Troop Policy: >50% Attendance Req'd. for Advancement?

[dluders]

1. I'm a new Scoutmaster with only 5 months under my belt. My troop has an existing "Troop Policy" that is controversial among some of our Scouters. It currently says:

 

"Participation is important in Scouting. Any Scout not attending 50% of scheduled Troop meetings and 50% activities over the past 12 months will be considered inactive and not eligible for advancement. To be considered for a leadership role such as Senior Patrol Leader, Brownsea training, or advancement to Eagle Scout, a higher standard of participation is expected."

 

2. I know that the BSA Handbook says that a Scout must be "active" in the troop. However, is it reasonable to actually set a MINIMUM OF 50% ATTENDANCE for advancement? We have 16 ea. Life Scouts, and 3 of them don't have 50% attendance at campouts over the past year. Am I (as Scoutmaster) supposed to disapprove their Eagle Scout applications?

 

3. To me, this Troop Policy is capricious and arbitrary, and is a form of hazing. One of our Troop Committee members disagrees; he thinks that the troop can set its own standards. I don't want my Life Scouts quitting our troop, going down the street to another troop, and getting their Eagle that way. To me, there are national STANDARDS for rank advancement, and it's not fair for our troop to impose more stringent standards than other troops. I would like to enforce the national standards for rank advancement -- no more and no less. There is no minimum percentages of attendance in the BSA Handbook, Scoutmaster's Handbook, etc. It's up to the Scoutmaster to determine if a Scout is "active."

 

4. What do you think about our Troop Policy?

 

[Bob White]

Welcome dluders, (intersting name) Forget the hazing part and lets cut to the meat of the issue. No unit, council, district or individual has the authority to alter the advancement requirements. The unit has added a requirement, and that is a violation of the national BSA advancement policy.

 

You are right that the requirement calls for active, but your rule fails to consider the needs and characteristics of the individual scout. I don't know what you talk about during your scoutmaster conference's but this would be a great topic to discuss. What is active for this particular scout? What committment or participation goals will he set for himself? Have him write his committment down in his handbook to remind himself.

 

How does that work for you?

[eisely]

With all due respect to BW, his answer is perhaps a little too simple. In the particular case you describe, it sounds somewhat like an arbitrary rule that could be construed as adding a requirement. This has been hashed and rehashed on this forum at great length.

 

I am among those who think that "active" should be more than just being registered. I also draw a distinction between scouts fulfilling leadership requirements and scouts who are not fulfilling leadership requirements.

 

I think it is fair, and within the bounds of the rules, for troops to set expectations for youth leaders in particular. Fulfillling a leadership role for rank advancement purposes should be more than just filling a slot and never showing up. For one thing, absentee youth leaders are doing a tremendous disservice to the youth whom they are supposedly leading. Setting some kind of participation standard for youth leaders before they assume a position is, in my mind, the best way to deal with this. The standards should be developed by the youth themselves with the concurrence of the committee. In your next to last comment you state, "It's up to the scoutmaster to determine if a scout is 'active'." This is a fine sentiment, but it has the potential for setting up situations where scouts will feel they have not been dealt with fairly or consistently. Having a written policy setting expectations is a reasonable way to avoid these kinds of controversies. You will also have a better functioning unit if the youth leaders are actually showing up.

[FScouter]

Thank your committee for wanting boys to stay active. Maybe there are other ways besides creating a roadblock. Perhaps they have some other ideas that would help the boys want to be more active. As for the rule about withholding advancement, ask if they could help clarify the logic behind that policy by explaining how a roadblock makes boys more active. Ask them to point out the Scouting publications that support that policy. Troop policies should have some clear justification in the official literature.

[Eamonn]

Hi and Welcome to the forums.

Bob White is 100% right.Adding requirements to advancements is a real no, no.

I'm sure that a lot of forum members will voice their personal opinions and yet again we will enter the discussions about rules and regulations.Some will say what they think is best for the troop. This may sound all well and good, but we are not in the business of what is good for the troop (When looking at Advancement.) We are in the business of look at what is best for the Scout as an individual.

At the end of the day these personal opinions should have no bearings on delivery of the program, any rules, any policy,call it what you will that violates the BSA policy is just plain wrong.

Eamonn

[Fat Old Guy]

Bob White says that each Scout's circumstances should be taken into account and ask that Scout to write his commitment in his handbook. Why? If a Scout has other commitments and misses 30 out of 35 meetings and never goes on an outing, is that active? Is there any commitment there?

 

The Scout will say, "My basketball/soccer/wrestling coach won't let me miss practices," you can say, "That's fine be realize that inactivity may impact your advancement."

 

Scouting is a game and, in any game, the rules must be applied fairly and equally to all players. Is it fair to the Scouts who manage to find time to participate to give someone else who doesn't participate the same recognition and rewards?

 

I support your troop's idea but I do see problems. The way that it is worded, a new Scout couldn't earn Tenderfoot for a year and he has shown that he is active. Maybe the troop policy should be changed to state that during the period of activity being used for advancement to Star, Life or Eagle, the Scout must attend 50% . . .

[Hunt]

This is a difficult issue, because it is left up to the troop leaders to determine what "active" means. The advantage of the 50% rule is that it is an objective measure that is unlikely to be abused by capricious leaders. On the other hand, it seems to me to be too rigid, and could exclude deserving boys from advancement. For example, in my son's troop there is a boy who is inactive during football season, but very active at other times during the year. I think it's fine that those periods of inactivity slow down his advancement, but it would be a shame if he could never advance. How about this for a suggestion: The troop could say that it considers at least 50% attendance as a "benchmark" for being considered active, but that what will be considered active for each particular scout will be determined by the scout and the SM. (One note: 50% attendance is "active?" You'd be booted from your sports team, church choir, job, etc. at that level.)

[OldGreyEagle]

Here's a thought...

 

Get rid of the 50 percent requirement, you will find no supporting BSA literature that says a troop may do this. If your committee member objects, tell him as soon as he can produce BSA documentation that supports the troop setting such a standard, you will change it. Its up to the scoutmaster to determine the scouts participation when evaluating a scout. If a scout is on the football team, then maybe being SPL during the fall is a no go, but he could be a librarian. He could make sure the libabry is in order, the books are out and come back, all during his downtime. There are ways to work it out, but it requires a case by case approach. Requiring a set percent of attendance smacks of "cookie cutter" scouting and I think we all agree, that is not good.

[FScouter]

Here's another thought ...

The rate of advancement is self-limiting. A boy that does not attend meetings and does not attend campouts and other activities will not have the same opportunities to complete advancement requirements. Think about it. How can a boy that stays home possibly complete the requirements toward first class? He has limited himself.

 

After an extra long period of sparce attendance, he has finally completed all the requirements, the committee wants to step in and say "NO"?

[OneHour]

"Participation is important in Scouting. Any Scout not attending 50% of scheduled Troop meetings and 50% activities over the past 12 months will be considered inactive and not eligible for advancement. To be considered for a leadership role such as Senior Patrol Leader, Brownsea training, or advancement to Eagle Scout, a higher standard of participation is expected."

 

To be an effective SPL, the boy has to be there to run the troop. To me 50% does not make a leader out of the boy. I would tend to agree with having an expectation (not rule) of attendance for some of the leadership roles. In our troop, in our process and procedure, we have the job description and a minimum attendance EXPECTATION. We go over the responsibities with the Junior Leaders when they accepted the job (for the PL and SPL, we go over these expectations before the election). We explain to them what the job entails and what if they do not live up to the expectation, the PLC may call to them up to question their job performance and removal if the PLC deems it necessary. The boy, however, will earn credit of performing his job up to the time he is relieved of his duties. Most parents and boys agreed with our expectation. The process and procedure pamphlet was just recently adopted. Before that, about 40% of our PLC (including our SPL) were part-timers; as a result, our Patrol Method and boy lead process are slow to develop at best.

 

 

[Bob White]

Blanket policies such as this give leaders an ready excuse for not having to learn the needs and characteristics of the individual boys. All you need to do is turn to the artificial rules of scouting that have been created to make adults lives easier and say "no you can't".

 

If being able to tell boys "no" is your purpose for scouting, then troop rule books are the manual to follow.

 

If your goal is to help scouts grow while having fun, follow the programof the BSA, and learn to treat each scout as an individual. Units with advanacement concerns do not need more unit rules, they need to use more leadership skills.(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[scoutldr]

Everyone is correct, we can't add to the advancement requirements. We don't have an attendance requirement. We believe that "any" Scouting is better than "no" Scouting. But...the Scout and his parents need to understand that there will be natural consequences to their choices, e.g., he may not be elected to leadership positions by the rest of the Troop (out of sight, out of mind), he may not be elected to OA, he may not advance as a result of not satisfactorily completing a leadership position, merit badge work, etc. Make it clear that these are all within his control, not the Troop Committee's. Then if the troop elects an SPL who never shows up, then they will have a learning experience, as well, and that's within THEIR control. Boy-led, boy-led, boy-led. If you continue to make sure they can't fail by creating artificial boundaries to their decisions, they will never learn anything.

[OneHour]

Bob, I agree with all that you have said except we are also here to guide and teach the boys how to be effective leaders. Now, the Patrol Method and Boy Lead ideaology are great if the boy is there to take advantage of it. Without the boys there to take on the responsibilities that he has agreed to take on, then the troop or patrol does not function as well and the boy learns nothing but someone else will do it. What we ended up with adults taking over the troop meetings to move it forward. It's not a way of giving the adults an excuse to say "no". It's a way to allow the boys to govern themselves.

 

"If your goal is to help scouts grow while having fun, follow the programof the BSA, and learn to treat each scout as an individual. "

Agree

 

"Units with advanacement concerns do not need more unit rules, they need to use more leadership skills."

Leadership skills develop through experience and responsibilities. Experience and responsibilites are developed through participation and teaching. We can teach and they can teach each other, but we can't force them to participate. The expectations that we laid out are merely guidelines for them to understand before they take on the responsibilities.

 

It's not the word "no" that we want to tell the boys. It's the word "responsibilty" that we want to impress upon the boys.

 

Let's take a boy in a dark area as analogy. If we put the boy in a dark room and give him go guidance except "have fun" and "learn," then it would not be very effective. He will wander in the dark until he finds it boring or frustrated and gives up. If we build safe fences or walls and tell him that there are these things to help you if you want to use them and somewhere in this dark area you will find (whatever). We won't tell him how to find it, where to find it, nor what he should to do or not to do to find it. Now, you can add to the task for him to lead a group of friends to the objective. Now, it has turned into a challenge and a fun process and you don't have to say "no" except they are about to do something that would hurt themselves or each other.

 

Cheers,

 

1Hour

 

[Eamonn]

I'm sorry OneHour your analogy left me in the dark.

We would never leave a Scout stumbling around in the dark. As adults we never vacate our responsibility to be there for the Scout to help and support him.

I think that we need to give the Lads a lot more credit then has been posted. I think that a Scout who knew that he wasn't going to attend troop meetings for a while due to football, track or whatever would take himself out of that election. As Scoutmaster, if we knew this Scout which I hope we would, I think that a word in his ear before the election would be fair. Something along the lines of "Hey John, do you think that you have the time to do that job well?"

There is an entire list of POR's that meet this requirement.At the end of the day it comes down to treating the Scout as an individual and following the program.

Eamonn

[EagleInKY]

I don't like policies that say ">50% or else" or anything along that line, because it does not allow you to account for the specific needs and issues of the individual scout.

 

However, I do believe the leadership of the troop should be expected to participate at a level appropriate for the position. Heck, 50% is nothing. We "expect" our leaders (SPL, PL, Troop Guides, etc.) to be there all the time. We tell them up front that we "expect" then to attend at least 80% of the troop meetings and activities. Now, do we fire, hold back or punish the boy that is elected PL, and then is only there 75% of the time. No. But the other scouts notice that and feel that they are being let down by their leader.

 

If you leave it alone, the policy should take care of itself. If a boy is only less than 50% of the time, would the scouts even consider him for PL or SPL? I would think not. Would your SPL make him Scribe if he's seldom at a troop meeting. Again, I would hope not. On the occasional time that this does happen, the boys will learn the painful truth about the democratic process.

 

What should happen is that these boys who don't attend 50% of the activities are never elected or selected for leadership positions. They should never advance because they aren't getting to serve in a position of responsibility. The desire to advance, if it's there, should draw them back in.

 

Bottom line, I don't like your policy the way it's worded. But I do agree with what it is trying to accomplish. I would just approach it differently.