Follow
A significant addition the Guide to Advancement walks us through the sometimes thorny issue of evaluating active Scouts. I have struggled at times, as have many of us, with judging how to interpret this requirement. The guide has made this process simple and clear.
Evaluating the ‘active requirement is a three step process:
1. Is the Scout registered?
2. Is the Scout in good standing?
3. Has he met the expectations of his unit?
The first two steps are pretty cut and dried. “Good Standing” means that the Scout has not been excluded from membership by the unit, council or national; all very rare circumstances.
Step three is also pretty simple. If your unit has a metric for activity (a percentage of outings or meetings for example) and the scout meets them you are done. If he does not you must have an alternative path to fulfilling the requirement that recognizes influences outside of Scouting. These are carefully described to recognize that Scouts are not able to control some circumstances. We are also required to recognize activities outside of Scouting that are cooperative with Scouting’s aims.
The end of the matter is that metrics alone cannot evaluate ‘active’; we are not in competition with school, sports, church and other worthwhile influences in a Scout’s life – we cooperate with them.
The National Advancement Team has gone to great lengths to set out a concise, definitive set of standards that put many of these things to rest. I applaud their efforts.
Attaching a number to active participation is a common practice; one that I do not advocate personally. Many find these kinds of metrics useful in evaluating a Scout’s completion of the requirement. I still think that the Scout himself is his own best standard. I ask if he thinks he has been active enough to fulfill the requirement and I ask him to support his answer. In my experience this is a more effective way to evaluate than applying numbers.
I don’t pay attention to “active” very much. I guess that when I’m in charge as Scoutmaster, they are either “active” or somewhere else. I’m really not much for retention. Scouts retain themselves. I’m about recruiting.
Some people get all worked up about the kids that leave and go somewhere else. Ok by me. I don’t worry about it. Too many of you out there are trying too hard to put your Scouts into the “school” box. Attendance rosters. Weekly quizzes. Regular exams. Grades. Metrics. Give. It. A. Rest.
I just got back from a campout with 6 Scouts and 3 adults. We took 22 Scouts to summer camp in June. Oh. MY. GOSH!!!!!! What just happened? I dont’ know and I am not concerned in the least. The active Scouts are the 6 that showed up and gained from the program. First beautiful weekend of the season. In the 50’s Friday night! Blue skies all day Saturday. Man, what a feast for the senses after a long, warm summer.
Back when my Troop had 45 to 50 Scouts, they scheduled a long weekend backpack. Wore a bunch of the Scouts out, I guess. The next month we had 7 Scouts, 3 adults and 2 vehicles. We had a nice leisurely stroll through the Ocala forest on another beautiful, clear February weekend. My take on that: 43 Scouts missed a great opportunity.
I can’t think of a single SM conference where “active” came up. If I think of an example, I’ll write… I’m trying really, really hard but I can’t think of a single one. Man, I must have been doing a bunch of stuff all wrong. Oh well.
I am right there with you. There have been maybe a handful of times this was ever an issue an that was in the long past.
You concentrate on who shows up.
CG,
I’ve come around to your way of thinking. Make the boy decide if he’s met the requirement. I can appreciate that but scouting isn’t always about just the boys.
But to be honest, I think that these metrics are more for parents than boys. I’ve seen examples were a parent sends their son for a SM conference and the SM feels that the boy has not been active and the parents think that they have. If there are written standards, conflicts can be avoided.
Like so many disputes I’ve seen in scouting, lack of communication is the root of the problem. The standards, no matter what they are, need to be presented annually to parents and scouts.
Tom
I think if you explain to parents that assessing the ‘active’ requirement is a collaborative effort with each Scout an show them that part of the Guide to Advancement regarding the way this happens that should avoid arguments. It is, after all, BSA policy.
If the unit doesn’t have a “ruler” of attendance to measure whether a boy is “active” can a boy who doesn’t come AT ALL still be considered “active”? And while non-Scouting programs complete the aims of Scouting, if you don’t know what the boy is doing (off the radar completely) how do we calculate that? And yes I have asked for a sit down meeting. They are too busy.
My thought to solve my own problem is to wait until the boy is ready to come to me. He obviously hasn’t done his leadership for Eagle. So when he discusses this with me, I can discuss how absence isn’t proof to activity. Other ideas?
Look at the three step test; he meets the first two steps right? Does he meet your units reasonable expectations? If he is not showing up that’s probably a no.
When you meet with him do not discuss – ask questions and listen to the answers carefully;
I haven’t seen you in some time; what have you been doing?
What do you think is a reasonable expectation for being considered active?
How do you think you can meet those expectations?
If you were in my shoes would you sign the requirement referring to your being an active Scout?
Why or why not?
What can I do to help you meet the expectations you’ve set for yourself?
When’s the next time we can sit and talk?
Questioning, answering, questioning, answering and lots of listening.
Wanna come be my Team’s Coach? You would do great! Thanks!