Reasonable expectations for participation

[Beavah]

Yah, 5yearscouter, somethin' like that!

 

Fred8033, yeh once again misunderstood. I gave yeh my personal answer earlier on, several times in fact. Da situation is not an advancement issue, and advancement isn't on the table to start. It's about da aims and some of da other seven methods.

 

But you insisted and insisted that yeh wanted da book answer on advancement, so I gave it to you. There's no appeal for T21, so it's completely unit/scoutmaster's discretion. There's no disputed circumstances BOR option for Star or Life, so that too is effectively unit discretion to a large extent. There are a few spots where things are still ambiguous. There has never been, and can never be, a requirement that a unit retain a member or that volunteers must give up their time with their family if they don't want to.

 

That's da "answer" yeh insisted upon, straight from da books. Don't shoot the messenger, especially when he said over and over again that yeh shouldn't approach it that way.

 

Beavah

[fred8033]

5yearscouter ... Your 10/26/2011 1:09:06pm response ... Example scoutmaster conference ... Perfect. That's how it should be.

 

5yearscouter ... Your 10/26/2011 1:15:52pm response ... Bylaws for active ... I don't have a problem with setting unit expectations. The challenge is enforcing.

 

Ranks T21 already have some measures for involvement and no where to cleanly apply additional unit expectations ... or that I understand. Star, Life and Eagle have four and six month active expectations. GTA now allows unit expectations for those four and six month qualifying time windows (can glue together to make four or six months as necessary). But after that time window is done, there's no "advancement" enforcement again. Unit expectations can exist, but how to enforce?

 

I'm scared suggesting this (because I don't want it in my troop) but how about applying unit expectations to events (camps, activities, ...). Something like ... "Successful events (trips, camps, activities) depend on scouts being prepared. The troop expects scouts to sign up at meetings, attend 50% of the meetings and attend the meeting immediately prior to the events. Scouts will not be allowed to attend events if they failure to attend the troop meeting immediately before the event and fail to communicate in advance that they won't be at the meeting."

 

....

 

Beavah ... you must be reading a different set of BSA books than I can find at the scout shop.

[Beavah]

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

 

Personally, I've never cared for "strict" percentage requirements. I've always believed in reasonable discretion. Da problem of course is that there are lots of folks out there who believe discretion means "favoritism", and those folks seem to desperately need "objective" percentage requirements. I can't figure it, since they're trustin' the SM with their kids in da woods, yeh would think they'd trust the SM for somethin' much less important, but that's not how they think, eh? So lots of units at least put da "objective" requirements on paper as a form of self-defense.

 

For da rest, it just depends on what yeh want to teach, and what your youth leaders are willing to put up with by way of sporadic attendees without gettin' too frustrated. As fred8033 pointed out, da "active" requirements overlap da POR requirements, so what we're really talkin' about in most cases is how to define active for boys who hold positions of responsibility. What should a Patrol Leader's level of participation be?

 

Now my experience has been that on average, boys who attend half or less of a unit's activities tend to fade out and drop out, and that PLs in order to be truly successful have to be at "almost" everything.

 

Additionally, as a general average, da programs that have higher expectations for "active" are also da programs that have the better programs overall. That's chicken-and-egg, eh? Yeh can't usually tell which came first, just that they tend to go together. Better program expects boys to show and build skills, because that makes for happy PLs and more adventure based on those skills. And better program attracts boys willing to make that kind of commitment naturally.

 

So I think da best way to view "active" expectations is as strong advice to kids and parents about what level of involvement in da unit is necessary to be successful. For that yeh have to look at your individual unit program, eh? Less than half almost never works for members and less than 75% almost never works for real leaders. More than 90% is in da noise and not worth distinguishing. But yeh have to find your own sweet spots and danger points. For high adventure prep, da expectations are often very high, for safety and group development reasons. For other stuff, lower. Just depends.

 

Beavah

[Twocubdad]

So can we call those "discretionary strict precentages"?

 

Beav, you described perfectly what we do. And yes, fred, we count campouts and meeting separately. You have to attend both. Thirty-two weekly meetings and zero campouts doesn't equal 50%. The two are measured separately. And again, for emphasis, the precentages are Pirate Rules -- more of a guideline.

[Oak Tree]

Arrrgh, matey! That'd be the Pirate's Code to ye!

[Eamonn]

Lost count of the number of times when OJ said "That's not fair!" My reply was "Hey no one said this is a democracy>"

I'm a reasonable fellow with reasonable expectations.

Little Lad misses a Troop meeting?

Yes I notice.

Misses two meetings?

I start asking his pals, "Where is he?"

Misses three, I start to worry and either pay a visit or give him a call.

Little Lad tells me that he is having a hard time at school and Mom has said that he can't go to Scouts till his grades improve.

I wish him the best of luck and let him know that we will be here when things get better.

Little Lad tells me that he "Just didn't feel like going to Scouts!"

I give him a few wise words from Eamonn.

If after that he still doesn't feel like going to Scouts? Then he isn't being reasonable.

Everything is put on hold till he has a change of heart.

I think that's being reasonable on my part.

Each and every case is dealt with on a case by case basis.

Ea.

[fred8033]

If an old friend that I've not seen for a year comes up and reminds me that I owe him five dollars, I'm going to greet him with a smile and give him his five dollars.

 

If a scout returns after being gone for awhile and reminds me that he's completed his requirements, I'm going to greet him with a smile and give him his SMC/BOR.

 

I'll probably also encourage participation and show concern for why he's been gone. Holding the scout back to fix participation is redundant as the next rank requires another six months of active / POR to advance.

 

But this is BSA scouting and every troop and leader can pretty much do as they see best and handle the situation differently.

[BrentAllen]

I still like Green Bar Bill's definition of active:

 

"The real price of membership in this Troop will be unfailing regular attendance at its meetings and outings, and steady progress in all the things that make a Scout "Prepared." If we put our own time into the activities of this Troop, we shall certainly expect you to do your part with equal faithfulness."

 

Being that a Scout is Courteous, we expect Scouts to contact their PL and let them know if they are going to miss a meeting or campout. Instead of a % of attendance, I'm thinking about putting in writing our definition of active as, "If a Scout misses four meetings in a row and has not notified his youth leader in advance, he will be considered inactive. If an inactive Scout decides he wants to return to the Troop and become active, he will need to set up an appointment with the SM to discuss the circumstances that led to his inactive status, and why that will not happen again." I feel I am being very generous with the four meeting standard.

 

Scouts who have a long-term (think sports season) conflict and can't attend regularly should notify both their youth leader and the SM. The Scout should provide the dates of when this conflict will begin and end. Scouts will not be able to hold a POR during the absence and will not be considered "active" for the purpose of meeting advancement requirements.

 

Fred - in your example, you are teaching two lessons. One, the Scout completed the requirements and earned the rank. Two, Scouts can miss 8 months of participation in your Troop and there are no consequences - Scouts can just show up when they want. I don't see how the second point is at all compatable with the Patrol Method.

[fred8033]

.... ummmm .... but .... wait .... dang .... nothing.

 

.... Nope. ... Still nothing

(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[qwazse]

I like your definition Brent. It meshes with our communication-oriented society. Sometimes I think we should do role call at meetings just like we do at camp. At the SPL's direction each patrol sounds off:

 

"All present or accounted for sir"

"Who is not present Mr. PL?"

"Joey and Johnny, sir"

"Did they both call/text/E-mail you as to to their absence?"

"Well sir Joey told me he had to visit his grandma, and I know Johny has practice for the game."

"Mr. PL, that was not the question I asked you."

"Sorry sir. No, they did not both tell me."

"Would you please, then, revise your count?"

"One unaccounted for, the remaining present or accounted for, sir."

[Tampa Turtle]

This thread has not been much help. We have POR descriptions that say "attend 75% of meetings and Troop activities" and then do not take attendance. Older boys skip a lot and magically show up at 17 and 9 months to get help on their Eagle Project from boys that hardly know 'em. I think the example of the sports team/clubs is a good one. Boy miss a practice without an excuse you can be off the team for "letting your team mates down" but what does that say about Patrols?

 

You bet the younger guys notice the hypocrisy.

 

As for POR's I try to see that IF they miss meetings they still need to make sure their duties get done...

[qwazse]

TT We have POR descriptions that say "attend 75% of meetings and Troop activities" and then do not take attendance.,

 

Have you asked your boys the question my theapist friends hate asking. "Tell me, how does that make you feel?"

 

If they say "Don't worry, we know who's a 50%-er, and we'll tell you if he should not be on a ballot." Then you probably are okay.

 

If they say "Nobody can meet that mark. It stinks." Then you might want to rethink the policy with them. (Possibly increasing the importance of troop Scribe.)

 

If they say "Who cares? You adults are going to do what you're going to do." Then you have a big problem and the committee needs to know about it right away and figure out how to get boys more involved in the process.

 

And here's my point: none of us old folks can define the expectations for our units. The best we can do is reflect what we hear from our boys about what's fair and what should be expected for each POR. (Warning the boys that if they expect X one of THEM will have to be in charge of reporting X!)

[Tampa Turtle]

Our brand new SPL seemed to put a lot of thought in his selections and those I have observed seemed to start doing stuff without being asked so hopeful signs.

[Kudu]

Specific POR requirements for advancement were introduced in 1965 to transition the BSA away from Green Bar Bill's "Real" Patrol Method after his pending retirement.

 

The purpose of a "Real" Patrol is Adventure: Patrol Hikes without adult supervision.

 

That is what Baden-Powell meant by "Real Responsibility."

 

Green Bar Bill's adventure program was wildly popular with boys. We showed up because Scouting was fun, not because a bunch of "trained" adults set "reasonable expectations for participation."

 

If you are applying everything you learned in training and your Scouts don't show up, then it is time to think the unthinkable: Either your Cub Scout Survivors don't like "Real" Scouting, and/or BSA training is (gasp) wrong.

 

Instead of punishing boys for not participating, consider introducing Patrol Backpacking Hikes without adult supervision, and then camp the Patrols 300 feet apart at the end of the day. We find that older boys who no longer show up for regular Webelos III campouts, do show up for independent backpacking.

 

To do so you must violate the holiest of Leadership Development holies:

 

Either you must establish ad hoc Patrols with a Patrol Leader that you, Mr. Scoutmaster, trust with the lives of the Scouts in his Patrol, OR you must establish Troop criteria for Patrol Leaders for all on-going regular Patrols, and stick with the most responsible Scout as the Patrol Leader for as long as he is the most responsible Scout (the one you actually trust with the lives of the rest of boys in his Patrol).

 

Yes, I know. It seems wrong to let the most competent Scout "take up" a POR year after year when other Scouts "need" it for Advancement.

 

If a "Position of Responsibility" was really a position of what B-P called "Real Responsibility," then Troop Lifeguard would be a Position of Responsibility.

 

Would you switch Lifeguards every six months so that every boy has an opportunity to win the Troop popularity contest for Lifeguard? Would you joke about "Controlled Failure"? Would you take position-specific Lifegard training away from your Lifeguards and replace it with NYLT?

 

Yours at 300 feet,

 

Kudu

http://kudu.net

(This message has been edited by kudu)