Fred Johnson wrote:QUESTION - Can troops now with BSA blessing define expected attendance percentages?
Yes. But the term is "reasonable expectations"
QUESTION - Can you confirm that it's a question of being active during the qualifying time period, such as six months after earning star for life rank? A scout could have satisfactory attendance for six months, then fall away for a year or two. On return, the scout would not need to re-qualify for those attendance percentages. He could go right to his SMC/BOR if the other requirements are completed.
That is also correct. Although "falling away for a year or two is cause for a SMC
Since it is at the troop discretion, I think our troop will not change. Our troop's approach has been that it's very difficult to complete advancement requirements without being active. What's wrong with that? Even though we can now add unit expectations, why do it? It only causes scouts to fail. I don't agree. In our troop, if the scout has completed the other advancement requirements ... and is registered and not dismissed from the troop, then the scout is active.
For other troops, it seems that this makes it very advisable for smart leaders and parents to promote quick advancement as scouts may not be able to meet attendance percentages later. A good example is my 17 year old son. He's got 180+ nights of camping with the troop, but has done little in his troop in the last eight months. He doesn't have much else going on. He's just a bit burnt out right now. He's been a life scout for over two years and is suffering high school senior-itis. Luckily, he's a life scout and has his time in. But if he was a star scout, he might (depending on the specific troop) need to re-qualify for "active" even though he has 180+ camping nights.
smtroop168 wrote:This is all about setting "reasonable expectations". This was written because of the number of units who were setting "unreasonable expectations" and driving kids away.
razor_strop wrote:As long as I'm committee chair and my COR doesn't change, our unit will continue to use the old "active" standard as we consider it reasonable and gives the advantage to the Scout, not the adults setting up additional rules. However, even under the old 'black & white' standard of 'active' units frequently violated the rules; I'm concerned that the current policy gives a green light for units to ignore the 'reasonable expectations' wording just like they ignored the old standards, and now a Scout doesn't have the back up of BSA policy to fight unreasonable issues.
At the end of the day, my sphere of influence is very small. I'll do my best to ensure the troop is there to support the Scout, and not the other way around.
smtroop168 wrote:As painful as it might be but a couple of Star/Life BOR appeals to councils will get the unit under the spotlight on their lack of reason.
smtroop168 wrote:Also SE need to have some backbone to remove leaders who continue to follow their own rules.
Fred Johnson wrote:smtroop168 wrote:As painful as it might be but a couple of Star/Life BOR appeals to councils will get the unit under the spotlight on their lack of reason.
Painful is the right word. I hope I'd be right minded to take such a correction well. But a unit that needs correction probably won't receive it well. Essentially, a scout who appeals over their own unit is burning a bridge with their unit leadership. That's why it works for Eagle. The scout can be essentially done. For Star/Life, it might result in finding another troop.smtroop168 wrote:Also SE need to have some backbone to remove leaders who continue to follow their own rules.
Yeah, right. We've just reached the point where you can't re-charter leaders unless the leaders are youth protection trained. But leaders are still not required to be trained in their leadership position. Also, many of our leaders are former military or religious teachers. There's two groups that I could see having very different interpretations of "reasonable".
I just can't see an SE removing a SM for using their own interpretation of "reasonable."
Again my apologies if I seem harsh. I very much like the new GTA.
a. Attend at least 75 percent of your ship’s meetings and special activities for 18 months.
FrankJ wrote:If I was arguing for number less than that, I would certainly bring it up as a BSA standard. But then I am a renegade; I don't think you can attach a firm percentage to active.
FrankJ wrote:I hope it was clear that I was not really suggesting 75% (or any other hard number) for the Boy Scouts.
From reading the new active requirement though, it's clear that active is suppose to mean something. If the scout does not meet the stated expectation of the troop, the scout needs to provide a convincing explanation that his other activities meets the intention of "active". See mid first column of page 22. It is the tail end of the 3rd alternative.
smtroop168 wrote:If the BSA wanted to attach an exact number to "setting reasonable expectations for attendance and participation" they would have.
FrankJ wrote:I hope it was clear that I was not really suggesting 75% (or any other hard number) for the Boy Scouts. ....
FrankJ wrote:The GTA also talks about SeaScouts in the active section. The written requirement for Quartermaster (the eagle equivalent rank) is:a. Attend at least 75 percent of your ship’s meetings and special activities for 18 months.
So that must be a reasonable standard? If I was arguing for number less than that, I would certainly bring it up as a BSA standard. But then I am a renegade; I don't think you can attach a firm percentage to active.
AquilaNegra2 wrote: The previous GTA had a specific section detailing that troops should not expect high schoolers to maintain the same attendance. Has this now gone away?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests