Reasonable expectations for participation

[The Blancmange]

Now that we have had some time to digest the new Guide to Advancement, including the provision that allows units to set reasonable, pre-established standards for participation, I'd like to know folks' thoughts on whether units SHOULD be establishing such standards, and if so, what they should look like.

 

Personally, I'm of the belief that a quality program is what should be encouraging participation, not a rule, and therefore would not want a formal standard. I like the program being flexible to accomodate scouts in other worthwhile activities. I still believe that a scout who takes a POR needs to participate sufficiently to fulfill the requirements of that position, but that should be handled in the context of evaluating that position. A scout who is not fulfilling POR expectations needs to be warned early and possibly removed from the position.

[CalicoPenn]

Define "reasonable"

[The Blancmange]

>>>>>Define "reasonable"

[qwazse]

I'm with you Blanc ...

 

At round-table one SM told us he ran it by his boys. He said they came up with unreasonably high expectations and had to tone things down or even the boys who came up with them wouldn't pass!

 

Talk to the boys. Make it achievable. Make it fun.

[NealOnWheels]

One person's reasonable expectations are another person's unrealistic expectations.

 

While I think the new advancement guide is an improvement I don't think much will change in the respect of Eagle Board of Review appeals. The national advancement committee will be trying to determine if a unit's expectations were reasonable.

[moosetracker]

Our Eagle Board does not rehash those things accepted by the unit.. They are concerned with the Eagle project plan, and then the Eagle project completion.. Then it is just talking to the Eagle canidate. I think the only thing besides not carrying out the project as it was approved in the first place, or reorganized by discussing a change of course due to unforeseeable problems (and then it is more a delay while they fix the incomplete).. I only know them to refuse someone for saying they are an atheist.. Otherwise I hear of scouts who are very self-confident and carry themselves well, and others that are not so polished.. But everyone else seems to pass just fine..

[Twocubdad]

We've always had the expectation that a Scout seeking advancement should attend half of troop meetings and campouts. No, we're not going to turn someone down at 49.9% attendance, but then a Scout with 50.1% attendance will probably get the same level of questioning regarding his participation.

 

And while we're pretty lenient about excused absences, I'm not sure how we will handle the new "worthwhile activities" stuff. You can make a case the just about any organized activity a Scout may participate in complements Scouting. But there must be some boundaries somewhere. Not sure where they will be.

[Beavah]

Yah, here's a question for da group...

 

What do yeh suppose a "reasonable" participation expectation would be for other middle school and high school programs? Would 50% attendance be OK for da soccer team? For theater? For the Robot Club? Da school newspaper? The wargaming club? Would 50% attendance be OK to stay a member of "the group of guys who hangs out together at school?"

 

What do yeh suppose a "reasonable" participation expectation would be for those holding Positions of Responsibility in da other middle school and high school programs? Would 75% attendance be OK for da team captain or manager? For the stage director or lead in the play? For da Robot Club president or newspaper editor? For the GM of da FRPG club? Would 75% attendance even be OK for da leader of the "group of guys who hangs out?"

 

Remember, da "active" requirements are almost all associated with matching POR requirements, eh?

 

Now, where on that scale of groups do yeh suppose Scouting should be? Lower than the gamers and da "guys who hang out?" Higher?

 

Just curious.

 

Beavah

 

[fred8033]

For our troop... IMHO ..., program produces participation. Requiring and debating participation is a distraction and a bad frame of mind.

 

"active" - We're not going to add unit expectations. That's putting a gate in to block scouts advancing. Our unit's leaders role is to help scouts succeed. We'd rather focus our energy on supporting the scouts completing the requirements as published by the BSA.

 

"POR" - POR participation is about keeping the troop running. We will work with the PLC to clean up POR expectations and get mechanisms in place to hold scouts accountable. Probably something like a POR status at the monthly PLC. If a scout/POR is a 100% totally without any effective contribution, we'd probably remove the scout and work with the SPL to find someone else. It's a matter of keeping the troop functioning. Then, we'd ask the scout how much credit he thinks he deserves for POR time span ... and that's how much he gets.

 

[fred8033]

Beavah wrote: "Remember, da "active" requirements are almost all associated with matching POR requirements, eh?"

 

I think Beavah's point is key. IMHO, the "active" requirement is noise. The real debate should be: "did the scout do his POR?" It's like a logic truth table. I just don't see it possible to have a combination of FALSE for "active" and TRUE for "POR". I wish BSA would either drop the active requirement or rewrite it as "... is a BSA registered scout".

 

...

 

As for the comparing scouts to sports or school clubs, I view that as a purely academic debate (no pun intended) best left to Norm and Cliff Claven. School clubs and sports are tightly focused on goals (winning a competitive game, putting on a play, ). Seasons start and end. Scouting is about the whole person and is more of a lifetime commitment. Advancement is only one aspect of many that includes adventures, service, character, friendships, citizenship, ....

 

Perhaps if we only camped ... and camping was a competition ... and there was a championship of camping ... and there were trophies ... and winners and losers ... and the camping season was August through November ... and ..., I might buy into attendance percentages.

 

The BSA rank requirements are the BSA rank requirements. Perhaps, the real question should be "should BSA make star, life and eagle more difficult?" I just don't view it as my personal job in my unit to make advancement more difficult than BSA requires.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[eisely]

This subject has been discussed in other threads in this forum numerous times over the years. The issue remains largely unresolved.

 

For many boys and families scouting is the activity that the boy participates in after everything else is taken care of. Beavah's point is extremely well taken.

 

In general I would be more lenient with a scout who is not in a critical POR. Boys who accept a critical POR should not accept that role if they know that their participation in a sports team or some other activity is going to force their participation in scouts down. I am glad that the new guidelines recognize this issue and at least give units some leeway in establishing standards. Hopefully when these kinds of time commitment conflicts arise, they are addressed before the boy takes on the POR without even disclosing the conflict. Often there are reasonable "work arounds" if everybody comes to the table in good faith in arriving at an understanding and agreement that is fair to both the boy and the unit.

[CalicoPenn]

So it appears the BSA has answered the clarion call of those who wanted to be able to apply their own standards for Active to their own units. I'm not sure I'm ok with that. It's not that I disagree that there should be standards for active, I just don't believe there should be hundreds (thousands?) of definitions of active. Instead of leaving it open-ended like this, the BSA should have established the standards - that way if an Eagle Scout in California is required to attend 50% of all campouts and 75% of all meetings, then an Eagle Scout in North Carolina should meet the exact same requirements. Instead, an Eagle Scout in one Springfield, Illinois troop could be required to attend 50% of outings and 75% of meetings and an Eagle Scout in another Springfield, Illinois troop could be required to attend 20% of all outings and 50% of all meetings.

 

The fact that the standard isn't standard is a major strike for me.

 

Beyond that, we have many threads talking about retaining members, especially as they get older. Right now, when a Scout reaches High School and starts to play in sports, or in the band, or theater, he doesn't have to make a hard choice between that and Scouting because, unlike those activities, Scouts didin't have participation requirements. Now, those lads may have to make a choice (and it really depends on how tough a unit wants to be, I suppose). A 16 year old Star Scout has plenty of time left to earn Eagle, even if he joins Band, Basketball and the Spring Play or takes on a part time job to help save up for College which has more stringent attendance requirements - but under the new "standards", he might no longer have the time if his attendance will drop below a certain percentage for meetings and outings. Let me ask folks what they think the lad will choose if forced to make the choice between Scouts and Soccer?

 

I believe this new "standard" will only make more Scouts focus on earning Eagle before 14 so they can leave Scouting. I think we'll see more and more troops where the oldest lads in the troop are 13 or 14 maximum.

 

But time will tell - let's see how it works out.

[Beavah]

Not sure, Calico. 'Round these parts da units who have higher expectations for PORs (gotta agree with fred8033 on his comments) are da ones whose older boys stay around in high school, because leadership in scouts is a worthy challenge for a high schooler, eh? It's not a middle school drop in activity.

 

Boys want challenge. Da main reason for a lad to choose soccer over scouting is that soccer offers more challenge and growth. And if that's the case, that's pretty darn poor scouting.

 

I'm not a one-size-fits-all fellow myself. I think standardization is vastly overrated and very, very costly to achieve. And all it gets yeh is da old Soviet economy. . Me, I think especially when it comes to growin' kids yeh want custom tailored, or at least a choice between many styles so as to find a good fit. Yep,that means it's like colleges, where a degree from one institution may not be worth as much as a degree from another institution. An Eagle from one troop may not be worth as much as an Eagle from another troop. But we all know that anyways, eh? Doesn't matter, a degree is still a good thing.

 

Beavah

 

Beavah

[packsaddle]

"An Eagle from one troop may not be worth as much as an Eagle from another troop. But we all know that anyways, eh?"

This one caught my eye. The idea of 'worth' is troubling but setting that aside, the validity of this claim depends on what is meant by 'know' and I suppose I may be the only one who doesn't. If 'know' means that we have some pre-existing idea about the 'quality' of one troop versus another, then the claim is probably right about our tendencies toward prejudice. However, the Eagle rank is an individual accomplishment, not a troop accomplishment and while one boy may not be the same as another, the only generalization I would feel comfortable with is that some persons with the rank of Eagle may not be as well-prepared as others and all of them should be judged as individuals.

[Beavah]

Yah, sure, packsaddle. No one size fits all for evaluatin' individual Eagles either, eh?

 

Da point is only that one unit may require/expect that all First Class scouts live up to da spirit of the thing and be able to do one of Kudu's First Class Treks, while another may grant First Class after goin' to Brownsea da first summer of camp and sittin' in class. That doesn't stop an individual lad in the second troop from gettin' into it and workin' hard for other reasons than advancement, and pickin' up da same level of skills through his own effort. Just makes it much less likely. Not just because da adults aren't pushin' it, but because his peers aren't demanding it of each other, and peer influence is so strong on all forms of learning at that age.

 

For da first troop, da rank means somethin' reliable and therefore is "worth" more. Doesn't say anything about da individual boy. In fact, for da rare individual lad who can do a real First Class trek in da second troop, it says a lot about him, eh? On his own he went beyond da expectations of his mentors and peers, with much less support.

 

Beavah