System for holding POR responsible

[fred8033 1592]

Tampa Turtle ... I just read your "no more automatic POR check-offs speech" comment. I'm good with having high expectations. It's how it's accomplished that I contemplate.

 

What Chippewa29 wrote above is an interesting practice but "might" be inconsistent with the BSA "Guide To Advancement". The removing from office part is a dead on correct. If the scout is not doing his job, the SPL should put a scout in there who's willing to do the job. BUT ... "If they get below a 2.5 (out of 5) average score for the month, they won't get credit toward advancement" contradicts the BSA GTA. GTA says that's when unit leaders (youth and adult) work with the scout to understand expectations and correct perceptions.

 

GTA section 4.2.3.4.5 says "Often this questioning approach can lead a young man to the decision to measure up. He will tell the leaders how much of the service time should be recorded. [paragraph] ... If it becomes clear nothing will improve his performance, then it is acceptable to remove the Scout from his position." ... The key is that if a scout hasn't met expectations, the SM (or another leader) should work with the scout to understand the issue and to ask the scout how much time to credit.

 

I find it interesting that BSA calls out in large print in GTA section 4.2.3.4.5 "Only in rare casesif evershould troop leaders inform a Scout that time, once served, will not count." So if the cases are "rare cases - if ever", then it's okay. If it's the common analysis procedure and result, then I question the practice.

 

 

IMHO (not BSA based), I don't care for the numerical job grading analysis because it's too focused on advancement requirements and not letting a scout slip by without earning his advancement. I'd rather see the process by focused on responsibility and troop needs. Let advancement fall where it may based on running a healthy troop.

 

IMHO (also not BSA based), POR scorecards are like using 15+ forms to camp. "Forms" and "procedures" are not leadership. They are ISO 9000 management and tend to be adult driven.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[Twocubdad 665]

GTA section 4.2.3.4.5 says "Often this questioning approach can lead a young man to the decision to measure up. He will tell the leaders how much of the service time should be recorded."

 

 

Reminds of the scene in "A Christmas Story" where Miss Shields is lecturing the class after Flick froze his tongue to the flag pole:

 

Miss Shields: "Now I know that some of you put Flick up to this, but he has refused to say who. But those who did it know their blame, and I'm sure that the guilt you feel is far worse than any punishment you might receive. Now, don't you feel terrible? Don't you feel remorse for what you have done? Well, that's all I'm going to say about poor Flick.

 

Ralphie (narrating): "Adults loved to say things like that but kids knew better. We knew darn well it was always better not to get caught."

 

[Beavah 205]

What Chippewa29 wrote above is an interesting practice but "might" be inconsistent with the BSA "Guide To Advancement".

 

Yah, perhaps I'm a broken record, but who cares?

 

Da Guide to Advancement is providing guidance on one way of employing the method to achieve the BSA's goals. Individual units and COs also have goals for their boys, and they have to adapt the methods to the needs of the boys and of their programs. Providing monthly evaluation seems like a worthy experiment and adaptation. It's certainly far more consistent with traditional scouting than having adults remove a boy from a position. In scouting, we work with boys until they succeed, but we don't give 'em credit until they succeed - whether it's knots or leadership.

 

Now, that havin' been said, I agree with fred8033 that the whole numerical grading thing with forms and whatnot seems a bit over the top, eh? It's a similar sort of thing to gettin' all tied up in individual sentences of the guidebooks. Perhaps yeh can implement the core spirit of the thing in a way that is more boy-friendly, that still communicates well without all da excess trappings? Just a thought.

 

Beavah

 

[Tampa Turtle 1011]

This was a real helpful thread for me, thanks everyone.

 

I think the emphasis should be on "working the boy not the position". I have gotten the green light from the SM to train the ASPL and set up a system where we touch base with the POR's and get them guidance/help if they need it.

 

We will focus on doing the job to serve the Troop and not advancement. We also will allow younger guys compete for some of the jobs as well.

 

In defense of Chippie upon reading the 2011 Guide to Advancement it seems to force you to create a paper trail if you want to deny a boy credit when he isn't doing his job. A simple checkoff and comments would work too.

 

 

[Eagle92 110]

TT,

 

Gotta remember that G2A is based somewhat on the various Eagle Scout appeals that have occured. I have heard of several appeals based upon scouts being in a POR, but supposedly not getting mentored and/or trained in the role. Whether they're true or not, I do not know. By having a "paper trail" you can show during an appeal exactly what you have done to try and rectify the situation. Without the paperwork, it's he said/she said situation.

 

 

[Stosh 3452]

One also has to remember the dynamics of what drives this whole process. Six months in a POR dictates somehow into a boy having to serve six months in the same POR. This of course locks the process into an uncompromising position. Okay, what's wrong with 6 patrols each having a PL and for one month each PL takes turn being SPL to learn the position and develop further leadership. Each of the 6 boys will have 5 months as PL and 1 month as SPL. This could also develop troop leadership from within the patrols as well. The patrol Scribe would function as Scribe for that month. Same for the patrol QM, etc. There are some who think this does not qualify for 6 months in A POR. Or the boy gets elected as SPL and he does nothing. Does that mean the troop is to suffer for the next four months with willing boys who would do the job sitting on the sidelines?

 

Make it work for the boys, not the traditional system that doesn't allow enough flexibility to be effective.

 

It is also good to keep it tucked away in the back of one's mind that we are in the business of training leaders, not expecting them to start out leaders. Every boy should get every opportunity to develop his own leadership style.

 

Stosh

[Tampa Turtle 1011]

As was suggested here and reading the Advancement guide you can do partial periods of advancement anyway so I suppose you could rotate a job, do different jobs, or something. The SM approved project or "Instructor" positions give you huge holes to be creative.