Troop Policy: >50% Attendance Req'd. for Advancement?

[Bob White]

"Units with advancement concerns do not need more unit rules, they need to use more leadership skills."

Leadership skills develop through experience and responsibilities. Experience and responsibilities are developed through participation and teaching.

 

OneHour,

I was not referring to the leadership skills of the scouts!

 

"We can teach and they can teach each other, but we can't force them to participate."

 

This is were greater leadership ability o the part of the adult leaders is needed. You are right "you can't force them to participate". So why are you trying to? That is is really what your goal is when you create a general rule based on attendance. I am not any more likely to advance a scout who shows up but doesn't participate in the spirit of the activity as I am one who never shows up. The requirement isn't be present the requirement is "be active".

 

The ability to be active comes from a variety of personal characteristics. Many of which can be developed through personal coaching from adults and youth leaders in the unit, but for that to happen you have to know each scout's abilities and characteristics.

 

Talk with the scout and come to an agreement of the level of activity he is capable of and the actions he will commit to.

 

One of the things that made scouting unique when it was first organized, and which is still evident in strong successful units, is Baden-Powell's philosophy that scouting is delivered one-boy-at-a-time.

 

The more all-encompassing rules created by a unit, the further you distance yourself from that philosophy.

 

 

 

 

[Fat Old Guy]

"Get rid of the 50 percent requirement, you will find no supporting BSA literature that says a troop may do this."

 

On the other hand, there is nothing to say that a unit cannot come up with their own definition of active.

 

I guess that an important consideration is that there is not "activity" requirement until Star so you really can't require a certain level of activity for T_foot or 2nd Class.

[Fat Old Guy]

"If a boy is only less than 50% of the time, would the scouts even consider him for PL or SPL? I would think not. Would your SPL make him Scribe if he's seldom at a troop meeting. Again, I would hope not."

 

In an ideal world, you'd be right. However, all too often the PL is "elected" because no one else wants the job and he needs it to advance. The same is true of other positions, "Who wants to be Scribe? Okay, you're the Scribe."

 

Bob White said, "The ability to be active comes from a variety of personal characteristics. . . .Talk with the scout and come to an agreement of the level of activity he is capable of and the actions he will commit to."

 

So the Scout says, "I can only make it to meetings once every other month" and you say, "Great, that's what we'll consider active for you." Another Scout who has rearranged his schedule to make room for Scouting sees that the first Scout is being rewarded for doing squat. Fair? Not in my world.

 

 

[Twocubdad]

Here's an interesting twist:

 

In the new edition of the Webelos book one of the requirements for the Webelos Badge is to "Be an active member of your Webelos den for three months." It further defines "active" as "having good attendance, paying your den dues and working on den projects."

 

While "good" isn't much of a qualifier, this is the first time I've seen a requirement give further explaination of what active means. We are still left to guess what good means, but I'd say it is certainly above 50%.

 

Neither does it suggest that good attendence is a matter of expectations or negotiation. I'll agree with FOG on that point. Just because a Scout tells me in advance baseball practice conflicts with Scout meetings and therefore he will be at Scouts only when it is raining, doesn't make his limited attendance acceptable. In that case the Scout's three months of activity begins once the ball season is over.

 

 

[eisely]

An earlier post asserted that, "A boy who does not attend at least 50% should not be elected to a leadership position," or words to that effect. The problem is that boys who have no intention of really doing anything will seek election just to get their tickets punched, if they believe they can get away with it. This is human nature and not everybody, boy scouts and scouters too, always operates in good faith. I have to agree with FOG. While there is nothing that specifically authorizes units to define "active", there is nothing that prevents it either. There is a void here that units should not ignore.

[Herms]

Our troop uses the >50% policy as a consideration when talking with PARENTS and boys about Scout Spirit (do your best from the Oath). If the boy is at 49.9% (i.e. he was sick and that was the best he could do) will he still be signed off on Scout Spirit, sure we will.

 

In todays society, children are put under intense pressure to perform in athletics. Im a Young American Football League (YAFL) referee, and have actually heard parents yell at us telling us that we are hurting there 10 year olds chances at an athletic scholarship, and one even told us we were affecting his NFL career preparation!

 

Today (and it gets worse as they get older) Scouts has to compete with sports for a youths time. More often than not it is the PARENTS who are making the decision for the kids.

Many times the boy would rather be at Scouts, having fun and learning without pressure, than at the Baseball game where people are yelling at them to perform. I have just such a boy, that it wasnt until we sat the PARENTS down and explained that there boy needs to PARTICIPATE in Scouts to advance (which was important to the boy) that they realized they was placing such a heavy emphasis on sports. Since than he has been to more meetings and campouts and is really enjoying himself.

 

Like anything in life there is a line that has to be drawn in order for people to know what is acceptable behavior and what is not. I think the >50% rule, although I recognize that it is not an official BSA policy (and it should be!), can be used as a guideline for PARENTS and boys alike to judge there level of commitment to the program. School and sports coaches use it all the time to get PARENTS to guide their sons commitment to something.

 

BSA (by purposeful intent or avoidance) has always left a lot of decisions up to the individual troops (which I think is OK, because they are so diverse). If a Troop reasonably uses the >50% rule to a guide scouts commitment to Do there Best (from the ambiguous requirement Demonstrate scout spirit by living the Scout Oath); sorry guys, but I dont see the down side.

 

 

 

[Eamonn]

So Herms the take home message I get from what you say is:

It is OK not to play the game by the rules. What the heck we will just make up our own set of rules.

We should rewrite the Scout Oath to include a line about not only keeping the Scout Law but also some rule that isn't part of the BSA.

I don't think so.

Eamonn

[Bob White]

Herms

Scout A- Attends two troop meetings in a row and the Campout that weekend. While at the troop meetings he was disruptive. He was caught wandering through a class room in a section of the meeting place where he should not have been. No uniform or handbook. At the campout he snuck out of his tent and played pranks on other scouts during the night. He did not participate willingly in any of the patrol chores and forgot to pack many of the items needed for camping.

 

Scout B missed one of the troop meetings because his family volunteered to to serve food that evening at a shelter for the homeless. While at the second meeting he put on a packing demo for the New Scout patrol and helped to clean the meeting room after the troop meeting had ended.

 

The weekend of the campout he was competing in the IHSA Sectionals in High School Swimming and on Sunday was scheduled as an Alter Server at church. So he was unable to make this campout.

 

By your troop rules Scout A has better Scout Spirit because WHY? He was there 100% of the time? The Scout Oath does not say "do your best" it says "Do your best to do your duty, to God and your Country". Nothing about to your troop. Scout Spirit, as instructed in the Scout Handbook, The Scoutmaster handbook and in Scoutmaster Training, is about "Living by the Oath and Law in Your Everyday Life"

 

Now I ask you to consider. Which Scout Lived by the Oath and Law? The one with 100% attendance. Or the one with 33% attendance who was "helping other people", "doing his duty to God", and "keeping himself physically strong". Scout B was trustworthy, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, clean, and reverent. But your "rule" will reject all of that, because he wasn't even there even 49.9% of the time.

 

Attendance rules cannot measure scout spirit. Attendance rules cannot measure activity. Attendance counts bodies, and that is all it does.

 

You can only judge activity and spirit on an individual basis by knowing and considering the individaul boy.

 

Bob White(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[EagleInKY]

The only fallacy in the Scout A & B example is that you looked at Scout B over a very short period of time. You could have an all-star football player that seldome makes a troop meeting in the fall, but is around for the rest of the year. You need to evaluate participation over the long haul. I've never seen a scout like "B" that performed that way over a long period of time. (I have seen an "A" before).

[Herms]

Eamonn and Bob,

 

You two are very knowledgeable in the ways of scouting, and I respect and value your advice. However, we all know what the intent of this kind of "rule" is, to get kids active in scouts.

 

Everything is not black and white all the time; there are always shades of gray, which no official BSA policy addresses. With our troop as I explained, there are exceptions. Let's use school for example. If a child misses school, he will get to make up the work if he has and "excused" absence. However, if he makes a choice not to come to school the "unexcused" absences doesn't let him make up the work and ultimately maybe not graduate. In sports, you go to practice or you don't play. In life you go to work, or you don't get paid. Consequences for actions are something that many kids are lacking in today's society (look at Scout A).

 

You make it sound like the >50% rule is the ONLY thing troops, such as ours, are using to measure scout spirit. It is but a small portion (there is all the rest of the Oath and Law they must uphold!), a way to tell boys (AND PARENTS!!) of the participation expectations (like school and sports).

 

What physical measurement do we as SM/ASMs have to judge a boys Scout Spirit? In Bobs example Scout A would seem easy right? Do we know how he is at home or at school? For all we know he could be very respectful and obedient at home and a joy of a student, and uses his scout time to release. Scout B, is not at the meeting, but would get an excused absence if you will, because he is doing things that show scout spirit.

 

Again I ask what other physical measurement do we have that shows us that a scout is demonstrating Scout Spirit? The only time we have to observe him is during his participation. Does a scout show Scout Spirit if he only shows up to the swimming night or for campouts, yet you never see him for a service project, or to help other boys at meetings (because the baseball game was more important)?

 

Consequences of actions. Is this adding to the requirement or living up to the full intent of the requirement? We can quote from the book all day long, but in the end we must(with the help of parents and the committee of course) each individually decide on the best interests of our boy's, and our troop.

 

(Sorry everyone that I got so long winded, good things to think about)(This message has been edited by Herms)

[Scoutmaster Ron]

Bob,

So if a troop had the 50% rule in their by-laws and a scout challenged this denial of advancement would it be overturned?

 

Personally at first I thought active means showing up and participating but your message really has me re-thinking.

[Eagle5]

Fellow Scouters,

Concur with most of you.

Would like to offer my thoughts to all and especially dluders.

 

-Scoutmaster Authority. Watch the line between troop committee advice and Scoutmaster responsibility. I believe the Scoutmaster should have the latitude to decide whether to kill, accept, or use this 50% mark as a benchmark as one of you suggested. Would be a shame to me if the Scoutmaster was forced to live with a policy he didn't believe in in his heart--one that violates his personal spirit of Scouting.

 

-Carrot or Stick? I appreciate the comments about the utility of such a policy. Scouting values are values based around character, integrity, trust, judgement, etc... There must be better ways (carrot) to encourage better/more active involvement. The word attendance scares me, and reminds me of small men managing the letter of the law. Scouting is anything but this, I HOPE! A hard and fast 50% policy seems too much like a stick. Any pop psychologist can tell you that you get more flies with honey. BSA national guidelines aside, individual achievements, learning, growth, and mentorship must, yes MUST, be tailored to each boy as many of you articulated. Correct is the notion of "Just Say NO to Cookie Cutter Scouting."

 

-The Standard. BSA national guidance, in my humble opinion, leaves this aspect of advancement open to individual interpretation, hopefully grounded in an environment of situational awareness tailored to each boy. So where are the left and right hand limits so that dluders can at least hit the target on this issue? The suggestion of 50% as a Benchmark is the only practical suggestion I've heard. All comments are good, but this Scoutmaster has to get down to the business of leading his troop. My only additional recommendation here is to get every single adult/parent sponsor for every boy in the troop involved in a troop-wide vote.

My experience has taught me that troop committee meetings are often attended by 'Paper Tigers'--men who are more comfortable with spreadsheets, statistics, and verbal discourse. These men can oftentimes be out of touch with the salient and dynamic issues of leading scouts to become men of character. Might prove worthwhile and powerful to solicit imput from every parent with of a scout in this troop. I do believe there is such a thing as a silent majority.

 

-Annual PERSTEMPO. One of you hit the nail on the head by highlighting that the reality of Scouting involvement is seasonal, at best. Few boys appply themselves to Scouting in a steady/consistent fashion--to think they do, or see them as little robotic performing artists is foley, at best. My point here is who knows whether a Scout deserves advancement or not? I hope that the ASM for that boy's patrol and the Scoutmaster are where the rubber meets the road. I'd suggest that, IF NOT, you might just have a 'Paper Tiger' troop.

Yours in Scouting, Eagle5

[Bob White]

Everything is not black and white all the time; there are always shades of gray, which no official BSA policy addresses. With our troop as I explained, there are exceptions.

 

So if you are willing to consider variances based on individual circumstances it's not really a rule is it?

 

So why not just base your goals and evaluations on the individual needs and characteristics of each scout, and forget about typing a rule that you dont actually stick to?

[Hunt]

Is there any real difference between the following formulations, or is it just semantics:

 

"Scout, our troop has a rule that you have to attend at least 50% of meetings and events in order to be considered active. The SM has the authority to relax this requirement in unusual cases."

 

"Scout, for your next rank there's a requirement that you be "active" in the troop. Although it isn't specifically defined, I'm sure you'll agree that it should mean that you're here most of the ti

[Bob White]

I see it as a HUGE difference.

 

Being present (in attendance), and being active are two completely different things.

 

There is no attendance requirement in scouting. If you read the handbook it tells the scout that to be active you have to be there. If the BSA wanted to specify an amout they could have easily done so. The time is left unstructured purposefully to allow for the needs and activities of each scout to be weighed individually.

 

The SM needs to talk to each scout. Setting any required % is no different then setting a minimum number of pull ups required for the fitness requirement. You cannot alter the advancement requirements. Let the scout (through cousing and advise with the SM committ himself to activity in the patrol and troop.