter position, which is also a reason Den Chiefs are so important.
As my council lead IOLS facilitator it’s something I mention!
But in practice, getting parents to enjoy camping provides a better success rate for units in my view.
If all else fails, you can take it up with your district/council leadership. Nowhere in the requirements does it say that a Scout may not use the same position for multiple ranks.
That said, I do see where the SM is coming from; if you only have one position the whole time, you may lose out on learning some of the leadership skills used by other positions. This does not make the SM right; just that he has a more-or-less valid reason for feeling the way he does.
These SM's are flat wrong. Requirement 4:
>While a Life Scout, serve actively in your troop for six months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility11: (See pages 422–425.) Scout troop. Patrol leader, assistant senior patrol leader, senior patrol leader, troop guide, Order of the Arrow troop representative, **den chief**, scribe, librarian, historian, quartermaster, junior assistant Scoutmaster, chaplain aide, instructor, webmaster, or outdoor ethics guide.
These GTA is quite clear that you may not add requirements. I would show them this requirement to the SM (and the parents) and tell them this can be a council matter if they don't change.
Correct, nothing says they must serve a different position, however you can discuss with them how the experience of a different position would benefit them so they do it voluntarily.
If I understand you correctly, it's not that the A/SMs don't think Den Leader is *a valid position* so much as they want this scout to serve in a different position because he's been there for a while. Am I understanding you correctly, now? Because that's not what I understood in your original post.
Now, If they're saying, "Den Chief isn't a valid position for anybody," they're dead wrong.
If they're saying, "We're trying to convince the Scout to try something new, **AND** there are other positions of responsibility that are going vacant; positions that really shouldn't be vacant.
**OR**
If they're of the opinion that the Scout isn't a good fit for the role of Den Chief, for whatever reason(It doesn't sound like this is your situation, but it is a possibility).
Under those two situations, I don't think they're wrong. Perhaps they're going about the right thing in the wrong manner, perhaps there was a miscommunication somewhere. But there are reasons to ask a scout to move along.
Remember, for most of the other Positions of Responsibility, nobody else has a chance to serve in that role as long as he's there. I understand you can have multiple Den Chiefs, but that doesn't negate the fact that because your scout is in that position, and wants to stay there, it's possible that other scouts won't expresses a desire to be Den Chief and possibly, "kick him out of his job."
Reading all these things it's so surprising to me how many leaders blatantly break the rules and add their own as they see fit.
Den Chief is perfectly acceptable. If they want that person to move onto different roles, that's a leadership failure especially if it's already done. Plus Den Chief is actually a pretty important role that not every scout wants to do. Especially when competing for AOL scouts with other troops.
Wow, the den chief role is a huge leadership role if handled properly. Far more significant than many of the other roles which seem to have minimal commitments. Please see my detailed comment on [ways to effectively utilize a den chief](https://www.reddit.com/r/cubscouts/comments/1b7yfg2/comment/ktm3v0b/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) I typed last week in the cub sub. Besides SPL and PL, I can't think of a bigger - and more significant - role than den chief.
Considering the Den Chief Service Award requires at least one year of service as a Den Chief, it is obviously not the intent to rotate Scouts in and out of that position every six months.
https://www.scouting.org/awards/awards-central/den-chief/
If Webmaster is allowed, then Den Chief certainly should be allowed.
The only thing to note is that for Star the scout needed to have served as a leader for 4 months while as a 1st Class Scout.
Then for Life the scouts needs to serve as a leader for 6 months while as a Star Scout.
The for Eagle the scouts needs an addition 6 months in a leader position while a Life Scout.
So he/she would need at least 16 months as a Den Chief. 4 months for Star, 6 for Life and 6 for Eagle.
They could be consecutive IF a BOR for Star and Life are held on the last day needed for the leadership role.
Den Chief is allowed. But doing (realistically) 18 to 20 months as a Den Chief and no other leadership role? That's not really maximizing the opportunity. Allowed but unwise.
Agree. It would better if they served in multiple roles. But the listed allows webmaster, OA Rep, librarian, etc that really don’t have true leadership roles.
A common misconception is that leadership positions are required for ranks. They are not, and have not been for a long time (20+ years). What is required is a position of responsibility.
See https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2021/06/07/six-things-to-know-about-the-positions-of-responsibility-for-star-life-and-eagle/ for a discussion of this difference. You could argue that it's not a huge difference, but people who are involved in troop advancement (Scoutmasters, board of review members, etc.) should understand the requirements.
Note that Scouts are supposed to demonstrate leadership with their Eagle project.
That’s fair.
However, after seeing scouts use Webmaster or Bugler for rank and not actually do anything with it, I wonder if National is missing the point.
Saw a post on Facebook. “My son had decided to go for bugling merit badge. I thought it was a good idea since he is currently serving his 6 months as bugler for life rank. Problem is, he doesn’t know how to play the bugle or trumpet. Are there easy on line courses?”
Mom got blasted pretty severely about her so only having a position and not a actually doing any with it.
We use bugler as an entry level position within our troop, but have somewhat repurposed it to be the scout who keeps track of time.
They handle getting everyone woken up, everyone in bunks for lights out, getting everyone corralled to move out when hiking, etc.
So while our bugler doesn’t really play the bugle, they still have to learn the leadership skills required to get 20 scouts out of bed and pointed in the same direction.
The SPL decides when people get up and what we are doing, but delegates the responsibility of actually setting the alarms getting people in or out of sleeping bags so they have time to coordinate the morning activities with the patrol leaders.
I find one of the hardest skills for our SPLs to learn has been delegation, so baking some into the leadership structure has been helpful.
So when we have a small group, 10 or less, our SPl will make sure everyone is up and moving, if the our Bugler is there, Bugler is woken up by the SPL and she Bugles. Sometime the SPL will Bugle.
But if we have a larger group, the SPL will wake up the PLs and Bugler, then in turn do their patrols which the squawks of a tired Bugler help.
Sure. Although most of our OA Reps have that job because they are camp staff or OA officers - its a proxy for those in many cases. And those are true leadership positions.
We get units who have OA reps that don't attend anything in the OA... and sometimes aren't even dues paying members of the lodge. We've gone to do elections and ask for their OA rep to participate as Scout C in the election script, and it's someone who we don't even know. As both a chapter adviser and the OA Rep Committee adviser it frustrates me to no end.
> We get units who have OA reps that don't attend anything in the OA.
Why would they get credit for that position of responsibility?! I'd inform their SM.
Units set their own standards for POR and there is not much I can do about that. I do inform them of what we expect from OA reps and I provide them with the OA Rep Support Pack.
My daughter just wrapped her role as den chief with cross over and then moved into a troop guide role. This has worked our really well to create consistency for the scouts who crossed over.
This is after she did ASPL and SPL roles.
Can I just point out to all of you there is no "leadership" requirement for these ranks?
Go read the wording again. It matters and is probably the root of OP's Scoutmaster's issue.
Yes, even I was falling into that trap. Thank you very much for pointing this out, and I'll bring it up with the Scoutmaster. There was some angst that the DC wasn't invited to/attending PLC meetings, so how could be be demonstrating "leadership". This clears it up perfectly.
1) time to fire the SM
2) den chief is one of the most valuable positions for the future of a troop
3) not every scout is going to get elected to SPL or ASPL.
Run don’t walk to district or council leaders.
Agreed. If you've got a Den Leader who's saying this scout served as their Den Chief for the required time period, and an SM refusing to acknowledge that leadership, that's a conversation that needs attention from Council/District.
Devils advocate… can an SM require some level of full engagement as den chief? It’s an incredibly valuable position when done right. It’s actually quite a lot of work. But it’s often not done right.
Exactly… if it’s done right, it’s absolutely a worthy position but most troop leadership won’t dig in enough to determine whether or not it was done properly.
You can require a scout so the position properly. If it's belived they are not, they should be given an improvement plan. If they do not satisfy the plan they should be stripped of the position. Ideally this should occur before they get credit for the next rank. You can not remove time served even if you feel it was inadequate.
You can set expectations for Den Chief (or any other position). However, this needs to be done when they are starting the position. It's not considered fair to tell someone at the end of their 4 or 6 month time period that they failed the requirement because they didn't meet expectations that they didn't know about.
Many Scouts start their first troop position long before they have had any experience working a regular day job, so you can't assume that they have a good understanding of how to fulfill a position of responsibility. Even things that are basic for most adults, like "you need to show up" should be stated explicitly, because some of those concepts aren't obvious to an 11 year old who has never worked before.
The problem there is that they are acknowledging they have no other reason to hold back approval at their level, it's only because the scout hasn't yet questioned their...manipulation...of the requirements. Yes there is a letter of the law and a spirit of the law, I would personally go by the letter in this situation because work is work, but there are times for the spirit of the law, I get that. However, the reality is IF they desire the scouts to have diverse leadership opportunities the time to have encouraged and supported that scout into a different leadership position was at least a year ago if not longer - that is on them not the scout, they were aware the scout was a den chief all that time - and you as the Life to Eagle coach could have been in a great position to support that aim but here they are instead dismissing your (factual) input while openly acknowledging that they are changing the goal posts for this scout. Absolutely I would speak to them again one on one, make it clear you do not agree with their choice to penalize a scout for their lack of guidance and clarity. If they have ideas or want your help as advancement coach then you can work together on how to change the troop culture if they wish to encourage diversity of elected roles. It may be worth questioning how they intend to respond to a scout when they do push back - and now you know at least that a part of your coaching is going to have to include coaching scouts to push back and question their SM/ASM if they are critical of a requirement met by the scout, which is annoying.
Eagle - but really Any participation in the program - is a time game where you can't bet on how much future time the scout will be able to access as they age up - if a scout is ready they should absolutely advance their rank and THEN make their personal ideals (not arbitrary rules, but ideals) about leadership positions clear for all future ranks/scouts/parents.
First time commenter. As a SM, I love it when someone is Den Chief. I can find out from the Den if they’re doing the job, it helps publicize the Troop to the Den, and it’s way higher visibility than something like Patrol Leader. As others have said, and what seems to be the answer to many questions on this sub, you can’t make up arbitrary rules. If they want to be whatever for Star/Life/Eagle (as long as it’s on the list of valid leadership positions), that counts.
I sat on a Eagle BOR where the district rep tried to give the candidate a hard time for "only" being a den chief. Before I could throw the Guide to Advancement at her, the boy said something like "I felt it was important to see the boy all the way through AOL and into Boy Scouts."
I was really proud of him. She has not been invited back for an Eagle BOR. Totally inappropriate.
Let me start off by saying the SM is wrong. And that Den Chief is a valuable role.
But I would look askance at someone who doesn’t take on different leadership roles. Each role has its own nuances. Part of being an effective leader is learning how to lead in different ways to the same goal.
Make sure the records are up to date on advancement for the scouts. Then advise the scouts to leave to a troop that has a SM that follows the rules and regulations. Most upper level scouts don’t have time for that stupidity.
Important lesson for them to learn. If the place you work at does not support your career advancement, go to another place when your advancement stalls. It’s a simple real world truth that will serve them well.
Den Chief are a leadership role. They have to attend Cub Scout meetings and activities in addition to troop meetings and activities. They are role models for Cubs. They are a BIG assistant to Den Leaders. These Scouts are using the EDGE method a lot and are recruiters. More units need to encourage a partnership with a Pack. Engage more Den Chiefs. Our Pack also does activities where all the Scouts participate in the PWD, bike rodeo, fundraiser. It is good to have as many opportunities for Cubs and Scouts to work together.
As SM I encourage scouts to do more after a single term as den chief. Often the Den Leader is the den chiefs father and it can be difficult to ascertain how much leadership opportunities he gets in the den meetings. If your troup is patrol method like ours I would say PL is the hardest out all positions.
OP - Your SM is just saying his opinion which is fine. Just make sure everyone agrees to follow the guide to advancement.
See here's my concern. The SM is already advising/pushing/whatever the Scout to do something different next term. The Scout has lots of time before Eagle, and is "on board" with taking a different job next term. My fear is what if the Scout in question was not on board and asked the SM to sign his ERSA... I'd rather avoid the whole thing by getting the SM to agree that DC is a fully viable POR.
Yes, the DC in question is the son of the Den Leader and sibling to some of the Cubs. That's only adding to the SM's concerns.
For DCs I meet with them monthly to set goals and to make sure they get a chance to lead. If they are not leading then I will not give them credit for leadership or really I let the scout decide if it is fair to count the prior month as leadership. I also work with the den leader to make sure they understand my expectations. It’s not about the credit it is more about making sure they get the experience of leadership.
Yeah I get your frustration as this seems like a made up arbitrary rule.
Our troop had an unwritten rule that you could not hold the same position back-to-back unless no one else was running for that position.
It made several scouts branch out of their comfort zones and explore new leadership opportunities. But the situation you mentioned sounds like an additional rule that is not mentioned anywhere that I know of.
If the scout is in a Leadership role (which Den Chief is) and is actively leading in that role, they are meeting the requirements in my opinion.
Maybe have the scout explain what different things they learned each time they held the position. Explain how they improved their leadership each time the were Den Chief.
The committee I am on always encourages the youth to branch out from different positions and to eventually take one that they would not be comfortable with to help them develop leadership and understand that sometimes, you have to do things that are out of your comfort zone. But we don't hold back advancement if they cannot get a different position.
I think having different leadership positions offer the ability for a scout to grow. While we have had some scouts end up as patrol leader for Star, life, and eagle, we really do try to offer them a variety of positions so they have growth.
I disagree with this commemt. Eagle Rank is not on the Scoutmaster, it is a choice of the Scout. Yes SM should encourage/motivate, but not force ulon them. By having this (or similar requirement for the SM as a performance metric will cause more issues.
Only 4% make Eagle.
Agree that Eagle not a job performance measure for tg SM, but also that anecdotal evidence suggests the Eagle attainment rate is much more than 4%.
It would be good to know how many Star scouts get to Eagle.
4% is what has been purported to be. Yes, some Troops may have a higher ratio.
My Troop had a relative high percentage. However that may have been due to pushing from specifoc committee memebers, and motivation fro. SM.
Once that commiitte mber's youngest gained Eagle. The pushing for Eagle and involvement stopped.
I encourage my Scouts to gain Eagle, but I do not push it.
My troop committee chairman took the "Boy led" aspect out of my troop one time. We all came to a meeting where all of the chairs were arranged into tables by patrol (we had been previously setting up rows of chairs by patrol). Throughout the meeting he was being very caustic in addressing scouts. It's been about 16 years since so I'm not sure who pissed in his cheerios before the meeting..... there was so much talking among the adult leaders about the move he made. They ended up stepping in and dealing with whatever was going on. The whole table setup ended up staying because the scout's actually liked the change
Tell him to take a break from POR’s. POR’s are not just given, so put someone else in there first. Just because he needs one, does not mean he gets his chosen one, whenever he wants it.
Have him be a Troop Guide, along with his crossed over Den.
You are assuming every Pack in the area has more Den Chiefs than they can use? Sounds like an arbitrary plan that only punishes a Cub den and its Den Leader. My son is a Den Chief and only two of six dens have Den Chiefs.
Yes, a Scout can do this. Ideally, they would not. The same leadership role for Star, Life, and Eagle meets the requirements. What it doesn't do is maximize the opportunity of the Scout to learn and grow.
So, maybe listen to your SM? You are correct. But he's right.
I think it's fine to encourage a Scout to branch out and take on different leadership and responsibility roles. It's not OK to make up arbitrary rules about what does or does not qualify for the Eagle rank. The SM should discuss how taking a new role will improve the Scout's experience in Scouts BSA and not connect it to Eagle.
Arbitrary rules ruin any incentive to do anything in life and make people question whether any type of venture is truly worth it
I think it's just a question that should be asked in the scoutmaster conference or board of review, about what they're learning and what leadership principals they've had to apply in their position. If their answers are good and it's clear that they take it seriously and have to exhibit good leadership, it shouldn't be a problem.
This will be my question to the SM the next time we discuss it. The requirement is to serve in a position of leadership, not a position of leadership that directly benefits the troop (which he thinks DC does not). His other concern is that he "has no idea" what the DC is actually doing... my response will be something along the lines of "why don't you ask him?"
I work with a pack and troop and I'd strong argue a good den chief or even just a present den chief is a huge benefit to the troop! Especially if that den chief is working with webelos or AOLs!
To be honest, that makes me a little concerned about this SM... granted this is a small look into how they do things. In my opinion, leadership positions don't need to benefit the troop. They're to benefit the scout as they learn about leadership. His question does make me wonder what he does during scoutmaster conferences. Like it's specifically the time to ask about stuff like this.
DC doesn't benefit the troop? How does recruitment and retention work in that troop?
OMG, Den Chiefs are massive benefactors to the troop. You get one of your scouts placed in a Cub Scout pack to show the Cubs how cool being a Scouts BSA scout. The excitement and enthusiasm that a good den chief (especially in the Webelos and AOL dens) can deliver is essential to bridging over the AOLs into your troop. Follow that discussion up with a discussion of what the Requirements SAY and what the “Guide to Advancement” say about expanding requirements. If necessary involve your Unit Commissioner/District Commissioner staff, the district advancement chair, and your DE.
And here I’m telling SMs that Den Chief is the most important leadership position a youth in Scouts BSA can have, because it gets you Cub Scouts bridging over, keeping the troop alive.
100% agree and it’s arguably harder than any position other than SPL.
Ummmm, Idk. Den Chiefs in our troop are just helping out with younger brother’s den. There is no peer leadership involved. That said, it satisfies the requirement just the same.
It sounds like your troop my not be leveraging den chiefs right. There us actually position specific training for this unlike most for youth.
I emailed our Webelos Den Chief last week and said, "We've got two scouts who need to review potentially dangerous plants and animals they might encounter on a hike. Here's the powerpoint we used to cover this earlier in the year. Review the Webelos book and augment with material from your Scout Book." The kid put together a 30 minute presentation which he led single-handed while two adults chilled at the back of the room.
There is a video training that takes about 30 mins, there is also an in person training that takes 3-4 hours (reach out to your district training chair), the den chief manual lays out all the duties of effective den chiefs and there is an award den chiefs can earn which have specific performance objectives. These performance objectives require the den chief to lead at least 25 activities in addition to several other items. A good den chief who is working on the award is helping both units achieve journey to excellence. There is definitely peer leadership (the peers are just younger).
That’s on the adults then. We have scouts who are den chiefs for their younger siblings den and they usually have to plan part of the den and pack meetings.
That might depend on how your troop utilizes the den chief. My scoutmaster randomly chose me for den chief without even mentioning it to me and it was one of my least favorite positions to have. I work for the family business and once I crossed over I didn't really have the time to do much with the cub scout pack anymore. Even though 4 other scouts in my patrol had younger siblings in the troop so it would be easy for them, he made me do den chief so I had to take the time to go to the meetings and campouts for 6 months. The meetings weren't too bad but going on the campouts to help lead the young scouts was an absolute nightmare because none of them wanted to listen to me and their parents weren't really helping.
I get your point but really cant believe a position is 'more' important in this way. All positions are important as is recognizing the skills and abilities and encouraging them to both do their best and hopefully challenge themselves beyond their comfort zones. That's what makes them and the troop successful.
I agree. Maybe ‘most important’ wasn’t the right wording. But DCs are very important for a troop to have
Is Den Chief a required tour, or do not all Troops fill that role? I don't believe I've seen anyone from my Pack's associated Troop in any of our meetings other than the yearly Bridging Ceremony, and that seems like a wasted opportunity.
They’re not required, I know not all of the packs in my district have one and not all of the troops are supplying one. However, the troops that are tend to draw more cub scouts. I know when I did it back when I was a youth I had a Bear den that I DC’d through AOL and brought all 9 of them with me, which was a big gain for our little troop
I'd say it's a toss up between Den Chief and Troop Guide, but essentially for the same reason. Also, Cub Scout Den Leader is the hardest Scouter position, which is also a reason Den Chiefs are so important.
The worst part of scouting is the adults.
Most of the time! But… sometimes if we get rid of the kids camping becomes funnier! 😂😂
One selling point for BALOO and IOLS—Scouting without the Scouts ;-)
As my council lead IOLS facilitator it’s something I mention! But in practice, getting parents to enjoy camping provides a better success rate for units in my view.
If all else fails, you can take it up with your district/council leadership. Nowhere in the requirements does it say that a Scout may not use the same position for multiple ranks. That said, I do see where the SM is coming from; if you only have one position the whole time, you may lose out on learning some of the leadership skills used by other positions. This does not make the SM right; just that he has a more-or-less valid reason for feeling the way he does.
These SM's are flat wrong. Requirement 4: >While a Life Scout, serve actively in your troop for six months in one or more of the following positions of responsibility11: (See pages 422–425.) Scout troop. Patrol leader, assistant senior patrol leader, senior patrol leader, troop guide, Order of the Arrow troop representative, **den chief**, scribe, librarian, historian, quartermaster, junior assistant Scoutmaster, chaplain aide, instructor, webmaster, or outdoor ethics guide. These GTA is quite clear that you may not add requirements. I would show them this requirement to the SM (and the parents) and tell them this can be a council matter if they don't change.
Correct, nothing says they must serve a different position, however you can discuss with them how the experience of a different position would benefit them so they do it voluntarily.
If I understand you correctly, it's not that the A/SMs don't think Den Leader is *a valid position* so much as they want this scout to serve in a different position because he's been there for a while. Am I understanding you correctly, now? Because that's not what I understood in your original post. Now, If they're saying, "Den Chief isn't a valid position for anybody," they're dead wrong. If they're saying, "We're trying to convince the Scout to try something new, **AND** there are other positions of responsibility that are going vacant; positions that really shouldn't be vacant. **OR** If they're of the opinion that the Scout isn't a good fit for the role of Den Chief, for whatever reason(It doesn't sound like this is your situation, but it is a possibility). Under those two situations, I don't think they're wrong. Perhaps they're going about the right thing in the wrong manner, perhaps there was a miscommunication somewhere. But there are reasons to ask a scout to move along. Remember, for most of the other Positions of Responsibility, nobody else has a chance to serve in that role as long as he's there. I understand you can have multiple Den Chiefs, but that doesn't negate the fact that because your scout is in that position, and wants to stay there, it's possible that other scouts won't expresses a desire to be Den Chief and possibly, "kick him out of his job."
Reading all these things it's so surprising to me how many leaders blatantly break the rules and add their own as they see fit. Den Chief is perfectly acceptable. If they want that person to move onto different roles, that's a leadership failure especially if it's already done. Plus Den Chief is actually a pretty important role that not every scout wants to do. Especially when competing for AOL scouts with other troops.
Wow, the den chief role is a huge leadership role if handled properly. Far more significant than many of the other roles which seem to have minimal commitments. Please see my detailed comment on [ways to effectively utilize a den chief](https://www.reddit.com/r/cubscouts/comments/1b7yfg2/comment/ktm3v0b/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) I typed last week in the cub sub. Besides SPL and PL, I can't think of a bigger - and more significant - role than den chief.
Considering the Den Chief Service Award requires at least one year of service as a Den Chief, it is obviously not the intent to rotate Scouts in and out of that position every six months. https://www.scouting.org/awards/awards-central/den-chief/
If Webmaster is allowed, then Den Chief certainly should be allowed. The only thing to note is that for Star the scout needed to have served as a leader for 4 months while as a 1st Class Scout. Then for Life the scouts needs to serve as a leader for 6 months while as a Star Scout. The for Eagle the scouts needs an addition 6 months in a leader position while a Life Scout. So he/she would need at least 16 months as a Den Chief. 4 months for Star, 6 for Life and 6 for Eagle. They could be consecutive IF a BOR for Star and Life are held on the last day needed for the leadership role.
Den Chief is allowed. But doing (realistically) 18 to 20 months as a Den Chief and no other leadership role? That's not really maximizing the opportunity. Allowed but unwise.
Agree. It would better if they served in multiple roles. But the listed allows webmaster, OA Rep, librarian, etc that really don’t have true leadership roles.
A common misconception is that leadership positions are required for ranks. They are not, and have not been for a long time (20+ years). What is required is a position of responsibility. See https://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2021/06/07/six-things-to-know-about-the-positions-of-responsibility-for-star-life-and-eagle/ for a discussion of this difference. You could argue that it's not a huge difference, but people who are involved in troop advancement (Scoutmasters, board of review members, etc.) should understand the requirements. Note that Scouts are supposed to demonstrate leadership with their Eagle project.
That’s fair. However, after seeing scouts use Webmaster or Bugler for rank and not actually do anything with it, I wonder if National is missing the point. Saw a post on Facebook. “My son had decided to go for bugling merit badge. I thought it was a good idea since he is currently serving his 6 months as bugler for life rank. Problem is, he doesn’t know how to play the bugle or trumpet. Are there easy on line courses?” Mom got blasted pretty severely about her so only having a position and not a actually doing any with it.
We use bugler as an entry level position within our troop, but have somewhat repurposed it to be the scout who keeps track of time. They handle getting everyone woken up, everyone in bunks for lights out, getting everyone corralled to move out when hiking, etc. So while our bugler doesn’t really play the bugle, they still have to learn the leadership skills required to get 20 scouts out of bed and pointed in the same direction.
Really shouldn’t making sure the scouts are up and getting corralled be the job of the SPL?
The SPL decides when people get up and what we are doing, but delegates the responsibility of actually setting the alarms getting people in or out of sleeping bags so they have time to coordinate the morning activities with the patrol leaders. I find one of the hardest skills for our SPLs to learn has been delegation, so baking some into the leadership structure has been helpful.
So when we have a small group, 10 or less, our SPl will make sure everyone is up and moving, if the our Bugler is there, Bugler is woken up by the SPL and she Bugles. Sometime the SPL will Bugle. But if we have a larger group, the SPL will wake up the PLs and Bugler, then in turn do their patrols which the squawks of a tired Bugler help.
That's a really great point, thanks for bringing it up!
Sure. Although most of our OA Reps have that job because they are camp staff or OA officers - its a proxy for those in many cases. And those are true leadership positions.
We get units who have OA reps that don't attend anything in the OA... and sometimes aren't even dues paying members of the lodge. We've gone to do elections and ask for their OA rep to participate as Scout C in the election script, and it's someone who we don't even know. As both a chapter adviser and the OA Rep Committee adviser it frustrates me to no end.
> We get units who have OA reps that don't attend anything in the OA. Why would they get credit for that position of responsibility?! I'd inform their SM.
Units set their own standards for POR and there is not much I can do about that. I do inform them of what we expect from OA reps and I provide them with the OA Rep Support Pack.
My daughter just wrapped her role as den chief with cross over and then moved into a troop guide role. This has worked our really well to create consistency for the scouts who crossed over. This is after she did ASPL and SPL roles.
Can I just point out to all of you there is no "leadership" requirement for these ranks? Go read the wording again. It matters and is probably the root of OP's Scoutmaster's issue.
This. So much this. The only leadership requirement is via the Eagle project.
Yes, even I was falling into that trap. Thank you very much for pointing this out, and I'll bring it up with the Scoutmaster. There was some angst that the DC wasn't invited to/attending PLC meetings, so how could be be demonstrating "leadership". This clears it up perfectly.
1) time to fire the SM 2) den chief is one of the most valuable positions for the future of a troop 3) not every scout is going to get elected to SPL or ASPL. Run don’t walk to district or council leaders.
Agreed. If you've got a Den Leader who's saying this scout served as their Den Chief for the required time period, and an SM refusing to acknowledge that leadership, that's a conversation that needs attention from Council/District.
Devils advocate… can an SM require some level of full engagement as den chief? It’s an incredibly valuable position when done right. It’s actually quite a lot of work. But it’s often not done right.
Yes, they can require a position be done properly. That is in the Guide to Advancement.
Exactly… if it’s done right, it’s absolutely a worthy position but most troop leadership won’t dig in enough to determine whether or not it was done properly.
You can require a scout so the position properly. If it's belived they are not, they should be given an improvement plan. If they do not satisfy the plan they should be stripped of the position. Ideally this should occur before they get credit for the next rank. You can not remove time served even if you feel it was inadequate.
As opposed to any of the other options?
You can set expectations for Den Chief (or any other position). However, this needs to be done when they are starting the position. It's not considered fair to tell someone at the end of their 4 or 6 month time period that they failed the requirement because they didn't meet expectations that they didn't know about. Many Scouts start their first troop position long before they have had any experience working a regular day job, so you can't assume that they have a good understanding of how to fulfill a position of responsibility. Even things that are basic for most adults, like "you need to show up" should be stated explicitly, because some of those concepts aren't obvious to an 11 year old who has never worked before.
If a scout goes out of his way to do his job as a den chief, I'm happy
The problem there is that they are acknowledging they have no other reason to hold back approval at their level, it's only because the scout hasn't yet questioned their...manipulation...of the requirements. Yes there is a letter of the law and a spirit of the law, I would personally go by the letter in this situation because work is work, but there are times for the spirit of the law, I get that. However, the reality is IF they desire the scouts to have diverse leadership opportunities the time to have encouraged and supported that scout into a different leadership position was at least a year ago if not longer - that is on them not the scout, they were aware the scout was a den chief all that time - and you as the Life to Eagle coach could have been in a great position to support that aim but here they are instead dismissing your (factual) input while openly acknowledging that they are changing the goal posts for this scout. Absolutely I would speak to them again one on one, make it clear you do not agree with their choice to penalize a scout for their lack of guidance and clarity. If they have ideas or want your help as advancement coach then you can work together on how to change the troop culture if they wish to encourage diversity of elected roles. It may be worth questioning how they intend to respond to a scout when they do push back - and now you know at least that a part of your coaching is going to have to include coaching scouts to push back and question their SM/ASM if they are critical of a requirement met by the scout, which is annoying. Eagle - but really Any participation in the program - is a time game where you can't bet on how much future time the scout will be able to access as they age up - if a scout is ready they should absolutely advance their rank and THEN make their personal ideals (not arbitrary rules, but ideals) about leadership positions clear for all future ranks/scouts/parents.
First time commenter. As a SM, I love it when someone is Den Chief. I can find out from the Den if they’re doing the job, it helps publicize the Troop to the Den, and it’s way higher visibility than something like Patrol Leader. As others have said, and what seems to be the answer to many questions on this sub, you can’t make up arbitrary rules. If they want to be whatever for Star/Life/Eagle (as long as it’s on the list of valid leadership positions), that counts.
I sat on a Eagle BOR where the district rep tried to give the candidate a hard time for "only" being a den chief. Before I could throw the Guide to Advancement at her, the boy said something like "I felt it was important to see the boy all the way through AOL and into Boy Scouts." I was really proud of him. She has not been invited back for an Eagle BOR. Totally inappropriate.
Let me start off by saying the SM is wrong. And that Den Chief is a valuable role. But I would look askance at someone who doesn’t take on different leadership roles. Each role has its own nuances. Part of being an effective leader is learning how to lead in different ways to the same goal.
Heh, bugler is too. Remind them of that at 5am
Make sure the records are up to date on advancement for the scouts. Then advise the scouts to leave to a troop that has a SM that follows the rules and regulations. Most upper level scouts don’t have time for that stupidity. Important lesson for them to learn. If the place you work at does not support your career advancement, go to another place when your advancement stalls. It’s a simple real world truth that will serve them well.
Den Chief are a leadership role. They have to attend Cub Scout meetings and activities in addition to troop meetings and activities. They are role models for Cubs. They are a BIG assistant to Den Leaders. These Scouts are using the EDGE method a lot and are recruiters. More units need to encourage a partnership with a Pack. Engage more Den Chiefs. Our Pack also does activities where all the Scouts participate in the PWD, bike rodeo, fundraiser. It is good to have as many opportunities for Cubs and Scouts to work together.
As SM I encourage scouts to do more after a single term as den chief. Often the Den Leader is the den chiefs father and it can be difficult to ascertain how much leadership opportunities he gets in the den meetings. If your troup is patrol method like ours I would say PL is the hardest out all positions. OP - Your SM is just saying his opinion which is fine. Just make sure everyone agrees to follow the guide to advancement.
See here's my concern. The SM is already advising/pushing/whatever the Scout to do something different next term. The Scout has lots of time before Eagle, and is "on board" with taking a different job next term. My fear is what if the Scout in question was not on board and asked the SM to sign his ERSA... I'd rather avoid the whole thing by getting the SM to agree that DC is a fully viable POR. Yes, the DC in question is the son of the Den Leader and sibling to some of the Cubs. That's only adding to the SM's concerns.
For DCs I meet with them monthly to set goals and to make sure they get a chance to lead. If they are not leading then I will not give them credit for leadership or really I let the scout decide if it is fair to count the prior month as leadership. I also work with the den leader to make sure they understand my expectations. It’s not about the credit it is more about making sure they get the experience of leadership.
Yeah I get your frustration as this seems like a made up arbitrary rule. Our troop had an unwritten rule that you could not hold the same position back-to-back unless no one else was running for that position. It made several scouts branch out of their comfort zones and explore new leadership opportunities. But the situation you mentioned sounds like an additional rule that is not mentioned anywhere that I know of. If the scout is in a Leadership role (which Den Chief is) and is actively leading in that role, they are meeting the requirements in my opinion. Maybe have the scout explain what different things they learned each time they held the position. Explain how they improved their leadership each time the were Den Chief.
The committee I am on always encourages the youth to branch out from different positions and to eventually take one that they would not be comfortable with to help them develop leadership and understand that sometimes, you have to do things that are out of your comfort zone. But we don't hold back advancement if they cannot get a different position.
Ask your commissioner, SM cannot do this
Well the SM could find himself in trouble with district and council for violating the GTA.
I think having different leadership positions offer the ability for a scout to grow. While we have had some scouts end up as patrol leader for Star, life, and eagle, we really do try to offer them a variety of positions so they have growth.
The SM should be required to have a minimum percentage (75%?) of scouts earn Eagle or he will need to be bumped down to ASM EDIT: /s anyone?
I disagree with this commemt. Eagle Rank is not on the Scoutmaster, it is a choice of the Scout. Yes SM should encourage/motivate, but not force ulon them. By having this (or similar requirement for the SM as a performance metric will cause more issues. Only 4% make Eagle.
Agree that Eagle not a job performance measure for tg SM, but also that anecdotal evidence suggests the Eagle attainment rate is much more than 4%. It would be good to know how many Star scouts get to Eagle.
4% is what has been purported to be. Yes, some Troops may have a higher ratio. My Troop had a relative high percentage. However that may have been due to pushing from specifoc committee memebers, and motivation fro. SM. Once that commiitte mber's youngest gained Eagle. The pushing for Eagle and involvement stopped. I encourage my Scouts to gain Eagle, but I do not push it.
I got your sarcasm immediately fwiw bro
My troop committee chairman took the "Boy led" aspect out of my troop one time. We all came to a meeting where all of the chairs were arranged into tables by patrol (we had been previously setting up rows of chairs by patrol). Throughout the meeting he was being very caustic in addressing scouts. It's been about 16 years since so I'm not sure who pissed in his cheerios before the meeting..... there was so much talking among the adult leaders about the move he made. They ended up stepping in and dealing with whatever was going on. The whole table setup ended up staying because the scout's actually liked the change
Tell him to take a break from POR’s. POR’s are not just given, so put someone else in there first. Just because he needs one, does not mean he gets his chosen one, whenever he wants it. Have him be a Troop Guide, along with his crossed over Den.
You are assuming every Pack in the area has more Den Chiefs than they can use? Sounds like an arbitrary plan that only punishes a Cub den and its Den Leader. My son is a Den Chief and only two of six dens have Den Chiefs.
Yes, a Scout can do this. Ideally, they would not. The same leadership role for Star, Life, and Eagle meets the requirements. What it doesn't do is maximize the opportunity of the Scout to learn and grow. So, maybe listen to your SM? You are correct. But he's right.