Active in Scouting by Participating in OUTINGS

[fred johnson]

Can a scout that hasn't camped in two years be considered "active" in the Troop?

 

Actually, yes.  If the scout met the "active" requirements before that worrisome two year window, then the scout had already completed the "active" requirement.  

 

It's not "is the scout currently active".  It's whether the scout met the active requirement since the last rank advancement.  

 

 

 

Can an SPL or PL who doesn't lead in the outdoors be considered having fulfilled their POR? 

BSA says yes, but your troop can define "reasonable" expectations.  But is it reasonable to require the scribe, or historian or librarian to camp as part of their POR?  Probably not.  they can fulfill those requirements very well without camping.  So, then you have extra SPL requirements where the SPL to be SPL will be doing more work than a scribe or historian or librarian, but he won't be "active" enough to advance.  A smart scout would say screw it and go for the lower easier POR so he can advance.  

 

I really don't think defining extra "camping" expectations for some PORs will get scouts to camp more.  Instead, I think it's misplaced focus that will drive scouts away.

 

 

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.

 

 

IMHO, this is all misplaced.  You avoid "parlor scouts" by doing interesting things, promoting friendships between scouts and having scouting be the place they want to be.   Solving "parlor scouts" with extra requirements is misplaced.  "Parlor scouts" is not something to solve.  Troop program is something to solve.

[fred johnson]

I changed my icon to balance Krampus'.  

 

[Stosh]

And, then elections occur and new scouts come in.  Do they get to redecide it again?  

 

Every scout has a different leadership style and meets differing needs for the patrol.   One PL has good organizational skills, but picks a people person APL to balance his leadership team.  Next PL/APL team is the opposite.  One PL is shy, but determined, the APL is gregarious and flighty.... 

 

New scouts means new standards?  

 

Nope, "Take care of your boys." is the same for all POR and leadership expectations.

 

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.  

 

That is correct.

 

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.  

 

As long as one has an adult led troop this is going to be the case.  The feed back needs to come solely from the boys being taken care of by that leader.  SM's, ASM's, or parents who are inflluencing the scout are stealing his opportunity to lead on his own.  This is one of those well-meaning, mentoring blind spots adults have when it comes to thinking they have a boy led program when in fact they do not.

[fred johnson]

 

This is one of those well-meaning, mentoring blind spots adults have when it comes to thinking they have a boy led program when in fact they do not.

 

You made me chuckle.  I absolutely agree with you.  "Boy led" is a truism.  But I hate the "boy led" term.  It's absolutely the right goal, but the term is almost always used to explain why one adult leaders troop is doing it right and why the other adult leaders troop is doing it wrong.  

 

As soon "boy led" is tossed out, the discussion is damaged, IMHO.

[Krampus]

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.

\They can change nearly anything anytime they want. They don't want to. They want a way to measure if Tommy is doing his job. The policy gives them the quantitative way to do that. The Scribe takes attendance at PLC, the Patrol Scribes take patrol attendance all other times, and the boys manage the process. the adults rarely get involved.

 

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.

Maybe in some troops. In ours the boys know the expectation and manage to it. PLs will notice when someone is not attending and call them to remind them. Any scout who does not make the 50% (few in number) always have the alternate litmus test for "active" defined in the GTA. Only had to use that once. 

 

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.

Yup, we've had PLs say, "Tommy is QM but did not do his job. Billy took over and did it, can he get credit?" Credit goes to Billy. Tommy may have to try again.

[CalicoPenn]

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

 

Enough people complained about this definition of active that the committee that reviewed and revised the requirements added a clause that said Units can create reasonable expectations.  Now we can argune about what's reasonable, since the BSA doesn't define that and they tend to answer direct questions, like "Can a unit require participation in 50% of activities and meetings" with "Yes - as long as it's reasonable" then tries to explain that 50% may be reasonable for some Scouts and not for others, or for some Units and not for others. 

 

In other words, it's a sentence that let's adult control freaks get their freak on.

 

What's even worse is that a Scout doesn't have to be 50% active the entire time - theoretically, a Scout can take a couple of years to meet the active requirement for a rank and string together periods of activity that was interspersed with periods of inactivity. If the requirement is 6 months of being active, a Scout could be active for 2 months, then inactive for 2 months, then active again for 2 months, then inactive again for 2 months then when he's active again for another 2 months, has just met the requirement, which of course means the control freak's mind has just exploded.

 

I'm not really fond of attendance requirements outside of school and work - they tend to get complicated.  It was suggested that a Scout that didn't camp for 12 months couldn't be considered active.  My question is why not?  Let's take a hypothetical Star Scout working towards Life.  He's obviously met the camping requirements for T-SC-FC - let's say he's also earned the Camping Merit Badge and is in the OA.  Unless he's going for Backpacking Merit Badge or the like, he has already met all the camping requirements that the BSA imposes.  Let's also say that for the first 6 months, he was unable to fulfil a POR, for whatever reason (maybe he felt he couldn't spend enough time on it because he is in marching band) but he still attended every meeting, and participated in a fundraiser, and went on a couple of day trips but because of band, he wasn't able to go on any of the camping trips.  Let's say he gets a POR for the next 6 months - maybe not SPL or PL but Instructor, or Den Chief - and he diligently attends meetings and performs his POR - but again, doesn't camp.  Would you really find it reasonable to say he can't advance because he didn't camp?   Keep in mind as you forumulate your answer, there is no camping requirements imposed by the BSA in order to earn Life.  He's attended nearly 100% of Troop Meetings and has outshined others in doing his POR duties - is there some reason he would be less "promotable" than a Scout that attended only 50% of Troop Meetings but camped 50% of the time?  I know which Scout I would rather have in my Troop - the so-called "parlor" scout.

 

I'm not a big fan of Scouts creating participation rules either - and part of the reason is that they aren't able to think through the "what if's".  For instance, what if you have an older Scout playing football in the fall who is an Instructor in the Troop who has attended almot every Troop meeting that fall, and has really stepped up to the Instructor position and has taught the first years First Aid, but because of football, has not been able to go on many outings - I'd still sign off on the active requirement, but what kind of message would it send to the Scouts if I overrode their "rules" about active participation?

 

My option is to think of participation "requirements" as goals to strive for, knowing that there might be 40 different reasons for them not being attained in a 40-Scout Troop.  I'd sit with the Scouts at the beginning of the year and discuss what active means, what they think it should mean, to set goals to strive for but I would reserve the final decision to the Scoutmaster.

[Krampus]

My guys got tired of seeing some guys get credit for no work while they busted their hump; or watching some guy take a 4 year break between Life and Eagle, then come back and expect to get signed off on verything (POR and active level not met in those years), so they decided to take action. The adults were on the sidelines. In fact, the SM at the time tried to stop them until he was reminded it was Boy Scouts.

 

Control freaks go both ways.

[Stosh]

Control freaks of any sort have no place in Scouting.  Scouting needs team work leadership not control freaks.

[Hedgehog]

 Is that how he takes care of his boys?

 

 

So Stosh, would you sign off on the POR requirement for a Patrol Leader who did not camp once with their patrol over the course of a year?  Would you consider a scout to be "active" if the attended four meetings a year and didn't camp out?

 

 

IMHO, this is all misplaced.  You avoid "parlor scouts" by doing interesting things, promoting friendships between scouts and having scouting be the place they want to be.   Solving "parlor scouts" with extra requirements is misplaced.  "Parlor scouts" is not something to solve.  Troop program is something to solve.

 

 

So what percentage of your scouts in 10th, 11th and 12 grade go on outings on a regular basis?

[Stosh]

So Stosh, would you sign off on the POR requirement for a Patrol Leader who did not camp once with their patrol over the course of a year?  Would you consider a scout to be "active" if the attended four meetings a year and didn't camp out?

 

 

So what percentage of your scouts in 10th, 11th and 12 grade go on outings on a regular basis?

I would sign off on any PL POR if the members of his patrol felt he had done a good job for them regardless of his attendance at outings or meetings.  If they're happy, I'm happy.  If the patrol members were NOT happy with their PL and replaced him, he would not make his 4-6 months in the position and the whole discussion would never happen.

 

Right now my entire troop consists of boys in 6th and 7th grades.  But when I did have older boys in my previous troop, the attendance always ran in the 90% range.  Very few boys ever missed an outing or meeting.  We have a rule that Family, Church and School are a higher priority than Scouting, and still the numbers were up there.  The boys that have Eagled under me have not taken the traditional Life rank sabbatical that one often sees in troops struggling with their older boys.

[MattR]

This discussion is why I'm getting tired of scouts. All the arguments on this forum come from the same group of questions. What is character? Leadership? What is good? How do you motivate a teenager? These are questions that are thousands of years old. So why is it that people think they have the answer? It's all painfully subjective. This is the wellspring of drama.

 

There's no point in calling anyone a control freak. There are different solutions for different troops. For me, the best results I've see is from setting participation expectations and giving the scouts plenty of freedom and support to make it fun. Stick and carrot. If it doesn't work for you I won't be upset if you do something else. Its like the whole religion thing, share your ideas but don't judge others. I don't get paid enough for that.

[fred johnson]

So what percentage of your scouts in 10th, 11th and 12 grade go on outings on a regular basis?

 

Most do.  But then again we are down to twenty scouts in our troop and they are the best of friends with each other.  It is really much less about what grade they are in as much as how many of their friends are in scouting.  The more close friends in scouting the more they do.  Similarly, the more interesting things the troop does the more scouts participate.  

[Krampus]

This discussion is why I'm getting tired of scouts. All the arguments on this forum come from the same group of questions. What is character? Leadership? What is good? How do you motivate a teenager? These are questions that are thousands of years old. So why is it that people think they have the answer? It's all painfully subjective. This is the wellspring of drama.

 

There's no point in calling anyone a control freak. There are different solutions for different troops. For me, the best results I've see is from setting participation expectations and giving the scouts plenty of freedom and support to make it fun. Stick and carrot. If it doesn't work for you I won't be upset if you do something else. Its like the whole religion thing, share your ideas but don't judge others. I don't get paid enough for that.

 

I don't think any of us are here because we know everything. More likely we are here to help others who may not have encountered what we have, as well as to find answers to questions we may not know.

 

I can say that our unit had to put in a unit based activity objective because we were in danger of becoming an Eagle factory. When Scouting is supposed to be an outdoor program then being active in the program requires being out, whether it is camping, service or otherwise.

 

I wouldn't hope to be the captain of the soccer team, first chair in band or the lead in the school play without some significant degree of participation in those activities, so why should Scouting be any different? Why should boys who are not attending anything and taking advantage of the sole purpose of the Scouting program move on? This has always puzzled me. Yes, it is case by case and no rule fits every situation. But I would rather push the impoverished kid who is really trying but has significant challenges through Scouting than the well-to-do kid who is in too many activities and really just wants Eagle for his resume to Stanford.

 

I think that is why many of us post here. We seek answers to some pretty difficult questions and talking to folks who have similar, and especially differing, opinions forces us to think through our actions.

[Hedgehog]

 

It's all painfully subjective.

 

I tend to take everything with a gain of salt -- or a cup of coffee -- or a glass of something stronger.

 

What works for a troop of 7 boys or 20 boys, may not work for our troop of 50 boys.  What works for a new troop, may not work for an existing troop like ours that has a tradition of 10th grade SPLs, 11th grade no-shows and 12 grade Eagles (who haven't camped since 9th grade).  The question is how to change that culture.  

 

I'm always in favor of using all the available tools to fix a problem.  

 

The SM and I have kicked up the Outdoor Program over the last two and a half years -- doubling the number of outings and providing a variety of experiences (hiking, COPE, sea kayaking, canoing, camporees, urban hikes, backpacking, 50 milers) and the boys have taken our cue and are pushing it futher (ideas include snow camping, whitewater rafting, horseback riding, small boat sailing, fishing, camping on a boat in the ocean, Cast Iron Chef competitions, etc.).  The PLC now selects the activities so that the boys have a stake in the program -- it is what they choose to do, not the adults.  

 

We are giving the boys the responsibility to lead on campouts and the boys actually enjoy that.  On campouts, we have a PLC meeting on Friday night which serves as a briefing and the boys are good to go for the weekend.  The boys that have joined in the last three years fully buy into and understand boy lead.  The boys that go, love the independence they have.  

 

The PL's lead at the weekly meetings.  I suspect if you ask their patrols, they will say that they did their job BECAUSE that is what they are used to seeing the patrol leaders do.  Just like if all you were exposed to was an adult-led troop that let the boys lead in reciting the pledge, oath and law you would say that troop is boy-led. 

 

Although I agree that an arbitrary rule of the number of campouts wouldn't be productive in our troop, I think that an expectation that SPLs, ASPLs, PLs and APLs participate in the outdoor program is not unreasonable.  I think that this can be accomplished through discussions with the leaders at PLC meetings, discussions during elections and discussions during Scoutmaster conferences.  I realize that all of these discussions are initiated by adults, but I'm OK with the adult leading in establishing a culture that is more conducive to the boys leading in the outdoors. 

 

The combination of the boys selecting the outdoor activities, the boys leading in the outdoors and the introduction of an expectation that leading and participating in scouting involves going outdoors once in a while will slowly change the culture.

 

 

I don't think any of us are here because we know everything. More likely we are here to help others who may not have encountered what we have, as well as to find answers to questions we may not know.

 

I can say that our unit had to put in a unit based activity objective because we were in danger of becoming an Eagle factory. When Scouting is supposed to be an outdoor program then being active in the program requires being out, whether it is camping, service or otherwise.

 

I wouldn't hope to be the captain of the soccer team, first chair in band or the lead in the school play without some significant degree of participation in those activities, so why should Scouting be any different? Why should boys who are not attending anything and taking advantage of the sole purpose of the Scouting program move on? This has always puzzled me. Yes, it is case by case and no rule fits every situation. But I would rather push the impoverished kid who is really trying but has significant challenges through Scouting than the well-to-do kid who is in too many activities and really just wants Eagle for his resume to Stanford.

 

I think that is why many of us post here. We seek answers to some pretty difficult questions and talking to folks who have similar, and especially differing, opinions forces us to think through our actions.

 

I agree completely.

 

Everyone on the forums bemoans the STEM emphasis, the Parlor Scouts, the Eagle Mills and that other activities take priority over scouting because they are "mandatory" -- but when an adult tries to come up with ideas on how to increase the participation of more senior scouts in the outdoor program (which would strengthen the boy-led aspect of the troops because they have experience in leading) I don't think it is helpful insinuating that they are trying to be a "control freak" with "misguided frustration.'  

[perdidochas]

So Stosh, would you sign off on the POR requirement for a Patrol Leader who did not camp once with their patrol over the course of a year?  Would you consider a scout to be "active" if the attended four meetings a year and didn't camp out?

 

 

So what percentage of your scouts in 10th, 11th and 12 grade go on outings on a regular basis?

 

In our troop, probably about 3/4, depending on how you define regular.