Troop activities attendance as a requirement for rank advancement.

[tkwetzel]

Thank you sctmom, that is exactly what needed to be said. And anyone who says that they can have an attendance requirement is crazy.

-Tyler

[eagle90]

sctmom -

 

Our troop meets at a public school, so we meet only from September till June, approximately 33 meetings a year. That means a scout must attend 24 meetings. If he cannot do that due to "Sports, ROTC, Civil Air Patrol, etc" as you say, maybe he should reassess his priorities about the scouting program. Of course if there is a special circumstance, we will be flexible. for example we had a scout a few years ago who was hospitalized for 2 months. We did not penalize him.

 

And there is no problem with our program - we are the most active troop in our area, having just completed our summer trips, with 90% of our scouts attending. This is 11 year olds thru seniors in high school.

 

And as I said, this policy was started by our PLC and is reviewed every year. We are indeed Boy Led.

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

I am not sure how many of the readers of this forum subcribe to Boys Life magazine, or have a son in the family who does. I always like to read the adventures of PeeWee Harris although I dont like his remake, I thought the original version was better, then again I may be just Old School.

 

One other thing, as far as I can remember Boy's Life has always furnished stories about Scouts who are either nationally ranked Snowboarder, Snow Skier,Water Skier or some other such activity. In the August edition there is a story about a Skim Boarder who is also a Life Scout. I wonder if he would meet the attendance requirements listed by some troops here. I wonder if those other nationally ranked scouts would make the attendance requirements.

 

Now, Troops CAN make all the attendance requirements they like, they can enforce them and pride themsleves on their rules. It will be against national policy, but I am not sure that matters to them.

 

I was looking at a list of Eagle Scouts, former Senator Bill Bradley is on that list. As I remember he was a Rhodes Scholar and a pretty fair Basketball player. I wonder how many Scout Activities he missed due to practices and games, turned out to be a credit to scouts though. Olympian Willie Banks held world records in the triple and long jumps. He is also an Eagle scout. I am glad no one asked him to choose between scouts and track practice and meets. Hammerin' Hank Aaron probably missed some meetings while he was doing his baseball thing, I am glad no one asked him to choose between baseball and scouts, he made Eagle. President and Eagle Scout Gerald Ford played a little football in high school and college, must have missed a few meetings.

 

Troops with attendance requirements be sure you know who you are excluding, they just might be alrght folks.

 

Now, on sunday July 28th I am off to the Maine backwoods for a little whitewater action so I wont be able to respond, catch you all later.

 

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[KoreaScouter]

Hikingdad;

 

I told you in my firt post to this thread to get ready; the opinions on this are divergent.

 

I think we're all getting a little carried away on this. For example, Sctmom: I know from this forum you're a single parent, and when school's out, your son goes to Grandma's. If he were in the troop I serve, we wouldn't have a problem with that. The key, as with most things, is communication. As a courtesy if for no other reason, leaders should be informed of extended program absences or situation changes that may affect the Scout's participation...especially if he's in a leadership role and others are counting on him.

 

And for everyone else, this is not an absolute black/white thing either. It's true that BSA doesn't prescribe what constitutes active beyond being registered. Nor do they publish specific definitions of what is "helpful" enough, how long a Scout can dawdle before he's not considered "obedient" , or what "Duty to God" means in the Oath, and so on, and so on. There's no cookie cutter standard, and that's why leaders apply judgment and heuristics based on what works best for their troops, within the BSA construct. None of us do everything the same way, and that's okay as long as we're in-bounds. One thing I tell all the Scouts in their conferences is that Scout Spirit is subjective, and if they're not showing it, I'm going to let them know way before their next SM conference. And BTW, I hold older, more experienced Scouts, especially the green bars, to a higher standard across the board as I'm sure the rest of you do. Let's face it, before we sign the "Show Scout Spirit" requirement, we've determined the Scouts completed it. How do we determine that? We have standards -- conscious or not, written or not, hung on the wall or not, but we still have standards. Some troops articulate some of those standards formally. Some choose not to. Either way's okay as long as it works for you and doesn't run contrary to BSA policy.

 

And, as Eagle90 has said, it's most important that the Scouts themselves, via the PLC, determine these things to the maximum extent possible. Those Scouts all know who's pulling their weight and who isn't, and their "fairness meters" are more sensitive and more accurate than we sometimes give them credit for. They'll be closest to the "school solution" some of us are looking for...

 

KS

[eisely]

I don't see anything wrong in principle with a participation/attendance requirement as part of "show scout spirit". Having said that, such policies have to be administered both sensibly and even handedly. Situations such as sctmom described are not unusual and deserve consideration.

 

I think it is more important to have such a requirement for those boys who take on a leadership position. This was beat to death in other threads. Nevertheless, an absentee patrol leader seriously hurts the program, and such a scout should not receive credit for the leadership position if he is not physically present to lead.

[tkwetzel]

Eisely, you said, "I don't see anything wrong in principle with a participation/attendance requirement as part of "show scout spirit"." You should not need this. Scouts can and do show scout spirit without being at meetings. Coming to all the meetings doesn't mean that they show scout spirit. I've seen scouts come to meetings and sit around and talk the whole time. And you said, "Nevertheless, an absentee patrol leader seriously hurts the program,". I don't completely agree with you here either. You should have assistant patrol leaders who will step in when the patrol leader is not present, which makes no difference because they can do the same thing that the patrol leader does.

-Tyler

[Bob White]

hi sctmom,

It's nice to know you missed me

I just returned from a stint at Philmont Training Center. You did a fine job of pointing ou that regardless of what one may "feel" or wish, the requirements are what they are and cannot be added to or subtracted from. The Boy Scout Handbook defines the requirements clearly and no one can alter them. A minimum attendance added to an advancement requirement is a violation of the advancement policies. There are better ways to evaluate whether a scout has actively served in a leadership capacity or is an active member of a unit.

 

By the way being a paid member is not enough. My handbook is still packed up from my trip, but I'm sure someone has one on hand and can find the reference on being an active member.

 

Good to be home but it's great to be at Philmont,

Bob White

[tkwetzel]

After what Bob said, I went back and looked at the requirements. Through first-class there are no requirements that say you have to be an active scout. However, second- and first-class have participation requirements, requiring scouts to participate in a minimum number of activities since joining. For Star and above you need to be an active member of your troop for a designated amount of time. And Bob, their is nothing that says being active is more than paying your dues.

-Tyler

[KoreaScouter]

Here's a requirement for 2C: Attend five troop/patrol activities other than meetings, two of which involve camping overnight. Cut and dried. You can't have a troop policy of 7 activities, or 3 out of 5 involving camping. There's no disagreement here on that.

 

Now, fast forward to the "Show Scout Spirit by living the Scout Oath and Law in your everyday life". Neither cut nor dried. If a given troop's Scouts, families, leaders, and committee members all have a common frame of reference and a crystal clear, identical definition of what living the Oath/Law means, that's fabulous. But for the overwhelming majority of us who don't have that luxury, circumstances require articulation, particularly with advancement riding on it. Example: What is "obedient" and "...help other people at all times..." in the context of Scout Spirit? Obedient all the time? Impossible! If you miss one campout, are you helping other people (your patrol buddies) at all times? Obviously not by the words of the Oath, but should this be disqualifying? Of course not!

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not slamming BSA for vague language. It is vague in the Scout Spirit area compared with most other requirements. But, I think that's deliberate and acknowledges the fact that when you're dealing with boys between 10 1/2 and 18, with a wide range of demands on their time, different levels of family obligations, varying degrees of troop responsibility, etc., a single attendance/participation standard can't be applied. But, as every Scout scans the advancement requirements for each Boy Scout rank, they all stop at the "Show Scout Spirit" requirement and wonder, unlike tying a bowline, what the standard of completion is. That's why it's incumbent on us as leaders to ensure there's no ambiguity. I do that through SM conferences and real-time feedback with each Scout; other SMs have different methods. The end result for all is (or should be) no misunderstandings about whether or not they're showing Scout Spirit (or if they completed any other requirement for that matter). Percents, bar charts, fractions, coin flips, whatever, is less important than the end result: just as they'll know when they've used lashings to make a useful camp gadget, they'll know that they've shown Scout Spirit.

 

I don't think it's broke, and I don't think it needs fixing. In this, as in other areas, some overzealous volunteers may be applying a somewhat skewed personal interpretation. You get what you pay for.

 

 

[acco40]

Those who say that the BSA does not allow Scouters to add requirements for rank advancement are correct. However, a troop can have an attendance requirement to be a member of that troop. Regardless if you think that is a good policy or not, the troop may have a membership requirement that includes attendance stipulations. My personal opinion is that a troop should have requirements for unexcused absenses. A scout, youth or adult, should let the troop (SM for adults, PL for youth) know if they can't attend a troop meeting or function. Non-attendance is detrimental to the troop regardless if it is the Scoutmaster, SPL, PL, troop scribe, tenderfoot or committee person.

[Bob White]

accu40,

Consider this, the person who suffers the most, is the person who is not attending. If the scouts in attendance are suffering then that is a leadership problem. Scouts with high levels of "unexcused" absences are trying to tell you something. There is something missing from the program that is important to them. That is not to say that what they are looking for can be provided in scouting, however it is our responsibility as leaders to discover that missing element. Pushing them them farther away is probably not the best answer for the good of the individual scout.

 

Just a thought.

Bob White

[acco40]

Bob White,

 

I agree. That is why when we have a scout who is not attending meetings, and does not give advanced warning, we schedule a meeting with the Scoutmaster. The meeting is not to place blame. It is to find out why the scout has not been attending the meetings or events and not bothering to notify his patrol leader. It may be to indifference, illness, outside activities, boredom, lack of transportation, personality conflicts, etc. The feedback that is given helps to influence the meetings. The best feedback of all is to attend, be involved and provide input in person!

 

What I don't comprehend is why some have such differences of opinion on attendance for team sports, school etc. than for scouting. I'm involved in Cub Scouts and get very frustrated with parents/boys who have whimsical attendance. I need to plan activities, buy supplies, and make reservations for most meetings and need to get a head count. Are we not teaching responsibility to the boys when we ask them to let us know if they are attending a meeting or event? I'm not saying we should reprimand individuals for nonattendance, I'm just saying that it is common courtesy to let one know if you will be coming or not.

 

How do you handle camping trips? Do you let scouts decide to attend at the last minute, with 24 hour notice? What about transportation needs, tour permits, food budgets, tent assignments, permission slips, etc.?(This message has been edited by acco40)

[tkwetzel]

acco40, I somewhat agree with most of what you said. What you said is that having an attendance requirement is wrong. But about your following statement, "How do you handle camping trips? Do you let scouts decide to attend at the last minute, with 24 hour notice? What about transportation needs, tour permits, food budgets, tent assignments, permission slips, etc.?" As I mentioned earlier, I am the SPL of a 90 member troop in Northern Virginia. We are lucky to get half of the troop to go on a single campout. We have sign-up sheets for every outing and there is always a deadline that you have sign-up by or you can't go. Our patrols then plan according to who is going, and when only a couple members of a single patrol go, they are joined with another patrol for the weekend. We have hardly any problems with this.

-Tyler

[Bob White]

accu40,

As far as why the coaches at school can be so demanding on attendance, keep in mind they have a pay check involved. They are expected to field a winning team, even in grade school, in order to get bigger and better paying jobs.

 

As far as what do I do when someone wants to go on a campout at the last minute? How is that my problem? He is not in my patrol! We train patrol leaders to plan with their patrol. If the food is bought and the gear is drawn and transportation arranged, then I would expect the PL to tell the scout "if you bring your own food, your own tent and your own ride here is where we are camping".

 

You don't need troop rules to teach good planning and common courtesy.

 

 

"And Bob, their is nothing that says being active is more than paying your dues."

 

Actually thats not true, page 169 of the Boy Scout Handbook addresses this. It says nothing about paying your dues. It says you have to be there to make a difference.

 

What is active to one may not be to another. What are the demands of his position, what are his other obligations, what are his goals and his personal timetable. These are things you can't legislate by a broad set of rules, you need to understand the individual scout.

 

The Scout hanndbook contains all the rules you need for a successful scout program. They are contained in the scouting ideals, and the advancement requirements. You can try making your own rules but you will spent an unnecessary amount of time creating them, administering them, and trying to keep from contradicting BSA rules.

 

Bob

 

 

 

[KoreaScouter]

I don't agree that a Scout with a high absence rate neccessarily equates to a substandard program. While that certainly may be the case, it could just as easily (and often is) a fact that the Scout may have registered under parental duress, had different expectations, doesn't really buy in to the aims, is under peer pressure, or in the case of older Scouts, is experiencing one or more of the 3 W's.

 

Let's face it, we're going to lose Scouts, for all the above reasons and many I haven't thought of. Let's try not to take it personally, or blame ourselves if a Scout quits now and then. And, some who stay will not advance. I don't think we should take that as a personal failing either. Whatever a leader's standards are, if they're consistently applied, fair, and clearly understood, you're okay. How about a little "live and let live"?

 

I've been to many district/council events and seen unit leaders whose leadership styles don't match mine; some screamers, some laissez-faire, some overly militaristic, some macro guys, some micro guys, and so on. I would never presume to try to change their styles. I hope they would extend me the same respect.

 

KS