Creating problems, intentionally, about participation

[MattR]

Over the past few years I've been working on participation. I've always taken the view that make it fun and they will come. So, the emphasis is on camping. 10 campouts, summer camp, two high adventure trips. The scouts pick the calendar, they have enough new ideas so we are anything but in a rut. At the end of every campout we have thorns and roses and the scouts are honestly having fun. Half the troop is making at least half the campouts. Some are doing a lot more.

 

The problem is the other half of the troop. These are the scouts that always have something else more important going on. They're missing something and I can't do anything about that, but it's also hurting their patrol in morale, fun, teamwork, and attitude. If only a quarter of a patrol goes camping then it's a downer. I don't want to drum them out of the troop. But I don't want them slowing down a group of eager scouts, I want there to be consequences based on their level of commitment, and I want them to take responsibility for their decision. There are honest reasons why a kid can't make half the campouts but "I have other plans" is not one of them.

 

So how about this? Ask each scout what his commitment is. If they go to at least half the campouts they can be in a patrol of their choice that will stick together. If they don't want to be active then they're not assigned to a patrol and if they want to go camping they can make their own patrol for that campout. Communication about meetings? That's there problem. They won't have the camaraderie but life is a tradeoff. If a scout wants to be active but doesn't like the campouts, he has a problem that someone can coach him through (find better ideas!). If he has too many other activities going on he can't just nix scouting and will have to choose. Again, a problem to solve. If he wants to have a position of responsibility he'll have to be active. Some scouts will drop out and that's a shame but maybe it's just the push they need to find something they really want to do. If they just want to cruse along until they make a decision then that's great too. Scouts that want to excel will be given a chance to feed off of each other in a positive way. This may encourage some scouts to get active.

 

Anybody try anything like this?

[SeattlePioneer]

Patrols are the cornerstone of Boy Scouts. I don't think you can leave boys out.

 

No reason why patrols can't decide who their members will be, though. Perhaps you need a Hot Dog and a Sloth Patrol.

 

I imagine the attrition among the sloths would tend to be high, though.

[Oak Tree]

I know of one troop that solved this problem by charging very high dues but not charging anything for the camping trips. You would tend to get a very self-selected group - active campers could get more than their money's worth, but less active Scouts would feel like they were wasting money. I thought it was a clever solution to the problem.

 

And by getting more committed Scouts, they could really amp up their program. Worked for them. I considered whether we might want to implement it, but I decided against it. Still, it was an interesting idea.

[evmori]

Someone told me this a long time ago - You can only be there for the ones that show up. If they don't show up, they are the ones losing out. Make it the best for those that do show up which it sounds like what you are already doing.

[BrentAllen]

MattR,

I think you have to start from day 1 with the Scouts, and let them know what you expect. The following statement is part of our Visitor Packet which every visitor gets (credit goes to Green Bar Bill). This lets them know what we expect in our Troop.

 

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

 

This doesn't mean we get 100% participation. I also tell our Scouts that I expect them to participate in other activities besides Scouting, so they can bring those strengths and talents to the Troop. This will create scheduling conflicts, and learning how to deal with them is part of growing up. We also point out to the parents and the Scout that every time he misses a meeting or outing, he is leaving his patrol a man short.

 

The bottom line is we are looking for boys who can find ways to do both Scouting and their other sports, band, etc. A baseball game only lasts a few hours - come on the camping trip before or after. We are looking for boths that can do both.

 

Finally, the real consequence of missing meetings and trips comes home with PORs. We don't create PORs just to help meet an advancement requirement. The SPL chooses who is going to fill the slots, and they are tougher in their decisions than I would be. They know who is attending and who isn't. They need the best Scouts in those leadership positions to make things run smoothly, so they are only going to assign the boys they can count on. I have several boys who made FC in December who keep asking for a POR. They have missed a number of meetings and outings, so the SPL isn't willing to give them one until they "earn it" by showing they can be dependable in showing up and doing the job.

[Lisabob]

I see your problem. It happens in most troops, I think. I like your idea of asking (maybe each year, not just one time when they join at age 10/11) "what is your commitment to this troop?" Maybe this is a good SM conference question (using SMC not just for advancement purposes). It could give you an appreciation of where they are coming from, while also allowing you to set the general expectation that people in this troop are active participants who can be relied upon to do their part.

 

I agree that not assigning a boy to a patrol will be a problem. They will have no "identity" in your troop. They will have no voice in the PLC where, presumably, decisions about the calendar & activities are made. This will probably reduce involvement, not increase it.

 

Much as we all sometimes want to, we cannot set other people's priorities for them. I don't know why somebody would join & stay in a troop if they rarely participate. But they must have reasons. Some of those reasons (both for joining & for not participating much) may be more about the parents than the boys.

 

 

 

 

[AvidSM]

One of the reasons for part-time scouts is the parents. They get their son's involved in way too many activities. Scouting usually gets the short end of the stick, because there is no immediate downside to not attending full-time. Show up half the time at little league and you ride the bench.

 

You have to stress early the benefits of the scouting program. That the skills these boys learn can be applied life-long. A very small percentage of little leaguers make it to the Bigs.

 

I had a Webelos II dad that was very enthusiastic about scouting and told me that his son was looking forward to joining the troop. After missing the first two meetings, I talked to the dad again and he is still enthusiastic and promised that his son will start attending meetings soon. Two more missed meetings and a missed campout (tailored to the new scouts) later, the dad is still talking about how his son loves scouting and will be at the next meeting...

 

Bottom line - the his son never joined the troop.

[neil_b]

Unlike most other activities, Scouting is a year-round commitment that lasts for years.

 

If a boy plays football, he is very committed in the latter part of summer through fall, but come winter the season ends and he can do something else. However, because he misses some troop meetings during football season, some Scoutmasters want to label the kid a "sloth". Sorry, but that's just not a fair attribution.

 

It sounds like some people would want to create a "select" Scouting troop kind of like the select sports teams that demand 100% of a kid's attention and charge tons of money to go to tournaments in faraway cities. "Sorry, we only admit the most committed Scouts who are willing to pay for all the camping up front and won't miss any meetings. We take our Scouting seriously. If you want to be in a 'recreational' troop, there's a fine one down the street, but you will miss out on the advanced Scout skills we teach here." My kids would be with the recreational troop down the street.

[perdidochas]

neil,

 

Good idea about the "select" scouts. Nothing is stopping that from happening.

 

AvidSM,

 

It's a combination thing, at least for most kids/parents. The Scouts have to have the dedication to want to do it and the parents have to have the dedication to bring the Scouts to the meeting (in most cases). Yes, there can be exceptions (overbearing parent forcing Scouts on kids, and the eager kid who manages to get to meetings despite lack of parental help), but for the most part you need an interested Scout and a dedicated parent. Your case indicates that one or both didn't have much interest, despite your conversations with the Dad.

 

In terms of the full time dedication, I see both sides. On one hand, most activities do require full dedication, while Scouts allows for part time participation. I will admit, my boys are going to reduce their soccer playing. Why? Scouts is their top priority, and it's not fair to their soccer team to miss at least one game a month for Scouts, on top of whatever we might miss due to family obligations.

[Oak Tree]

My kids would be with the recreational troop down the street.

 

Right. That's one of the great things about the BSA is the diversity of programs we can offer. I like the way Piedmont Council CA lists out their troops - this troop focuses on X, this troop on Y, gives their sizes, when and where they meet. You get to pick.

 

The hard part of dealing with a lot of "recreational" Scouts is that troop meetings can't really focus on preparing for the upcoming trip, because there are too many Scouts who aren't going on the trip and don't care. So now we split them up and have the Scouts who are going do the preparation. But then we have to have something for the others, and if that's too interesting, then the Scouts who are preparing for the trip can be anxious to finish the trip planning so that they can go do the other activity. I think you could build pretty good patrol pride if everyone was expecting to go on most trips.

 

So, yeah, a 'select' team isn't for everyone. I never wanted my kids to ever get on one of those sports teams. And obviously, those types of Boy Scout troops are few and far between. But if some people want to join them, more power to them. I think it could be a great experience for them.

[acco40]

I tried to push on our committee the "high dues / low camping fee" idea. It didn't go over well.

 

I formulated a "ghost patrol" - a patrol of troop youth members whose attendance fell below a certain level.

 

Yes, when one does not show up, it hurts the patrol, planning, etc. so I was in favor of lumping them together.

 

But it may also be a barometer of how they view the experience. Something to discuss with the CC and COR.

[Engineer61]

Perhaps another question to ask when considering commitment is:

 

How many of you are here because *you* want to be a Scout, as opposed to your *parents* wanting you to be a Scout?

 

Maybe you'll find a correlation...maybe you won't.

[Beavah]

When yeh talk to boys in real youth-run programs, yeh often find that they get very frustrated by the "part timers". Being a part timer in an active program is pretty selfish,eh? It means your patrol mates can never plan a more adventurous trip that requires some skill and preparation. Either that, or they have to find time to remediate you because yeh missed the last two skill sessions. Or they feel like they did all the work, and the part-timer just leeched.

 

Da recreational programs can work OK for 6th graders and immature 7th graders. Generally after that kids are lookin' for more challenge. There's a reason why middle school extracurricular activities have da requirements they do, and why high school activities have the expectations they do. The schools have found about what works best for each age group. For middle schoolers, that's something less than the full-time professional sports travel team nonsense, but also more than the elementary school Rec program. For high schoolers it's a higher level of responsibility and commitment, but still not all-consuming.

 

If yeh set your scout program at about those levels of expectation, I reckon it's about right for most. But there's room for differences across da spectrum.

 

My only problem with da purely drop in "recreational" troops is that they tend to be very adult-run.

 

MattR, I've never seen what yeh propose. I think it's more common to go the way BrentAllen describes and just be up-front about expectations. But give it a whirl and report back to us on how it went! Maybe you'll have found something others can use.

 

Beavah

[MattR]

Thanks for your input. I guess I have to think this through some more.

 

BTW, I don't want 100% participation. I hear too many horror stories. But five campouts a year doesn't sound extreme.

 

There's the punishment side of this but I've also thought about the encouragement side. I realize I want more camaraderie in my troop. High school sports is great because of camaraderie. Scouts could be the same way but it's barely happening. Teamwork is a side bar. The perception is I can come and go as I please and my patrol doesn't need me. And there's a lot of truth to that. There's little teamwork outside of a campout so if you don't go there's no loss to anyone.

 

So how about creating problems that require teamwork at the patrol level to solve? How about campouts require several meetings to prepare for (Tie flies for fishing, make snow shoes, etc)? You can't go if you're not prepared. Maybe each patrol must organize their own event and if they don't they aren't allowed on the campout. Maybe the patrol leader must set goals for his patrol and he gets credit based on achieving those goals. Scouts will have to learn to work together and if not they can find another patrol or patrol leader. And maybe a patrol leader can remove a scout from his patrol if the scout doesn't do his share of the work. This would be Lord of the Flies if not carefully guided but it would put a lot more responsibility with the patrol leaders. Maybe the scouts can solve the participation problem once they understand how it affects them.

 

This would not be easy to get going.

 

I also agree that there needs to be some serious discussion with everyone about expectations, goals and what scouting is about before anything else.

[neil_b]

"My only problem with da purely drop in 'recreational' troops is that they tend to be very adult-run."

 

Yeah, you may be right there. Generally in our troop the patrol leaders are expected to have a higher level of commitment. If there are no boys willing to make that commitment that will be a problem.

 

However, there may also be more opportunities for a boy who otherwise wouldn't step up to learn leadership because other boys are just too busy with other things. Trying to lead the troop, including the "drop in" scouts could be viewed as a challenge that will help him learn more.

 

The same thing is true for the adult leaders. The dad who is busy as a coach or who is consumed by his job won't have or take the time to be a Scout leader. So, more opportunity for the adults who are willing to make Scouting their priority.

 

I'm sure other community leaders have similar complaints. The pastor or sunday school teacher may get frustrated with the people who don't show up half the Sundays and don't keep up with their Bible readings. The high school football coach may get frustrated with the young men who don't show up for weight lifting sessions. School music teachers probably get frustrated with the kids who don't practice their instruments at home. Politicians get frustrated with people who don't take a more active part in the political process, but just complain about the decisions of those who do.

 

I could go on and on. Somehow you just have to learn to live with such things and try not to get so frustrated that it ruins it for you, because you cannot change all the people around you.