Re: The real factor is......
Bruce E. Cobern (bec@PIPELINE.COM)
Thu, 1 Jul 1999 09:54:51 -0400
From: Joseph T Gulick <troop212@JUNO.COM>
Date: Thursday, July 01, 1999 4:43 AM
>1) I use the ones in the book as well, but I hold the Scout
accountable
>to LEARNING the requirements as the book prescribes, and then allowing
>the Scout to show his ability in the Scoutmaster's Conference. This is
>how you can tell if a Scout has EARNED any rank.
But, if you read the literature, like the SM Handbook, etc. you will
discover that the SM Conference is NOT the place to determine whether
the Scout has learned the skill. The time to discover that is BEFORE it
is signed off, and that determination, just like with a merit badge,
should be made by the person doing the signing. The UNIT decides, for
each requirement, who is authorized to sign off, and the SM is
specifically charged with maintaining that list. (It is less clear
whether the decision about who is on the list is also the SM's, but that
is a different matter.) The purpose of the SM Conference, if I remember
what's in the books correctly, is primarily a review of the Scout's
experiences, both in and out of Scouting, for the main purpose of
providing encouragement and setting goals, again, both in and out of
Scouting. If you find it necessary to retest Scouts on skills they have
already been tested on then the only thing you are telling me is that
there is a quality control problem amongst those in the troop who are
signing off requirements.
Now, I absolutely agree that before a requirement is signed off the
signer should be satisfied that the Scout actually knows and understands
the material and has not just memorized something for five minutes so he
can parrot it back, but the place to obtain that assurance is not at the
SM conference or at the Board of Review, but at the time of original
testing.
I know that many troops for some reason feel a NEED to retest their
Scouts and when it became obvious that it shouldn't and couldn't be done
at the Boards of Review they moved this process "down" to the SM
conference. Well, IMO, it doesn't belong there either. I have asked,
at least once, for ANYONE to point me to something in the current
literature which indicates that this type of testing should take place
at a SM conference and, so far, have had absolutely NO responses.
>Why simply just pass a
>Scout off for a rank just because it is signed off in the book.
Because the signature in the book indicates that he HAS completed the
requirement. If he was improperly signed off that is the problem of the
signer and the Scout should not be penalized because someone else did
not do his job.
Does no
>one use the Scoutmaster's Conference, Scout Spirit(new wording
>currently),
Well, the current wording of that requirement specifically deals with
living the Oath and Law in daily life, so what happens in Scouting is
only a small part of it. My recollection is that the wording was
changed to what it is specifically to prevent units from using this as a
catch-all method to delay advancement by units that really just wanted
to add requirements, like percentage attendance, etc.
and the Board of Review to determine a Scout's readiness to
>pin on a rank??
The purpose of the Board is NOT to retest the Scout on his skills. It
is, rather, to allow the board and the Scout to each examine his
Scouting experience as it relates to the intangibles, like character,
citizenship, and fitness, the three aims of Scouting. It is further,
and perhaps more importantly, designed to allow the troop committee to
evaluate how well the leadership is administering the Scouting program
in the troop by seeing the product of that program.
Is a board a rubber stamp? Not necessarily, but the number of times a
Scout is not successful should be very few and very far between. I
think that in about 25 years as a district advancement chairman I have
only had 3 or 4 who were not successful on their first Eagle Boards, and
I consider that 3 or 4 too many.
It would seem that many are opposed to these last 3
>requirements from the flaming e-mails I have received, but that is what
>the requirements are there for, use them. Anything less would take
away
>from the Scout's achievement.
NONE of those three requirements are there to allow a retesting of a
Scout's skills.
>I apologize for members of this list and in the Scouting Community in
>general who can't conceive the idea of a Scout EARNING a rank or the
>Eagle. I could just pass off a Scout for a rank, but it wouldn't be
fair
>to him or to other Scouts. I hate the idea that many Scouters have
>e-mailed to me saying that we should do just that, let Scouts have a
>free-ride.
I have seen NO posts that in any way suggest not having a Scout EARN his
rank. The question, which is the question that Steve asked you in his
post, is what, beyond doing what is written in the book, and doing it
well, do you define as being necessary before YOU feel that a Scout has,
in fact, EARNED his rank?
--
Bruce E. Cobern
mailto:bec@pipeline.com
