Reasonable expectations for participation

[Oak Tree 15]

I've been thinking about this question.

 

I don't even want to ask the guys about what we'd want to do unless there is something meaningful that we could achieve. I don't want to have a 50% attendance requirement for a POR - that's so low as to be not really worth tracking (right now we don't track attendance at troop meetings, so it would be a change to track it).

 

I think it comes down to whether we want to require a Scout to make Scouting his primary activity in order to advance. If it's his primary activity, I'd expect at least 75% attendance, maybe 90%. If we allow it to be a secondary activity, come when he wants, enjoy it, etc, then I don't think we need any requirement on attendance, although we could still track some expectations for the POR separate from attendance.

 

A boy wouldn't have to make Scouting his primary activity all the time - there could be seasons where he does other things.

 

Recently we've increased our expectations and our coaching of our senior patrol, and the Scouts have stepped up. I agree that increased challenge is a draw, but it takes some art to craft the challenges appropriately.

 

I think Sea Scouts uses 75% as the national standard.

[Twocubdad 665]

IMHO, the "active" requirement is noise.

 

That's an interesting perspective. Are there other requirements you consider "noise"?

 

I'd suggest to you the previous definition of "active" did, in all practicality, change the requirement to mean "be a registered member." I will assume the folks rewriting the advancement guidelines had the opportunity to change the language of the requirement to reflect that. But they didn't.

 

I'm okay with the "reasonable expectation" idea. When you get down to it all the requirements are based on the resonable expectations of the unit. The lack of national standards in advancement is a fact of the program. When was the last time someone from the advancement committee ran an audit of your troop to see if your sign-offs met national expectations?

 

Properly -- and I think wisely -- there are as many different definitions for what is "good enough" as there are units. You want your son in a more warm and fuzzy troop? Think he should only attend when he feels like it? I'll be happly to help you find one. That's not being snarky, that's just the way it is. Long time ago I learned I'm not going to be all things to all people. The leaders and parents in our troop are rather old school and want our boys to work hard and overcome obstacles and adversity. Sometimes that means our expectations are tougher than in other units. We're okay with that. (And as an aside, I'm sure there are elements of our program others here would judge easier. We're not an especially big backpacking troop, for example. You want to pound out 150 miles a year? I'll help you find a troop like that, too.) BSA sets forth broad outlines of a program the chartered organizations leaders and parents extablish units which meet their needs and fit their interests, abilities and personalities.

 

I can't tell you when I have ever checked a Scouts attendance records prior to signing off on the requirement. 50% attendance is such a low mark, the truth is the boys below that level are on their way to dropping and advancement really isn't an issue. It's really somewhat of a circuit breaker which rarely trips, rather than routine operational control. Actually, I'd call it more of an "expectation" than a hard and fast policy -- hmmm... there's a thought. The Scouts are aware of it and perhaps they use it as a marker in judging their own attendance.

 

And perhaps that's the real value. Young people need boundaries and guidelines. We're giving them one.

[fred8033 1593]

Twocubdad ... I wrote "IMHO, the "active" requirement is noise." because of the sentences that I wrote that followed it. The active time frame exactly overlaps the POR requirement time frame. I can see zero cases where I'd consider the POR requirement fulfilled when the active requirement is not fulfilled.

 

...

 

Twocubdad ... Warm and fuzzy troop? I just don't see that. I'll put the shooting skills, camping skills, hiking skills, canoeing skills, adventurous nature and good character of our scouts against any. Our scouts are often the ones that organize impromptu football or capture-the-flag events that run late into the night. They are helpful and I am very proud of them. I want my sons in a troop that focuses on doing things and on setting a good example. I just don't want my son in a beurocratic troop that spouts their own made up rules. My apologies if that sounds harsh.

 

...

 

QUESTION QUESTION QUESTION

 

EVERYONE EVERYONE EVERYONE ...For Star, Life and Eagle, the "active" requirement is for a time frame. Four or six months. As people often say, once a requirement is completed it's always completed. So do you see UNIT EXPECTATIONS of "active" to be for the requirement stated time frame or something different? BSA says units can set their own expectations. It doesn't say anything about setting time frame or it must be the last X months.

 

TEST CASE EXAMPLE

Suppose a scout advances in January to First class. Active for four months as quartermaster and then mostly gone for six months. No reason discussed. In December, the scout asks for a SMC and a BOR. In May, the scout fulfilled the "active" requirements for Star per both BSA and unit expectations. But, the scout's been gone for months and essentially not currently meeting "unit expectations".

 

Do you advance them? They fulfilled the BSA "active" rank requirement in May. They also met the unit expectations in May. Or do we "undo"/"not credit" the completed requirement because they don't currently meet unit expectations?

 

...

 

Related ... If you have 75% attendance requirement, can a scout in December use the 75% attendance in April and May and then also in September and October? Or do you expect it to be a consecutive time frame since the last advancement? For BSA's active, they let you glue together time frames.

 

...

 

Probably the reason I don't like unit expectations is that it feels like it's giving more control over advancement to the adults. (i.e. adults weighing scout attendance and other noble activities) I've always been a firm believer in a scout controls his own advancement. Now adults can say "oh your attendance is not good enough" even though the scout meets BSA requirements and is doing the best that he can.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[Eagle92 110]

How about we use the Sea Scout model for "active membership" From 3 of the four ranks.

 

 

Ordinary Sea Scout

2. Active Membership

a.Attend at least 75 percent of your ship's meetings and activities for six months. Note: Check with your ship's yeoman.

 

 

Able Sea Scout

2.Active Membership

a.Attend at least 75 percent of your ship's meetings and special activities for one year.

Note: Check with your ship's yeoman.

 

Quartermaster

2. Active Membership

a.Attend at least 75 percent of your ship's meetings and special activities for 18 months.

Note: Check with your ship's yeoman.

 

 

 

 

 

[Beavah 205]

Suppose a scout advances in January to First class. Active for four months as quartermaster and then mostly gone for six months. No reason discussed. In December, the scout asks for a SMC and a BOR. In May, the scout fulfilled the "active" requirements for Star per both BSA and unit expectations. But, the scout's been gone for months and essentially not currently meeting "unit expectations". Do you advance them?

 

Wrong question, eh? Da question should be "are they still even on your roster?". None of the first year boys have even met them.

 

If they claimed to be on da school newspaper but no-showed for eight months they certainly wouldn't be considered a member of the staff anymore, let alone be a candidate for promotion.

 

Advancement isn't da issue in such a case, and tryin' to figure out advancement is da wrong way to approach it. . Advancement method takes a back seat to da other 7 at this point. Yeh sit down with the lad and talk about his life and commitments.

 

Beavah

[fred8033 1593]

Beavah - Please don't throw out the example. It may not be perfect, but I'm trying to understand the boundary of "unit expectations". And I did say mostly, not completely absent. Happens all the time in scouting that one or two of forty scouts in a troop has attendance problems for a period of time.

 

TEST CASE EXAMPLE ... Suppose a scout advances in January to First class. Active for four months as quartermaster and then mostly gone for six months. No reason discussed. In December, the scout asks for a SMC and a BOR. In May, the scout fulfilled the "active" requirements for Star per both BSA and unit expectations. But, the scout's been gone for months and essentially not currently meeting "unit expectations". Do you advance them?

 

We've had scouts that for periods of time don't attend camp outs, bike to one meeting a month and then cut out early. Lots of different twists. Some also just gone for several months, but when you ask they say they want to stay with the troop.

 

The question is if a troop has unit expectations of say 50% or more of meetings and 50% or more of camp outs, could they advance? They previously fulfilled the BSA requirement and the unit expectations. But, they have not met "unit expectations" recently.

 

IMHO, they advance. They met the requirement. Requirements can not be un-completed. "Unit expectations" are only for the time period of the requirement time.

 

[Beavah 205]

Yah, but fred8033, who cares?. A lad who is largely absent certainly doesn't, if he hasn't pursued da issue for 8 months. The issues with the lad have nothing to do with advancement. The SM and everybody else should be lookin' to the real issues, not wastin' their time on foolishness. We care about kids, not ranks or award rules. A good SM is goin' to set aside the advancement issue in order to spend time with the lad on whatever the real issue(s) are.

 

Put another way, why should a lad who hasn't fulfilled his basic duties as a member for 8 months expect that he can demand the time and attention of half a dozen volunteers? A BOR is a gift of service given to contributing members in good standing, eh? AAA won't come give yeh a free tow if yeh haven't been a member for 8 months. Why should a lad who hasn't been a real member for 8 months expect others to perform service for him, let alone give him a member's awards?

 

These are questions of character and personal honor, eh? They, along with all of da other issues a boy may be working through, need to be addressed before the advancement game should start again.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[fred8033 1593]

I'm just trying to understand how to interpret the new GTA. I've seen multiple cases that are pretty close to the example. I agree there's many tangents and many directly related topics. And most of those topics come first when dealing with a real live scout.

 

I just want to understand how to correctly interpret the GTA. About once a year it comes up for debate. I just want to make sure I'm relaying good information.

[Twocubdad 665]

I like Beavah's approach. The conversation in December isn't about when to schedule your SMC/BoR, rather when you are going to rejoin the troop. Start showing up for meetings and campouts for a few months, then we'll talk. If the Scout or his parents don't like that response, we'll be happy to help you with the infor you need to transfer to another troop.

 

I have that exact situation with my CC's son. He hasn't been to more that four meetings in the past 18 months. Come recharter he's either active or gone. I won't put the troop in the positions of tap dancing on the head of the advancement policy book.

 

If a Scout cares so little about the program as to not attend in eight months, why does he care about advancement? And why do you care to have him in the troop?

[eisely 13]

Let me bore you with a related eagle horror story.

 

Several years ago there was a high school age life scout in our troop who did not show up for two years. He had all his merit badges, although that was not 100% clear as his dad was the advancement coordinator. Two years went by and he showed up with his eagle application in hand and an eagle project workbook completed and signed off by the benefiting organization, but never seen before, much less approved, by any of the adult volunteers in the troop or at the district level.

 

To their credit the SM and CC refused to sign the documents, as did the project approval authority at the district level. The CC told me that the scout's claimed POR was chaplain's aide two years earlier. The only thing that the CC could recall that the scout ever did in this capacity was say grace at one outing.

 

The scout appealed to the council. The troop adult leadership was assured that they would be given an opportunity to speak about the appeal before a decision was made. The council gave the scout his eagle anyway without ever notifying the adult volunteers involved that they would be invited to meet on a certain date.

 

We lost one very good volunteer forever as a result of this fiasco.

 

So, while the new guidelines appear to push more authority and control to the units, units are well advised to have their acts together as to record keeping and all other aspects of managing the advancement process.

[fred8033 1593]

Okay. I take that as a yes. You would deny rank advancement to a registered scout who's completed requirements because he's been gone for a period of time. Interesting.

 

eisely - I've heard horror stories like you've described. Sort of related, but not entirely. Change your example slightly. What if the SM and district had reviewed and signed off on the project earlier; the project was cleanly executed and all pieces of it were closed out. You even had the post-project write up in your hand. ....... Then the scout disappeared for nine months. When he returned would you signed off on his rank advancement?(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[eisely 13]

fred8033,

 

Denying advancement to any rank is a serious matter and should not be done lightly. Particularly so as regards the eagle rank.

 

In the situation that you describe, if the only problem was lag between cleanly completing all requirements and applying for the eagle, I don't think there would be any grounds for denying the eagle to such a scout.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, forgive me for bein' a broken record here (does that analogy even make sense anymore?) .

 

Where in da world was da SM during those 9 months, fred8033? None of da issues here have anything to do with advancement, eh? They're all about relationships and mentoring kids. Advancement is irrelevant, and if you're spending any time in it at all in such cases then yeh don't understand what scouting really is.

 

I'd expect a good SM would be on da phone checkin' to make sure the boy and his family were OK.

 

Beavah

[fred8033 1593]

eisely ... I agree. How about for star? It's another rank. Not as well know as Eagle, but on the same advancement ladder with requirements documented in the same way. If the scout completed all requirements including "active" and then less than ideally active for six or eight months, would you deny him advancement? To be up front, I hope not. He earned advancement and deserves recognition. Plus, the heart felt conversation should be about moving forward and not about re-earning what he's already completed.

 

Beavah ... Thank you for your point. It's not at all addressing the question raised and pretty obvious, but thanks anyway. At least twocubdad addressed the question.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[eisely 13]

fred8033,

 

To respond to your question, if a boy has legitimately completed all the requirements, the mere fact that he drops off the map for a period of months is not, in my mind, a reason to deny advancement. Further, there is no reason for not automatically advancing the boy if he completed his BOR, even if the boy does not show up at a court of honor to receive the recognition.

 

Beavah's point, as usual, is well taken. Where is the SM in all this? Of all the youth facing adult leaders the SM has the clearest responsibility for monitoring the boys in the troop. If a boy disappears for a while, that SM should be following up with the boy and his parents.