fred8033

bnelon44: - Thanks for the great write ups. I've stayed silent for a few days as I'm trying to find the specifics. I was looking for either a physical or PDF version of the 1936 and/or 1947 scoutmaster handbooks. I agree with what your saying. In my job, you never have those doing the work also doing the quality control evaluation of the work. Anyway, it is always interesting to hear what Hillcourt really said as people often attribute differently to people who are not there to speak for themselves.

BSA24 - Nice points. Right attitude. Thanks.

My top list is ... - Yelling - Threatening "One more time and you go home" more than once every few years - Lack of sense of humor - Lack of youthful attitude - Lack of adventurours attitude - Inability to de-escalate problems - Inability to coach the youth leaders - Skills - Not knowing. Not teaching. Not testing. - Burnout

Our troop has had eleven eagle scouts in the last eight years. Way more then we've ever had before. But it's because the troop geared up the program and we had two groups of scouts that were really good friends and inspired each other. Only one scout was close to being borderline on activities or other requirements. And then that scout went on to be a great troop guide for another year. All the other scouts far exceeded any minimum Eagle standard. Between merit badge and rank requirements, there are about 280 check points to earn Eagle. I agree with BadenP when he wrote the issue is that "Signing off requirements when those same troop leaders know the boy has not learned them properly/correctly in the first place, but approve a substandard effort anyway." You could add more requirements, but that won't help weak programs. But it would make Eagle really hard in troops that deliver a strong program. If there is something to be addressed, it's focusing on improving the testing. Perhaps, it means waiting time between learning and testing. Perhaps it means examination boards or similar. I really don't know. And I'm not sure if I'd rally like a change. But if there is a place to improve advancement ... it's at the testing step.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Not to take this thread down a different track but .... Merit badge approval is another place that BSA has tried to write clearly, but it takes a bit to understand when to say yes and no. But I did find last night another article that addressed it. Written by BSA national Advancement Team. Published to council and district advancement chairs. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/advancement_news/512-075_March.pdf "Above all, the most important aspect of requiring the Scoutmaster to sign the blue card is that it affords another opportunity for a quality visit between an adult and a Scout. Remember that the starting point for this interview should be for the Scoutmaster to say yes to the Scouts merit badge request (a no might only come if there are obvious reasons for denial). But more important than the yes is the opportunity for a unit leader and Scout to share in a quality adult-youth moment." From what I take, the approval is more for the conversation and the conferencing and less about blessing the blue card.

BNelson44 wrote: "From the Handbook for Scoutmasters 1947 (Author is listed as William Hillcourt):" Now that's funny. People always use Hillcourt as a father figure who created a great scouting program that has now been corrupted by the ignorance of current BSA national staff. It's funny when you find that Hillcourt wrote differently. I really think people remember their past experiences different than it actually was. They put their past leaders on a pedastal. I think we can remember the past with respect and happy memories, but should try to work together toward the program BSA documents.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

The COR is a good person to coordinate packs and troops under the same charter org. He has a right to be there and I don't think people would be offended if he was there. If you have different charter orgs, you have a harder battle to fight.

TAHAWK wrote: "If there has been no actual accomplishment, what are we "recognizing"?" No one's talking no actual accomplishment. He did his project. He did has merit badges. He did his POR. If POR, then he did his active time. Just not as active with his last troop as some would want. The issue is that he didn't do more than required and he didn't do most with his current troop. He just did the requirements as documented. "Can we not, at a base minimum look at effort?" Depends. The adult leaders have approximately 280 opportunities to evaluate the scout (i.e. requirements). And to be honest, only a few requirements explicitly include effort as a criteria. POR being one. 20 nights of camping as another. Purchasing food as another.

TAHAWK wrote: "If there has been no actual accomplishment, what are we "recognizing"?" No one's talking no actual accomplishment. He did his project. He did has merit badges. He did his POR. If POR, then he did his active time. Just not as active with his last troop as some would want. The issue is that he didn't do more than required and he didn't do most with his current troop. He just did the requirements as documented. "Can we not, at a base minimum look at effort?" Depends. The adult leaders have approximately 280 opportunities to evaluate the scout (i.e. requirements). And to be honest, only a few requirements explicitly include effort as a criteria. POR being one. 20 nights of camping as another. Purchasing food as another.

Beavah - I'm mostly fine with your last post in reply to BNelson. IMHO though, the focus is in the wrong place. It's not the BOR's job to make sure the scout knows the skill or did a good job. It's the guy/gal authorized to sign off on the requirement. The whole program falls apart when the steps aren't done in sequence. Learn. Test. Review. Recognize. Ya review how things went so you can make the teaching and learning better. But ya don't use the review as a test because the test was done poorly or the tester is a scout and ya don't really trust the scout. Ya trust 'em or don't trust 'em. There is no try ... and no oh we can catch it later at the BOR.

Beavah - Your mixing your metaphors and confusing Physics Laws with inspirational statements. We're debating advancement because you can violate the rules. "Conservation of Energy" is a Physics law and it can't be violated. Ya can't create get more energy out of a system than put in. Ya can't go faster than the speed of light. But, ya can go rogue with advancement. "Proficiency demands that yeh understand and be able to apply general principles in different contexts..." Absolutely agree. ... But wait! General principles? I thought you just said the were laws? Not some vague general thing. Anyway... That's why BSA doesn't leave us with only two or three sentences to guide advancement. That's why BSA wrote the GTA and went to the trouble to explain "shall" and "must" and "should" and "can". The GTA is our educational guide on how to apply the general principles. I don't have trouble keeping focus on the general principles. Heck, I use the GTA to help guide me toward those general principles. I do have trouble when someone thinks it's necessary to violate the specific to honor the general.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Beavah wrote: - "Qwazse has what I think is the real issue. Most of our boys spend more than the allotted time working on ranks. That's generally the way of things in any troop worth its salt. " I think that hits it on the head. We spend much time arguing the boundary cases. In reality, most Eagle scouts have had plenty of PORs, nights of camping, activities, etc. When I think about our last five years of Eagle scouts, there wasn't one that had less than a hundred nights of camping and an extra year of PORs. We argue over edge cases when things happen

Beavah wrote: - "Yah, I have no problem with the trite little "Guardian at the Gate" article and would agree with the author. But it would be improper to believe that a reflection by one individual represented da views of the entire BSA. " Trite? Really. Improper to use as guidance? ... Ummm ... It's published by the BSA Advancement Team to clarify advancement. It's published to local council and district advancement committees. The BSA advancement team preface says "Occasionally we run across material written by council volunteers that does more to explain the Boy Scouts of Americas advancement program than any of us at the national level have been able to create." Beavah - "General Principles" and "Administration" ... So your saying you can discount very directly specific BSA GTA instructions because you see general statements having a higher calling? That's a pretty slipper slope that just doesn't hold up to the light of day. Your creating your own justification to create the program you want and not the program BSA designed. Heck you say it yourself. "The Guidebook is just a guidebook in that regard." Really! Would you be okay with me using this BSA advancement team guidance? http://www.scouting.org/filestore/advancement_news/512-075_Feb.pdf ... "Mandated Procedures and Recommended Practices" ... "The new Guide to Advancement clearly identifies mandated procedures with words such as must and shall. Where such language is used, no council, committee, district, unit, or individual has the authority to deviate from the procedures covered without the written permission of the national Advancement Team. Recommended best practices are offered using words like should, while other options and guidelines are indicated with terms such as may or can. ... It seems that BSA wants the GTA to be much more than just a take-it-or-leave-it guide. Beavah wrote: "yeh don't yet have a depth of experience" - "yeh have to let go of the book thumping and think a bit on your own" ... Yeah, but fifty years of out-of-date training or misguided experience doesn't help either. That's why we do have BSA publications. That's why we read books. Book thumping is necessary when responding to people who go awall on the program. Once everyone has a common agreement (i.e. the BSA program), that's when we can start thinking on our own. ... Beavah - It comes down to you want a different advancement program. "it was done better when we honored ..." and "some national folks who just got lost in da trees..." let go of the book thumping..." You want a different program. I'm fine with that. It's a valuable debate that should never end and we will all benefit from. I can see pluses and minuses of scouts on BORs. I can see pluses and minuses with an examination oriented BOR. If that's what you want, argue for it with BSA. Promote change. But ya don't go rogue and pretend to be the honorable wise old scouter. Ya don't promote the value of advancement, but not the BSA advancement. Ya don't put Eagle on a platform, but ... ummm ... not the current BSA Eagle. ... And you don't advise scouters who commit to the BSA program with advice that contradicts BSA. Ya need to work within the program until you can get the program to change. That's how you become the honorable wise old scouter.

I wish I would have known about these BSA published articles earlier. Read the one on active. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/advancement_news/512-075_March.pdf SpencerCheatham wrote: "I still do not think this young man should advance to Eagle. It is not a reflection of his character. He is a polite, intelligent, reverent, hard working young man who lives the Scout spirit outside of Scouting. My issue is just that. He made choices which did not make Scouts a priority. These choices meant he was not there as a role model to inspire other Scouts; not there to be a PL or SPL; not there when other Scouts needed him for their service projects; and not there to congratulate or encourage his fellow Scouts when they met or failed a challenge. " "He lives the scout spirit outside of scouting." ... Isn't that exactly the BSA mission. SpencerCheatham wrote: "Instead he chose to be more active in other extracurricular activities. There is nothing wrong with this choice, however there are consequences to choices and I feel the consequences for non-participation in scouts should be the inability to receive the prestigious rank of Eagle. The opposite demeans the rank. " So he met the explicit requirements. And he currently lives scout oath outside of scouting. I think at this point, reading BSA's "Guardian of the gate" really applies. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/advancement_news/512-075_Feb.pdf ... At some point we all need to ask ourselves if your promoting what BSA's program or what you want BSA's program to be.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Ulitimately it's attitude and power control. I recently found a really great article about that. Published by BSA for their advancement teams. Read "Guardian of the Gate" in the BSA Feb 2012 Advancement News. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/advancement_news/512-075_Feb.pdf ... Beavah - Congratulations in drawing a picture of an advancement program, but it's not the BSA advancement program. Your picture is less about describing the right program and much more about justifying a BOR power trip. Now if you want to argue BSA's advancement is wrong. That's fine. If you want to argue GTA needs to change, fine. But I think BNelson had it right when he said if you want to understand the BSA BOR, then read the GTA section 8. http://scouting.org/scoutsource/GuideToAdvancement/BoardsofReview.aspx And I'd add read section 4.2.1.0. And I'd reflect on the writings until they read as internally consistent. Beavah wrote: - "Now, to my mind, I personally think those conversations have a better feel and tone and are more effective when the review is done by youth leaders and scouters who know the lad, because the boy really wants to earn credit and respect in their eyes, where the lad really doesn't care as much about the troop committee and the committee doesn't know him as well." ... That's not the program. Why are you recommending something that's directly contradicting explicit BSA statements. See GTA section 8.0.2.0. Beavah wrote: - "At some fraction of those BORs, the board determines a boy is ready to advance. At many or most of the rest, they review the boy's progress and help him focus." - Huh? I wanted to say your not explicitly wrong, but ... you are. "At many or most of the rest" - no. 99% of BORs do find the scout ready to advance and 100% of BORs exist to do the review for advancement. Now you can probably convene a BOR for some other purpose. Probably no rule against it. But of course BSA does not define rules or guidelines for extra things added to the program. BSA only describes BSA's rules and guidelines for BORs. See GTA section 8.0.0.1 and section 4.2.1.0. Beavah wrote: - "If a lad has a requirement signed off but he indicates he really has forgotten the skill, they advise him on how to review and re-learn." Huh? Your describing your own version of BOR or some BOR version from scouting history. BOR is a review. See section 4.2.1.0 (and sub sections). To enter a BOR per GTA 8.0.0.1, the requirements are done. He's been tested. GTA says "After a Scout has completed the requirements for any rank or Eagle Palm, he appears before a board of review." AFTER Now if the scout forgot a skill, that's feedback saying that the troop isn't doing enough to re-inforce skills. And it's just natural to not retain 100% of what is taught. That's life. The point is he was tested (step 3 in advancement ... GTA section 4.2.1.2) BEFORE THE BOR. The BOR is now guided by GTA section 4.2.1.3. Also see 8.0.1.2 "What should be discussed". Beavah wrote: - "If the lad is havin' difficulty, they play their part in helpin' the program find resources to help him. If they discover a weakness in his instruction and understanding, they address da program weakness and send the boy back to meet the level expected by the BSA and their program." ... Again, that's not the program. Your advocating for a scouting double jeopardy. You passed the test the first time, but now you don't. Requirements go from completed to not completed. It might be a noble attitude, but it's not the BOR program. After being tested, knowledge and skills are retained and strengthened through the unit programs. Again see GTA 8.0.0.1 PURPOSE. Also, see GTA 4.2.1.0 "Four Steps In Scout Advancement" paying special attention to the differences betwen "4.2.1.2 The Scout Is Tested" and "4.2.1.3 The Scout Is Reviewed". ... Ultimately, your going to read into the program what you want to see and if your scouts can live with it, fine. All I can do is learn to the best of my ability what BSA promotes. If you disagree with BSA, that's your choice. I just can't follow down your scouting road as that's not the program I promised to follow as a leader and it's not the program BSA documents. Again, I really suggest reading "Guardian of the Gate".

Real suggestion .... Perhaps the G2A is not the issue. Perhaps it's the training. We get lots of written words without examples and consistent training. PROPOSAL - BSA should create MyScouting.org online e-training topics grouped under "Boy SCout" --> "Advancement" and "Cub Scout" --> "Advancement". As the YP training demonstrated case examples, this training could teach advancement. Have one for MBC and include real world examples of how to interpret the requirements ... "demonstrate" ... "discuss" ... etc. Have one for BORs. Show real questions. Show real examples. Show example problem cases of when you would not pass a BOR. .... Have one for SMC. Show examples how to handle and do a SMC. ... Have one for blue cards and what to do in problem cases. ... And include quizes at the end. Just a thought.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

JMHawkins wrote: "So, short summary: define the goals not the process, and explicitly require the adult(s) approving advancement to use judgement in determining if the scout has earned the award." I think it would really help to explicitly include the goals with the requirements. I would not eliminate using requirements to "measure" advancement, but we scout leaders need more clarification on how to interpret the requirements. I believe that's a key part of the issue. Leaders using different rational to interpret the requirements to match their personal agenda. For example, some leaders believe ranks and merit badges mean "independently capable" and others use "introduced" and others use some combination. Others say the requirement must be demonstrated once and others mean it should be demonstratable on demand at any time. Heck when I read the G2A wording, the advancement interpretations seem pretty clear. Yet when others read it, they hear something very different. Different to the point that I really wonder where they are coming from and I want to actively protect my scouts from those leaders. ... I'm not sure you achieve that much more with JMHawkin's camping 9A re-write "Help your group plan and prepare for each trip. Each day perform your camp duties according to the group's Duty Roster. Sleep each night under the stars or in a portable shelter you helped set up." The re-write is just a very different requirement now. What was fairly clear though people always debated how to interpret nights now includes evaluating planning, preparation etc. I'm not saying that's a bad requirement. It's just a different debate versus how to interpret 20 nights. Yet again we get caught up in what are the goals of planning. How far to take it? Personal agendas. ... G2A is written as it is in an attempt to define a common standard for what the different ranks mean. IMHO, the whole reason is that there's a huge variety of leaders. Perhaps we need to stop expecting ranks to mean the same thing when they never have. The effort and value has always differed by both time (1960s versus 2000s) and by troop. Just like college educations are much different than they were forty years ago and Harvard is very different than most local city colleges. Join the troop you want to be in and Eagle will end up meaning what you put into it. ... People complain that there are more eagle scouts now then in the past and think it's credentialism or lowered standards. But Arthur Eldred earned eagle when BSA was 18 months old. Early 1960s eagles didn't requirement projects. Now I might agree that requirement testing was more systematic. I did hear someone say that scouts were expected to go before a BOR (or similar) to be examined on each requirement as it was completed. No quick meaningless approvals. That could be interesting and very valuable. That would be a huge hit to merit badge fairs, etc. But people have also changed. (statistics being very loose) Don't we have high school graduation rates of 85% now versus less than 50% before 1960. People going to college (not necessarily including "graduates") has more than doubled. In fact, I thought it trippled. Plus more people now recognize Eagle as something worthwhile. People tend to pursue that which is viewed valuable. The fact that we have more Eagle scouts now just does not necessarily bother me in itself. I could see increasing difficulty in areas and making other parts of scouting more relevant to today's scouts. But what does bother me is that we disagree on how to apply something like the G2A! IMHO it's not a statement that the G2A or individual requirements are written poorly. It's that we come from such a diverse background that we can't necessarily agree even on the most basic stuff. Perhaps it gets back to the age old philosophy that fences make good neighbors. Different troops makes friendly scouting. ... I need to go to bed. I'm still upset that the Celtics lost. KG rocks. He deserved another championship. Except KG didn't complete one championship requirement. Celtics lost.

bnelon44 ... I agree on your criteria. The million dollar one is "Scout did not complete a requirement even though it was signed off." IMHO, that would have to be very significant and focusing on the absolute of complete and not on the subjective analysis of the quality of the completion. It ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS reflects a mistake by the SM or by the person authorized by the SM to sign off on the requirement. Not of the type of "we don't think he learned it well enough." The person who was authorized to review and test the scout already blessed the achievement. You don't undo the completed requirements anymore than you undo ranks. GTA 8.0.1.1 Not a Retest or "Examination" makes it pretty clear that's not the job of the BOR. It would need to be more absolute such as he wasn't there he didn't do it. ASM signed in the wrong spot. Scout was never reviewed and tested. (such as in a group setting and the scout gone during the review and testing.) Maybe it was signed based on bad info from the scout. "Yeah I participated in a flag ceremony at XXXX camp" and neither the scout or the leader realizing it was important that he was a cub scout then and not yet a boy scout. Example: First class rank - Valid signature for "securing the ingredients" for a patrol camp out meal for first class rank. "secure the ingredients" means going shopping or raiding parents cabinets or harvesting from troop extras. Anything that supplies the patrol. Pass - He secured the ingredeints and it was a great meal. Pass - He secured most of the ingredients, but forgot some. Pass - He secured the ingredients, but they were poptarts, cool aid, peanut butter and donuts. Pass - He did not go on the camp out, but he did secure the ingredients and provide them to the scouts who did go. Fail - He never secured the ingredients at all, whether assigned to or not. Example: Second class rank - Valid signature for "Show what to do for "hurry" cases of stopped breathing, serious bleeding, and ingested poisoning". Pass - He can explain in detail everything about it. Pass - He can't explain the best, but he was there and was tested and passed by an SM authorized signer. Fail - Someone mistakenly signed off on it thinking they were signing something else. Fail - He wasn't there even though the authorized signer thought he was there. Fail - He was never originally tested on the skills and the authorized signer thought he had been tested. If there is something I'd use as discretionary / subjective it's this from the GTA "A positive attitude is most important, and that a young man accepts Scouting's ideals and sets and meets good standards in his life." ... But this would reflect a more delicate discussion that may or may not result in a pass. But it would need to be pretty significant for me to fail him. More than just a rude or insensitive remark.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Yeah, I don't have trouble with BrentAllen's approach either. Documented expectations. An honest effort to work in the boundaries of the printed BSA program. My issue is when leaders acknowledge the printed requirements but willingly go rogue to refuse to acknowledge when the scout has earned advancement. IMHO, it's not about quality of the program. It's about power control and disempowering the scout.

Duplicate.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Duplicate.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Yeah, I don't have trouble with BrentAllen's approach either. Documented expectations. An honest effort to work in the boundaries of the printed BSA program. My issue is when leaders acknowledge the printed requirements but willingly go rogue to refuse to acknowledge when the scout has earned advancement. IMHO, it's not about quality of the program. It's about power control and disempowering the scout.

BORs don't really determine if scout advances or not in the typical "awarding" mentality. They are checking all requirements were completed, encouraging advancement and reviewing how the troop did with the scout so that the troop can improve the program. If all BOR members don't agree the scout completed the requirements, they are to identify in writing the specific requirements the scout failed to meet and what needs to be done to complete those requirements. SMCs don't really determine if a scout advances at a SMC. The SMC requirement is to have a SMC. There is no requirement to PASS an SMC. With that being said, many scoutmaters reserve signing off on the scout spirit requirement to themselves and will only do that during the SMC. But even that is a conversation with the scout mostly reviewing himself with guided conversation from the SM. ... And now the large debate starts.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Brent Great comments. Cool. I'm really okay with everything you wrote. ... I really like the pay in advance for camp outs. It would be an interesting approach. Less work. More incentive to attend. Not sure we could do it as our events cost about $30 for a weekend. QUESTION - If a scout does not attend an event, does not sign up and lets you know he won't be able to attend, does he get a refund or credit to his account? Or is it a pre-paid use it or lose it approach. ... Anyway ... I really like your approach on things. Nice. Peter

Brent - I'm okay with what your saying. For inactive, I'm hearing specific measurable critieria. For high standards, I'm hearing you don't re-register inactive scouts. I would not necessarily choose the same, but it seems consistent and within your troops rights to set such a policy. ... #1 Your "active" definition seems reasonable. "... misses 4 consecutive meetings/activities/outings with notification ...." I would chose differently, but it seems reasonable, measurable and sounds like it is written down and communicated. Fine I'm sure there will be still challenges such as if scouts don't sign up for activities and outings, do they need to give notice they are not going? Is it assumed everyone participates in everything? Or is notice only needed for an activity / outing only needed if you signed up saying you would go. Pretty much reduces it to four troop / plc meetings. What if the scout says to the PL "I've got alot of homework tonight and can't make it." But the PL doesn't tell the SPL or records it elsewhere? Will there be an attendance form to be filled out by each PL and then reviewed by the SPL / SM? Is notice supposed to be email or other? I'm just saying that some scouts don't stand up for their rights as strongly as others do. It's hard to be equally fair to all. What if the scout says to the PL "I've got alot of homework tonight and can't make it.". If he had not given notice for three meetings, now he just reset the consecutive unnotified absences active window. Scouts could stay active for years by only giving notice once every four troop meetigs and thus being deemed active for years without doing anything as a scout. What if his parent is on the ball and drops an email to the SM saying the scout will be absent. It's notification. I can't see not accept the parent saying the scout will be gone or not use it for notice. The scout hasn't done anything, but will still be active. Yet another interesting point. IMHO, you almost need to remove the notice part. It just teaches scouts to be good with excuses or getting others to cover for them. It removes the teeth from the policy. How about something such as scouts will be considered inactive after any month in which they do not participate in any scouting event: meeting, plc, activity or outing. Easy to administer. No tracking notices. No favoring those scouts who have a good communication channel and those who don't. Again your rule is reasonable. I'm just being a devil's advocate. ... #2 Membership. I do like how you apply the high standard. Right up front. To be a member of your troop scouts are expected to participate. If scouts don't, then you won't be recharter them. Again, I don't necessarily want to be in that troop. But I recognize your troop's right to define such membership expectations. And there are benefits. Devil's advocate: So a scout becomes inactive for some reason (sports, school play, academics, church, job, etc) for say three months ... DURING THE RECHARTERING TIME. Really? I'm betting you will encounter adult leaders in your troop that will argue against unregistering specific scouts. It will be difficult to do it without creating hard feelings. Plus now to become active again, the scout needs to fill out a new application to join the troop. It would be interesting to see how that plays out. I'd bet some attend to avoid that reprecussion. Or give better notice. I'd bet others use it as an excuse to end their scouting careers. But if you do recharter them, now they are pretty much determined to be "active". Heck per your own words, you wouldn't recharter inactive scouts. So rechartering is a troop statement of the scout being active. Again, I prefer to leave the scouts on the roster if we think they like scouting and will participate in activities at the level they can. Have scouting be their safe haven. Scouts go through alot of stuff during their transition from 11 years old to 18 years old. Girls and jobs. Alcohol and drugs. Death, divorce and disease. It's nice to have scouting there for them ... both to grow while in the program ... and as a friendly safe haven to retreat into when problems occur ... and as something they can have as part of themselves that that stands for high values and high expectations. They might not be as involved as you want, but I've seen it helpful for the boy to identify himself as a scout. The boy makes better choices in life. This last reason itself has proven valuable in the past. .... Anyway, your policies seem reasonable. Nice job. It's a good step forward. I don't think you will avoid all challenges. But at least it's published and communicated.(This message has been edited by fred8033)