Advancement Requirement Leadership

[EaglePanther]

A number of leaders were chatting at camp this year and the topic of the leadership requirement for the upper ranks came up specifically what everyone was looking for in the role as opposed to just 'being' in the position.  Most of us felt that active participation, attendance and leadership in the position met the requirement.  One leader said he required the patrol to achieve honor patrol as part of the requirement and had been doing so as this was what his predecessor had done while he was an ASM.  Is this an acceptable practice?

[MattR]

First of all welcome to the forum.

If every patrol is always required to achieve honor patrol then it's fine. However, if this is an extra requirement for a patrol that has a PL needing something signed off then it's an added requirement.  Added requirements are not acceptable.

I wonder how the patrols respond to this. Will they vote against a scout because they'd rather not do honor patrol?

There are better ways to motivate patrols. And that is the key, motivate the entire patrol rather than just the PL.

Edited September 2, 2021 by MattR
welcome!

[CynicalScouter]

1 hour ago, EaglePanther said:

A number of leaders were chatting at camp this year and the topic of the leadership requirement for the upper ranks came up specifically what everyone was looking for in the role as opposed to just 'being' in the position.  Most of us felt that active participation, attendance and leadership in the position met the requirement.  One leader said he required the patrol to achieve honor patrol as part of the requirement and had been doing so as this was what his predecessor had done while he was an ASM.  Is this an acceptable practice?

The Guide to Advancement is...nebulous on this point. In short, what is/is not sufficient CAN be established by the unit leader PROSPECTIVELY.

https://filestore.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf

Quote

4.2.3.4.3 Meeting Unit Expectations. If a unit has established expectations for positions of responsibility, and if, within reason (see the note under “Rank Requirements Overview,” 4.2.3.0), based on the Scout’s personal skill set, these expectations have been met, the Scout has fulfilled the requirement. When a Scout assumes a position, something related to the desired results must happen. It is a disservice to the Scout and to the unit to reward work that has not been done. Holding a position and doing nothing, producing no results, is unacceptable. Some degree of responsibility must be practiced, taken, or accepted.

Here was the problem Guide to Advancement was trying to address. What happens when the Scoutmaster AFTER the 6-months-in-position just arbitrarily decides "Nope. I don't think so." If the unit leader is going to reject those months, the exact specifications need to be laid out FIRST, and Guide to Advancement spells that out.

Quote

4.2.3.4.5 When Responsibilities Are Not Met. If a unit has clearly established expectations for position(s) held, then—within reason—a Scout must meet them through the prescribed time. If a Scout is not meeting expectations, then this must be communicated early. Unit leadership may work toward a constructive result by asking the Scout what he or she thinks should have been accomplished in that time. What is the Scout’s concept of the position? What does the Scout think the troop leaders—youth and adult—expect? What has been done well? What needs improvement? Often this questioning approach can lead a young person to the decision to measure up. The Scout will tell the leaders how much of the service time should be recorded and what can be done to better meet expectations.

Note that part in bold.

Finally, if the scout and the unit leader/Scoutmaster are STILL fighting about this, it gets sent to the Board of Review to sort out.

Quote

If a Scout believes the duties of the position have been performed satisfactorily but the unit leader disagrees, then the possibility that expectations are unreasonable or were not clearly conveyed to the youth should be considered. If after discussions between the Scout and the unit leader—and perhaps the parents or guardians—the Scout believes the expectations are unreasonable, then upon completing the remaining requirements, the Scout must be granted a board of review. If the Scout is an Eagle candidate, then he or she may request a board of review under disputed circumstances (see “Initiating Eagle Scout Board of Review Under Disputed Circumstances,” 8.0.3.2).

In other words, there's no way an SM can outright block

[EaglePanther]

All good points and thanks for the replies.  I am not a fan of ambiguity and not sure I like units being able to define expectations for leadership roles although I agree with the language in 4.2.3.4.3 'Holding a position and doing nothing, producing no results, is unacceptable."  We have always considered a scout in a role who is active and demonstrates leadership to meet the requirement.  This can be more challenging with other positions like quartermaster or OA rep but we have communicated what they need to do in those roles at the onset. I do not like the honor patrol requirement because it can be derailed by a number of factors that may be out of the PL hands, like growing the patrol and advancement.  The process defined to protest to the advancement committee could cause some friction with the Scout and the Scoutmaster and I am not sure a younger scout would put themselves in that position.

I would be in favor of standardizing/further defining this requirement as what is published in the handbook seems to be different from what the Guide to Advancement indicates. 

Thank you all for the input. I think we are going to hold the course we have laid and may look at further defining the requirement so everyone is aligned.

 

Edited September 3, 2021 by EaglePanther
spelling tense correction

[HelpfulTracks]

I am not a fan of requiring earning Honor Patrol to count PL toward rank advancement. To much is outside of the control of the Scout. 

I had a patrol that would have not been able to achieve this and they were very good. It was a six member patrol of older scouts (5 of which achieved Eagle Scout), all had recently earned Star rank together. Their PL would have failed because none achieved Life Scout within the next 6 month period . They also had no chance to grow unless we broke up another patrol (in which case the PL's PoR would not have counted) so they could not grow.

Now with the rule of 2 - 21+ registered leaders makes doing patrol outings extremely difficult. 

I have no problem setting a standard, but it should be a standard that does not reply so much on the efforts of others. 

[fred8033]

@HelpfulTracks has it right.  The advancement requirement is for the individual.  Though I could see it as a sign of achievement, having it as an explicit requirement seems wrong.  

The requirement seems ambiguous if you are looking to weigh a result.  The GTA is taking it more like a process; a conversation.  If the SM does not think the scout is doing enough, the SM should talk to the scout.  Have a conversation.  That's what the GTA is saying.  

The GTA is also saying it's wrong to arbitrarily say now after-the-fact.  The unit needs to have clear expectations before the scout starts.  The unit needs to discuss with the scout why those expectations are not being med.  The scout needs a chance to explain, defend, change behavior.  The unit needs to do it early and not wait to judge.  AFTER-THE-FACT judgement is a sign of failure of the unit; not the scout.