Reasonable expectations for participation

[Beavah 205]

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.

 

Well, I was tryin' to address da question. Must be da funny accent.

 

Let me try to be more clear.

 

I think that if the SM is spending any time on that question, he or she should not be a scoutmaster. It's entirely the wrong question. You're dealing with a situation that calls for an approach from one of the other seven methods, so if you're spending any time at all focused on advancement in such a case, you're (as yeh put it in another thread) "dead wrong."

 

Advancement ain't an entitlement that we should get all huffy about being "denied", like someone has been "denied" their civil rights. Advancement is just a form of recognition by others to help young lads learn and grow. It only works if da patch truly represents da respect of others, both youth and adult members. It's a gift, not an entitlement; a tool, not a goal. Lots of times yeh need to use other tools, so yeh set this one down for a bit.

 

So a lad who came back after 8 months, da notion of advancement wouldn't even be on the table. We'd have other things to work through first.

 

Beavah

[CalicoPenn 729]

Let's answer Fred's actual question instead of obfuscating it with all the other stuff because the question is quite simple - a lad has been active for four months and has served as quartermaster during those 4 months as a First Class Scout. Does he advance in rank?

 

The whole 6 months away thing is a red herring and has nothing to do with the qualifications for advancement. Read the requirements:

 

Be active in your Troop and Patrol for a minimum of four months

 

Serve actively for four months in a listed POR

 

Assuming Fred agrees that the Scout met the Troops definition of Active during those four months, the lad advances - even if he disappears for 6 months and comes back.

 

Why? Because he met the requirements to be active a minimum of four months and served actively as quartermaster during this 4 month period. Of course, there might be some knuckleheaded Scouters out there who decide to read "minimum" as meaning they (the knuckleheaded Scouter) can make it 6 months or 8 months or 12 months. The only thing to do with those tin pot dictators is to pointedly tell them to go sit in a corner and leave the Scouting to the people who want to see the lads succeed and aren't going to placing artifical barriers in the way of a Scout. In this case, minimum means you have to serve no less than 4 months. 3 months isn't enough. 3 1/2 months isn't enough. You need 4 months, you serve 4 months.

 

So in this case, the lad has met the requirements, he gets the rank.

 

All that being said, addressing the obfuscation, Beavah is on point. The advancement is a different issue - the issue of the 6 month absence needs to be addressed as well. If the SM hasn't engaged the Scout during that 6 months to find out the reason for the absence, that's an issue for the SM to deal with - don't hold back the lad because the SM may have dropped the ball. There could be some perfectly valid reasons for the 6 month absence. You'll never know unless you ask.

 

So you have two things to do: One - he's met the requirements to advance, he gets the SM Conference and BOR (the SM Conference is a good place to find out where he's been the last 6 months - the BOR shouldn't touch it, unless the Scout has indicated something in the unit changed for the worse during those 6 months, in which case this is the BOR's opportunity to learn how to improve the Troop). Two: Find out the interest level of the Scout to continue.

 

Now - after all that, I'd like to point out that I already notice some discussion on what people think is reasonable and what is not. I know Beavah doesn't like it when I make this comparison, but I still believe it's a valid comparison - the BSA program is as much a franchise as a McDonalds. An Eagle Scout in North Carolina and an Eagle Scout in California should be held to the same standards. They're both reading the same BSA Handbook. They're both getting the same required merit badges (the couple minor variations notwithstanding). They both fill out the same Eagle Project Workbook. Why on earth should there be any difference in participation requirements? It's like going to a McDonalds in California and getting a Big Mac with Pepperjack Cheese and a McDonalds in North Carolina and getting a Big Mac with BBQ Sauce instead of Secret Sauce. They may look like Big Macs, but they aren't Big Macs

[bnelon44 17]

I agree from what we know, he earned the rank.

[eisely 13]

I have used the franchise model in many of my discussions with parents and new scouters, because that is exactly what the chartering process is.

 

One major difference between McDonald's and scouting though, is that McDonald's pays secret shoppers to verify consistency on a sampling basis. I can't imagine BSA doing something like that.

[Beavah 205]

I know Beavah doesn't like it when I make this comparison, but I still believe it's a valid comparison - the BSA program is as much a franchise as a McDonalds.

 

Yah, not a question of like or dislike, Calico. It's just a question of accuracy, and that ain't accurate.

 

It could never be accurate of course, even if da BSA wanted it to be, because children are not burgers. There just aren't any nationwide educational programs with that level of standardization. Da schools in each state are given billions of dollars to try to align and "standardize" their curriculum and educational outcomes to national standards documents. How's that goin'? Can yeh point to a single state that's been successful, despite full-time employees and gobs of professional support?

 

So it just couldn't be done even if we wanted to do it, and we don't want to. Da BSA in its charter agreement agrees to support and advance the goals of da Chartered Organization, not vice versa. So even if yeh viewed da Charter as a franchise agreement (which it is not), da terms are very different than McDonalds. And yeh can see in da new G2A that national has severely limited appeals, and made much clearer statements about these things being up to the reasonable discretion of da units.

 

If you're looking for everyone being da same, yeh need to find a different organization than da BSA. Good luck with that.

 

Fred8033's question is different, eh? I view it more as a "what should a unit do in a particular case. Discussing these is fun, we can learn from each other's approaches without havin' to be clones.

 

That's da question I tried to answer, no obfuscation intended. I think da right answer is not to treat advancement as a focus or a goal, and spend your time focused on da real goals.

 

If your goals are to teach entitlement, then yeh give da lad a patch and congratulate yourself on your troop's numbers and knowledge of various publications. If your goals are to teach character, then yeh sit and discuss how a boy is doin' and how yeh can help (your commitment), and when he might be able to re-join da unit as a young leader (his commitment). Advancement isn't on the table.

 

Beavah

[Twocubdad 665]

Which is the point I tried to make this morning. We're not McDonald's. We DO add barbecue sauce to the burgers if that's what the owners and customers of a particular store want. And usually -- certainly the case here -- there's another burger joint just down the street if you don't like barbecue sauce on your hamburger. I'll even give you directions to the other store.

 

The problem with these discussions parsing advancement policy is that we tend to look at advancement in a vacuum. It's not. Advancement is one part of the overall program. And as advancement is just a part of Scouting, Scouting is just a part of these boys' lives. What I think Beav's getting at, and certainly what I'm trying to say, is that you need to step back and look at the totatality of what's going on with this kid. Your hypothetical sounds as if the boy entered a time warp for eight months.

 

But that's never the case. There's always some cause or reason for the absence and the circumstances make a difference. A good SM will want to understand what's going on with the Scout and will likely have a fair idea in the first place. After 8 months it is inconceivable that you would just pick up with a Scoutmaster's Conference without an understanding of what's happening with the kid. And that needs to take a little time. Assuming that after 8 months a boy calls out of the blue for a SMC (and it's hard to imagine that happening) there is nothing wrong with the SM saying, "you know, we really need to get caught up with each other. I haven't seen you since February, so maybe we can chat at the next couple troop meeting and you go with us on the campout in a couple weeks. We'll see where we are and worry about advancement stuff later."

 

But here's my question to you -- how does recognizing and rewarding a Scout who has not attended an activity in 8 months advance the mission of the program? Waht is that teaching? Is that good for the Scout? (I don't know, maybe it is, given a particular situation.) Is it good for the unit and/or program? If you look at advancement in a vacuum, it doesn't matter. But if you consider the big picture of what we are trying to teach these young men, I think it does.

[Oak Tree 15]

I'll take the opposite point of view, just so we can have a good discussion.

 

The good thing about giving him the award is that it sets the expectation with all of the boys that if they complete the requirements, they will get the expected recognition.

 

We see this on a not too irregular basis. A boy will be absent for some period of time, but then, for whatever reason, will decide he wants to become active again. He shows up, finishes off the one or two items he has left for rank, and gets rank the first week he's back. Generally, everyone is happy to see him back.

 

Sure, maybe someone should be following up in between, but generally, we know what's going on. Sometimes we have had the conversations, other times it would be good if we followed up but that doesn't always happen.

 

Nevertheless, when the boy comes back, it's typically been something welcomed by the other Scouts, who are happy to see him earn his rank after a long absence.

[Eagle92 110]

If a scout has completed the requirements, then takes a hiatus for whatever reason, he has still completed the requirements.

 

I'll give you an example. I know a scout who busted butt to complete everything before a certain date, b/c he knew he was not going to be able to attend anything after that date for a period of time. He got everything in but a EBOR b/c the district couldn't find a rep to attend. So he is gone for a months, comes back and tries to have his EBOR. No one had a problem as he did meet the requirements, but since it was after his 18th birhtday and the deadline to appeal to the council, his appeal went to national instead. Ok he wasn't active in the troop for several months, But he did everything an met the requirements. Luckily the Scout did get approval for his EBOR form national, and it was a pro forma EBOR as he had a "discussion" with the folks who would have been on the EBOR about Scouting, life goals, and how he did at boot camp.

 

I'll give you my own case. At my EBOR, the DAC tried to deny me b/c he did not approve my project. Well my project was planned, approved, and completed 4.5 years prior to my EBOR. I admit I goofed off, I had fun doing BA22, NSJ, 50 Miler, ad nauseum with scouts. I also had to support myself once the old man walked out. And there was a period of time my senior year where I was missing almost every meeting b/c of football games. But I met the requirements, so why should I be denied?

 

 

[Twocubdad 665]

But after being gone for a solid 8 months?

 

I'm not talking about the kid who was active through July, and started missing when football practice started. I have a pile of those guys. They've only been gone two-and-a-half months. And they drop in when practice is cancelled and come Saturday morning to campouts, if they can. Now that it is getting dark early, several of them show up for troop meetings still in their workout clothes. I have no problem with them picking up right where they left off.

 

But 8 months is a different deal. No sports season or school activity lasts that long. If grades/school was an issue, they could have attended over the summer. They've missed summer camp, JLT, eight campouts and getting to know an entire class of new scouts who joined the troop since they've been around.

 

As Beavah has said, there are just more important issues here than advancement.

 

 

[fred8033 1593]

Eagle92 ... I fully agree with you. If you met the requirements, you "EARNED" your advancement.

 

My example was never a scout fully gone. Just a scout mostly gone and not meeting unit expectations. But to be honest, that's just noice. IMHO, if a scout met the requirements, he advances.

 

twocubdad wrote "But 8 months is a different deal. " ... To me, absence/low participation is not a question of recognizing past achievements. If a scout's done the work / met the requirements, give them their due. Now if a scout shows up and expects us to jump to help help him with merit badges or other requirements, then the scout probably needs his reality corrected. We'd still support him, but we probably doubt his committment.

 

...

 

The original question came up because I was wondering about "unit expectations" for the "active" rank requirements. From what I understand, the unit expectations only affect advancement during the time windows used to fulfill the four or six month "active" requirements. After that window, the requirements are completed. Then, unit expectations can be expected, but not used to block advancement.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[John-in-KC 311]

Sweet Mercy.

 

The last time the field (meaning all of us in units, districts, and Councils) decided we wanted a definite answer ... we got one. We didn't like it, either.

 

Keep asking the question, folks. If you keep asking the question, National will decide it's important enough and give you an answer. I promise you won't like the answer!

 

Let me offer a better path: Solve this in your own units, away from the searchlight of Brilliant Idea Fairies from National seeking to solve problems that aren't really problems...

[Beavah 205]

Sigh. I see we can't get out of precision-Scouter land, where spendin' our time on page 67 of da book is more important than the child standin' in front of us. This is da sort of attitude in Scoutin' that makes a commissioner cry for a bit, and then go talk to a COR and IH about makin' changes in their staffing.

 

Fine.

 

For da precision scouters out there, da real answer is...

 

If the boy is goin' for Tenderfoot, Second Class, or First Class, the Scoutmaster refuses to sign Scout Spirit based on his recent lack of participation, and/or the BOR tells him no for the same reason and sets some expectations for him to improve and it's done. There is no appeal for T-2-1 advancement.

 

If da boy is goin' for Star or Life there are two possibilities.

 

In one, da SM simply tells the boy that his participation has been so low that his membership has been dropped, and before any advancement can proceed he must apply for membership. Then da unit can set whatever expectations it wants before accepting his application.

 

Alternately, the SM can refuse to sign for Scout Spirit, in which case one can interpret da book to mean either that no BOR need be scheduled (and we're done), or that a BOR must be scheduled because da lad "believes" he met the requirement. There is no provision for a disputed-circumstances BOR for Star or Life. If da unit chooses to have a BOR and the lad is denied on Scout Spirit or other grounds, that can be appealed to the council, but no farther.

 

If the boy is goin' for Eagle, then those same possibilities repeat, but with an added twist. In da first possibility, the troop tells him he's no longer a member and has to re-apply. If he's still registered with da BSA, then there is ambiguity. He can apply for a BOR under disputed circumstances to the council, and they can choose to hold one or not. If they choose to hold one then either they or national can give the lad Eagle on appeal. If they choose not to hold one because they accept da unit's statement that he has been dismissed as a member, then it's done. The boy of course can apply for membership in a different unit and, if accepted as a member, proceed on that basis.

 

On da other hand, if the unit still considers the boy a member and the SM refuses to sign Scout Spirit or the unit refuses to endorse, then the lad can ask for and receive a BOR under disputed circumstances from the council, appealable to national. Those groups can decide however they want to, eh? If we judge by past practice, national at least is likely to just give the boy the patch to avoid da headache.

 

Practically, of course, all of this tom-fool nonsense only happens when some adult has their head up their arse. Usually a parent, often a precision-scouter, occasionally just personalities and poor communication. Any halfway decent sort is goin' to handle things in the way that I and Oak Tree and TwoCubDad and eisley and others have described, eh? In a way that's mindful of the boy and of da particular goals and mission of da unit program in which they serve, and which puts da whole program first, not da advancement method.

 

Of course, we'll now get another 6 pages dissecting each of my paragraphs above in light of da new G2A, but relatively little on how to help individual boys or programs. Ah, well. Everyone has to have a pasttime.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[fred8033 1593]

Beavah... Your disdain for "precision scouters" is a reflection of scout leaders that will do what they want and find a way to run their own fiefdom under the BSA name.

 

Shame. Shame. Shame.

 

You assert solutions #1 to not sign off on scout spirit or #2 preemptively drop the scout from the roster and handle it as a re-admittance issue.

 

Scout spirit not signed because of attendance is wrong and mean. Completed the "active" requirement but not scout spirit because of attendance. Huh?? BSA says in the GTA "We can say however, that we do not measure Scout spirit by counting meetings and outings attended. It is indicated, instead, by the way he lives his life." Spirit is about how the scout treats others. Not signing off is telling the scout he does not treat others well and is against BSA documented instructions.

 

To preemptively drop a scout is killing the patient to cure the disease. And it's just plain mean and promotes dishonesty by the adult leaders. If I heard of any troop doing this, I'd tell the scouts and parents to run and run fast.

 

I'd be glad to accept a transfer application from any scout in such a situation. We've done it in the past and will again in the future. In fact, I'd give them the application and help them fill it out. Our troop doesn't play those childish games. We feel duty to deliver the BSA program and with compassion and support for the scouts in our troop.

 

...

 

Your final comment is a rejection of precision scouters and an emphasis on helping scouts and on the whole program. Interesting, but I just don't buy it. Denying a scout their due to correct other issues is wrong and gives scouting a bad name. The best way to help scouts is to deliver the program BSA documents, no more, no less.

 

And guess what, that means understanding the BSA program in detail.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[5yearscouter 52]

Reading the beginning and jumping to the end.

 

You let the scout sign up for a scoutmaster conference

you bring the scout in as SM and probably the first thing out of your mouth is how glad you are to see him, and a question about where he's been, what's been keeping him away from scouting, and what can the troop do to help him get re-involved in the scouting fun. and you listen to him and make suggestions.

 

Only then do you open the book and check off some things, remind him that he did his months of active and months of POR, but with the absence some of the boys are going to look at him funny for jumpin to get a badge that they didn't see him earning for the last 8 months.

 

Explain that he should be aware he may get the side eye from others, and perhaps should let them know a little something about why he was gone if he hasn't already and how eager he is to jump back into scouting.

 

Then you challenge him to step up his active status as high as possible, taking into account those other things that may keep him from attending(school committments especially)

 

and then you sign his book and you pass him off to a BOR to get his rank.

 

SM conference isn't just about signing the book, every time there should be a discussion with the boy about how things are going, what's working well or not working well and how the troop can help the boy.

[5yearscouter 52]

Prior answer was mostly to the scout 8 months discussion at the end.

 

As to the beginning question?

I'm not sure that the troop needs to add too many check boxes to look at to ensure a scout is active.

 

I think in our troop it should primarily be

active= registered with the unit, paying dues, attending enough meetings and outings to do all the stuff in your rank and get the book signed (troop guides primarily sign books and you have to catch them at the end of a meeting to get the book signed)

 

Of course in the bylaws (that are mostly ignored) the troop requires 70% of meetings to get to 1st class, and 50% of outings and 70% of meetings for rank after that. I guess at one time they were very big sticklers for taking attendance and pulling up records before you could request a SM conference. I'm a bit concerned as it's time to go thru and update those bylaws and someone will drag this skeleton out of the closet and parade it around as a wonderful answer to what defines active.

 

what do you think of that kind of requirement to be active? too much? too little? just right?