How Much Commitment is Enough?

[gwd-scouter]

One thing I've notice in our area is that it is the large troops that have some sort of bylaws that impose an attendance requirement. Perhaps that is because the SM does not have the time to "assess the Scouts as individuals." One troop in our area does not allow a Scout to advance if he doesn't have 50% attendance at meetings and outings for the previous 12 months leading up to his request for a SM conference.

 

Admittedly, in the past our troop had an attendance policy similar to that but it was never enforced. We dropped all the bylaws three years ago. ASMs and I agreed that motivation through punishment does not work. We prefer to use consistent reinforcement of the idea that to get the most out of the program a Scout must be present when things are happening.

[Beavah]

ASMs and I agreed that motivation through punishment does not work. We prefer to use consistent reinforcement of the idea that to get the most out of the program a Scout must be present when things are happening.

 

Yah, gwd, I may be misunderstandin'....

 

But "the idea that to get the most out of the program a Scout must be present" ... doesn't that usually mean that unless you're present, you won't be havin' fun and learnin' and advancing? Advancement comes from being present and contributing and working hard, eh?

 

Or to quote the BSA policies "In Boy Scouting, recognition is gained through leadership in the troop, attending and participating in its activities, living the ideals of Scouting, and proficiency in activities related to outdoor life, useful skills, and career exploration."

 

So it seems like both troops are sayin' "You have to attend to advance", which is just common sense, not punishment. One troop tries to help by putting a firmer guideline in place, one doesn't. I suspect one troop is more comfortable for overscheduled and pushy folks who need firm guidelines and for folks who like "rules" for their kids.

 

Yours is probably more comfortable for all da rest of us .

 

Personally, I usually find that kids who get much below 50% on attendance usually drop out within a year. So pushin' for 50% attendance can be a good retention strategy in many places.

 

Beavah

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Of course if you delay a scouts advancement because of the artificially contrived 50% attendance requirement and the scout or family appeals it, the troop will lose. Now, that probably means the boy transfers out, so you have lost a boy and look like an ass to your troop because you had a rule that BSA struck down. Your call

[gwd-scouter]

Beavah, I understand how you could infer that my post is about advancement. I also understand how you interpret that our way is similar to that of a troop that imposes a percentage of attendance in order to advance. But, at least for our troop, advancement is not the driving force behind us encouraging our Scouts to get the most out of Scouting by being there. Rather, regular attendance and good program planning leads to fun, adventure, and, as a consequence, learning and advancement. Adhering to an arbitrary attendance requirement or a Scout doesn't advance does not seem like the same thing at all to me. One helps the Scout to think for himself, the other is merely a calculator of time served. Sorry if that comes across as harsh, but I'm not a big fan of bylaws and percentages.

 

There is a post about how courteous can mean being respectful of other people's time. Certainly something to consider when encouraging regular attendance. Add to that personal responsibility as well as teamwork. So, while I disagree with troops setting an attendance requirement (but also know that it works for some), I would rather help the Scouts make a conscientious choice about how much they are willing to put in to and get out of their time in Scouting.

 

[Beavah]

Thanks for da clarification, gwd. I agree with you, it should be holistic. Or at least, I like it better that way . I'm not particularly fond of da rulesmongerin' bean-counters, whether about percentages or anything else.

 

Part of helpin' kids and families, though, is givin' 'em guidelines, at least to start. I like usin' courtesy and teamwork and commitment and such myself. But there's always folks who "push the envelope". So inevitably, there's some lad that yeh have to talk to about courtesy, or being a more active team member, or whatnot.

 

And sometimes when yeh do that, there's a parent who starts complainin' that's a subjective standard and you're just out to get their kid or bein' judgmental about their family priorities or whatnot. I think that's why troops retreat to rules and objective percentages. Same reason G2SS retreats to rules and arbitrary numbers (why 3 hours of paddling practice? Why a whole set of precise water clarity definitions?).

 

So I understand why some folks like hard-and-fast "objective" guidelines, eh? They feel easier and more fair to enforce than those that involve judgment. As a guideline, I find nothing wrong with percentages. It's a much easier expectation to communicate than "teamwork". But as a hard and fast rule, I find the same problem with percentages as I do with everyone who quotes guidelines as hard-and-fast rules.

 

Beavah

 

[Beavah]

It is interestin', though, gwd's comment that all the larger troops in his/her area have some percentage attendance expectations, eh?

 

Whether they look like asses or not, or occasionally lose a lad to a transfer to gwd's troop, they seem to be successful at gettin' and keepin' boys in the program.

 

Beavah

 

[Lisabob]

It may well be that the larger troops in gwd's area *are* successful at getting and keeping boys. Not being in the same area myself, I can't tell. However, this also could be an incorrect conclusion. I've known several large troops that have a very high turnover rate, especially among the scouts at the age extremes. Yes, they look successful at first glance on paper because they have so many boys. But they lose well over 50% of their first year scouts and/or have few or no scouts over age 15. Large #s doesn't necessarily mean a good retention rate, especially when we're talking mega troops where they do little to recruit and just rake in boys, who then drop out within a few months anyway.

 

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

If you are going to reference a post of mine, I do request that it be done in context. When a Troop loses an appeal because what was appealed is contrary to BSA policy, yes, the Troop looks like an Ass. If troops want to establish minimum attendance requirements for activities and meetings no one is going to stop them. If they run successful troops for years and nothing is questioned, they are wonderful and may even be held out as wonderful examples. If one youth appeals and then they have to back off one of their requirements, well then, they have to back off, dont they?

[SMEagle819]

I have a story...

 

This was done via email. The mother of one of my scouts, who we had not seen for about 18 months, wanted to come back and earn his Eagle (current Life Scout). I responded that we had not seen the scout for 18 months, could not get in contact with them to find out what was going on, and actually had removed him from the roster at recharter. I also said that he would need to be active for 6 months in a leadership position and attend regularly.

 

Would this be considered "against scout policy?" Since Requirement 1 for the rank of Eagle reads "Be active in your troop and patrol for at least 6 months as a Life Scout," I take that to mean I was not asking anything beyond what the requirements call for. Of course, we never heard from this scout again.

[OldGreyEagle]

Had the Life scout, as a Life Scout been in a position of responsibility for 6 months before he went AWOL?

[SMEagle819]

He needed to fulfill that requirement as well...

[OldGreyEagle]

Well then, given what you have said, you have a Life Scout who was dropped from the charter due to inactivity. If he wants to come back and earn Eagle, he has every right to earn Eagle. And he should expect to have to fulfill every requirement and one of those is the six month position of responsibility during which he could also be active in the troop and patrol, but he still has/had to do it. What you did was correct, you set out the expectations, he decided not to earn Eagle. It was his choice

[John-in-KC]

I agree with OGE on this Scout, given the information we have.

 

Using the presumption that this Scout has not performed his 6 months time in a POR, his "Mission: Impossible" date is 18 years less 180 days.* Simply put, at that point he cannot meet the minimum time service demanded by Eagle requirement 4.

 

There are 3 other "Mission Impossible" dates:

Family Life: 18 years less 90 days (reqt 3)

Personal Fitness: 18 years less 84 days (12 consecutive weeks, reqt 7)

Personal Management: 18 years less 91 days (13 consecutive weeks, reqt 2a)

 

If a Life Scout has not started these MBs by those key dates, he's done. He cannot obtain them prior to aging out of the Boy Scout youth member program.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*(I picked 180 because there was no combination of six months, using February, which gave me a total less than 180. Many gave 182, some 181.)

[BrentAllen]

I don't think that because a Troop loses an appeal, it makes them look like an Ass in every case. I know a very experienced SM who runs a great Troop. The SPL has the boys doing push-ups if they are acting up, or are late or out of uniform. The SM will assign "Idle Time" projects to boys that get sent to him for misbehaviour. He told me that, yes, he would lose an appeal to National on those issues, but the boys in his Troop would never appeal. They accept it all as part of the program, a program they are all very happy to be a part of.

[Beavah]

I'm with Brent here.

 

In a well-run troop, it's the parent and the boy who are appealing who are most likely to look like asses, trying to get by without meeting expectations. It's pretty easy for a kid to pick up a reputation as a "fake Star Scout" from his peers under that circumstance. "Yeah, you got someone to give you Star, you didn't do what we all had to do to earn it". Peer pressure being what it is, the behavior is self-correcting. No kid wants to look like an ass to his friends. For that matter, no parent wants to look like an ass to his/her peers.

 

We forget that people in council offices mean very little to kids. What matters to them is what the people they know and work with think of them.

 

Beavah