Active in Scouting by Participating in OUTINGS

[Hedgehog 334]

For rank advancement purposes, do you require scouts to go on a specified number of outings to be considered "active"?

 

If you do, what is the requirement?

 

I was thinking that attending one in three outings should be the minimum for being active.  For the SPL/ASPL and the PL/APL maybe there should be a higher threshold such as attending half of regular outings (we have 9 to 10 regular weekend outings, a week long summer camp and a week long adventure).  

 

This would be a going forward change being announced before elections for the next school year.

 

Thoughts?

[qwazse 4342]

Get the boys to give you an idea of what the target should be. Halve that. (They always overestimate how "active" they can be.)

 

If I were to choose a benchmark, it would be something like 2 overnight events in the past three months, 4 in the past six. Eight meetings present or accounted for. (All of those for the PLs -- if you can't let us know you ain't coming, you don't deserve the patch. The ratio of present to accounted for can be up for discussion.)

[Krampus 696]

Our PLC addressed this a few years back when one guy made Eagle but had done nothing but pay dues every year since making Life (4 years earlier). They asked me to do the homework and report back to the PLC. I checked GTA to see what they defined as "active". Next, went to other units to see what they defined as active.

 

My report?

1. Guidelines for active participation from the GTA Section 4.2.3.1
2. Review of 7-10 troops and their participation requirements for camping, service projects, meetings and COHs.

Their ruling? All Scouts must attend a minimum of 50% of the camp outs, service projects, meetings and COHs. If a Scout has greater than 50% in any two categories they are okay. This defined the unit's "reasonable expectations" test. Lesser participation can still be explained.

 

Since then we have never had an issue with participation.

[T2Eagle 902]

Our PLC came up with attending a minimum of 50% of outings, meetings, and PLCs  in order to receive credit for a POR for advancement.  We've had a few scouts not get credit as a result.

[Stosh 3452]

We have no adult nor youth made rules for being active other than if one is registered in the troop and treated as such until one's registration runs out.

 

POR's are validated with the subjective measurement of "did you take care of your boys."  If they don't think so, then getting someone to sign off on it is a bit difficult.  Usually it is pretty obvious to everyone  If one is selected to be PL and then someone else is selected a month later because you weren't doing the job?  Then finding someone to sign off on it is going to be a challenge.

 

It's a pretty well known assumption around the troop that if one doesn't put any effort into the troop, they will probably not get anything out of it as well.  Everyone is treated as peers, not parent/child.

 

In all honesty, the issue has never come up in any of the troops I have been SM of.

[MattR 2659]

My rule to be considered for a POR, or be considered for a rank advancement past second class, is that the scout has to have been on 5 scout related campouts in the past 12 months.  We put on 10 campouts a year at least, plus OA, training, extra backpacking trips, there are all sorts of possibilities. It's a bit more complicated for getting credit for a POR and Stosh's "take care of your people" is part of that.

 

That said, there is the "acts of God" clause. Acts of God can lower this number on a case by case situation. Homework is not an act of God. Not being able to camp above 9000 feet for medical reasons is. Playing three sports a year is not. Having parents that use a kid as part of a power struggle is. Money is a different subject. Essentially, if a scout can make a decision that would enable him to go then he has no excuse. I will also cut some slack for the SPL that got burned out and just needs a break from scouts, or some scout that did a fantastic job with the new scouts and needs to write college apps.

 

Ten years ago we didn't have to worry about any of this but since then there are lots of extra curricular activities that are requiring kids to participate 100% or else. So, I say 50% or else. The good news is that at the last campout one of the older scouts thanked me for making him go on campouts. Of course, there's also the 16 year old that has to go on two more campouts before I'll sign off on Eagle. He took it to council. We'll see. Just be aware, this can create lots of drama. And it comes from a few parents (most are really good about it).

 

Some people will say the campouts are boring and that's the problem I should fix, not forcing scouts to camp. My response is if the scouts think the campouts are boring then they have a problem they need to solve. My job is teaching them how to solve their problems using the Oath and Law, not creating their calendar. Once they know they have to participate they get a lot more interested in making sure the calendar is what they want to do.

[fred johnson 936]

I always found these discussions reflecting misplaced frustration.  Putting up extra road blocks is the wrong mind set.  BSA has expectations.  Every ... EVERY ... rank has them.  Whether through defining number of activities .. or number of camp outs .. or cooking meals ... or holding positions of responsibility.  

 

Instead of drawing another line in the stand, do the best job with the existing requirements.  Expect scouts to do something with their positions of responsibility.  And if you don't have time to help them or work with them, don't penalize them after the fact for not being their to deal with it in a timely way.  

 

My question about scouts earning Eagle after being less active for several years is did the scout hold the position of responsibility as expected for the expected time after earning Life?  If the scout did, then the discussion is just a waste of time and probably more about current leaders being frustrated that a scout is earning Eagle that they personally did not work with much.  That's the misplaced frustration.  Current leaders feeling lessened by scouts they think are sneaking by.  

Edited December 15, 2015 by fred johnson

[Krampus 696]

@@fred johnson first defining what active means at the unit level is not a waste of time or extra road block. It's actually called out in the GTA.

 

As for PORs, my unit has each leader write up what they will accomplish as leaders. Something measurable. If they aren't active how can they get credit for leadership? There's a difference between doing something with your POR (i.e. Showing up) and just getting elected/appointed.

 

In my scenario it was the Scouts who felt he didn't deserve Eagle. The adults watched as the Scouts took action. That's how the system is supposed to work...and it did.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Krampus

[Hedgehog 334]

I always found these discussions reflecting misplaced frustration.  Putting up extra road blocks is the wrong mind set.  BSA has expectations.  Every ... EVERY ... rank has them.  Whether through defining number of activities .. or number of camp outs .. or cooking meals ... or holding positions of responsibility.  

 

 

My question is not about misplaced frustration, but it really comes down to what is an "active" scout and how you judge whether someone performs their POR.  Can a scout that hasn't camped in two years be considered "active" in the Troop?  Can an SPL or PL who doesn't lead in the outdoors be considered having fulfilled their POR? 

 

By deciding on a criteria ahead of time, it makes it clear what the expectation is.  I think that is better than having ascoutmaster not sign off on advancement after the fact.  i view having a set number of outings to be a "safe harbor" -- if they don't reach that you consider the facts and circumstances (much like MattR's acts of god).

 

The idea of putting in expectations is to change the Troop's culture because it seems that from 10th to 12th grade, our scouts become "parlor scouts.  That is changing slowly because the boys now decide on the outings (and are going to take a greater role in planning them) but I think there needs to be some stated expectation.

[Krampus 696]

The idea of putting in expectations is to change the Troop's culture because it seems that from 10th to 12th grade, our scouts become "parlor scouts.  That is changing slowly because the boys now decide on the outings (and are going to take a greater role in planning them) but I think there needs to be some stated expectation.

 

Exactly! We were experiencing the same issue. Having put in these changes (defining level of expected activity, holding PORs responsible for actual outcomes vis-a-vie participation) has helped to make the older scouts (10th-12th) more active. It has also avoided the unpleasant discussions after the fact that a scout was not getting credit for his POR. As SM we review each leader's status monthly (6 month election cycle) so they know each month if they need to kick it up a notch or not.

[scoutldr 726]

I thought this had been discussed ad nauseam before. Didn't National define it as "active=registered"? Has that changed?

[Stosh 3452]

And of course there's the third option here....

 

Option #1: Accumulate all the information from GTA, BSA policy, training literature and come up with a set of rules and regulations that fit the unit's expectation and can feel comfortable that they have properly judged the subjective issue reasonably.  (Adult led using SMART management methods)

 

Option #2: Have the adult leaders and a few "key" youth (especially those who will yes-man the adults' directives) put together an extensive by-law document that covers every iota of possibility and codefy it so that everyone knows up front exactly what it's going to take to get the pencil whip for advancement.  (Adult led using executive enforcement of codefied legalism method)

 

@@Krampus, this is the eagle-eye, over-the-shoulder approach of constant review to make sure they haven't nor are tempted to veer off course.

 

Option #3: Just ask the boy if he did his job and let him judge, prove, or whatever his accomplishment for the advancement.  To me this is what the SMC is all about.

 

If all the boys knew THEY had to prove their accomplishment rather than just do something to see what adults judge to be valid, they would operate under a different set of judgements.  They would be working for their own self-worth, not the approval of adults.

 

For example, I have never been involved in POR's except for the SM approval of special projects in lieu of a POR position.  If a patrol comes to me and says they have selected Freddie as their PL, the clock starts ticking for Freddie.  At the end of 4-6 months (depending on the rank) Freddie and his buddies come to the SPL and say Freddie has or has not fulfilled his obligation as PL for the patrol.  Now Freddie can be the biggest con man and has dupped his buddies for a full six months or he could have rolled up his sleeves and really done the work of a PL.  That judgement comes from the recipients of the POR, not some legal code of adult expectations nor the by-laws of consensus of the unit.  The PL is under no other expectation other than meeting the needs of his patrol members and that is all that really counts.  Same holds true for the self-proclaimed QuarterMaster.  After six months, what do the people he was answerable to have to say about his work and does he deserve to move on in rank?

 

To me that is how my unit operates because for me that is how boy led, patrol method should ideally work.

[Krampus 696]

I thought this had been discussed ad nauseam before. Didn't National define it as "active=registered"? Has that changed?

 

See the GTA section I noted. That has been in the GTA for a while now. Don't recall when it was put in but it has been a few years at least.

 

@@Krampus, this is the eagle-eye, over-the-shoulder approach of constant review to make sure they haven't nor are tempted to veer off course.

 

Option #3: Just ask the boy if he did his job and let him judge, prove, or whatever his accomplishment for the advancement.  To me this is what the SMC is all about.

 

If all the boys knew THEY had to prove their accomplishment rather than just do something to see what adults judge to be valid, they would operate under a different set of judgements.  They would be working for their own self-worth, not the approval of adults.

@@Stosh, in my area I think most of the kids are brainwashed to think being elected/appointed equals credit. When the boys decided to change that, who was I to stand in their way. I checked to see if the policy was legal, cited the sources and let them have at it. I think this is also how the system is supposed to work.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Krampus

[fred johnson 936]

When the boys decided to change that, who was I to stand in their way. I checked to see if the policy was legal, cited the sources and let them have at it. I think this is also how the system is supposed to work.

 

And, then elections occur and new scouts come in.  Do they get to redecide it again?  New scouts means new standards?  It would make sense as current scouts should not be bound by decisions made be scouts who are not in the troop or not in leadership roles anymore.  

 

My experience is that scouts are getting lots of feedback ... mostly from adults ... and when scouts define what is expected it is almost always from a SM, ASM or a parent who has influenced the scout.  And, it's usually the adults who care about the legalism of the "active" part.  

[Stosh 3452]

 

See the GTA section I noted. That has been in the GTA for a while now. Don't recall when it was put in but it has been a few years at least.

 

 

@@Stosh, in my area I think most of the kids are brainwashed to think being elected/appointed equals credit. When the boys decided to change that, who was I to stand in their way. I checked to see if the policy was legal, cited the sources and let them have at it. I think this is also how the system is supposed to work.

 

Yeah, I've never been a fan of just wearing a patch gets one credit.  However, I have also signed off on a ton of boys who never wore a patch but had tons of proof of their taking responsibility for jobs within the troop.

 

If Joey was wearing the QM patch and Freddie was doing the work, In my troops, Freddie always got the advancement.  All Joey got was the discussion as to why Freddie did all the work and he sat on his hands and let him.  Is that how he takes care of his boys?