bnelon44

Lisabob

No one is suggesting we weaken advancement requirement. And the advancement requirements are much better today than in the 1970s

All Out for Scouting was a training initiative that started around 1970, it lasted a couple of years. I think there is a lot we can do in training to assist units. Brownsea-22 was the NYLT of its day. It taught a lot more skills than we do today. Probably should revisit that. However it has been pretty consistant that Scouts graduating from Brownsea-22 and NYLT are eager to lead to their troops. Which is good.

I wonder how successful the "All out for Scouting" training initiative was. My impression is that most councils are lucky if they get 30% of their unit leaders trained if they don't mandate training.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

moosetracker

You are correct there and a lot of boys try to find the easiest way to get the badge. That is human nature, and to some extent what they are taught at school.

Eagle92 provided a great link to a thread on All Out for Scouting. The Scouting Magazine article on it from Oct 1974 is here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ieAVQ-VzpzMC&lpg=RA2-PA12-IA1&dq=scouting%20magazine%20october%201974&pg=RA2-PA29#v=onepage&q&f=false

I really appreciate the reference from Eagle92

I have some of the syllabus for Bownsea-22 here:

http://bsatroop14.com/history/games(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Venividi, Eagle92, et. al

Almost all a Scout sees as far as advancement is concerned comes from his local troop or neighborhood troops. So if the local troop doesn't put out a quality program then the Scout sees Eagles matriculating who are not of sound quality.

The advancement program is just one of 8 methods that go into making an Eagle Scout. Neglecting the other 7 methods and just looking at the requirements isn't going to make a good Eagle Scout. And I think that is what these boys are seeing.

One of the ideas behind pushing FC1Y is to get the Scoutmasters concentrating on the basic camping skills that first year rather than doing what a lot of parent want which is more Webelos pins (aka merit badges.) Remember a lot of parents just ended getting their boys ALL the Webelos badges so they jump into Boy Scouting thinking their son should start racking up merit badges as quickly as possible. A good SM needs to tell them that is not where the boy should be concentraing his first year. He should be concentrating on learning to camp and take care of himself in the outdoors (aka the 1st class requirements.)

Eagle92,

I think cooking should be an Eagle Required badge. The Advancement team had a survey about that a few weeks ago an that is what I said on it. If you want to participate in their surveys, subscribe to the Advancement newsletter. You also get results from the surveys. I think on that one the majority or at least a plurality of people asked said that cooking should be added replacing an optional badge. Not sure if that will happen but that was the results I saw of that survey. You can get access to the Advanement News on this page, link is on the left:

http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/Home/BoyScouts.aspx

The latest survey seems to be active, the link is here:

https://bsa2.allegiancetech.com/cgi-bin/qwebcorporate.dll?idx=U7QSEQ

By the way, Eagle92, you mentioned you were having problems getting to BSA Rules and Regulations. Many of the BSA rules and regulations related to advancement are reprinted and start on page 75 of the Guide to Advancement.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

moosetracker

You can embellish a merit badge counseling all you want, you just can't make it mandatory to achieving the badge since that would be adding a requirement.

5yearscouter

Tell your son that his standards are good and he shouldn't judge the Eagle award by what other Scouts who may be less deserving are getting away with. He will find that a lot in life. That doesn't mean he shouldn't strive for Eagle nor that he can't make Eagle all that it is meant to be. If he thinks he is going to follow the Eagle Code for the rest of his life, and if he thinks Eagles before him (not all but some, are OK in his book, then he should go for it.)

Here are some interesting videos he should watch if interested:

http://www.nesa.org/VOSawards.html

Some interesting facts

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/marketing/doc/eaglescoutsfactsheet.docx

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/marketing/pdf/eaglescoutsinformationgraphic.pdf

Twocubdad,

"So despite my not believing in or supporting FY/FC; that I don't think FY/FC is beneficial to either the troop or the individual Scouts, and that I actively counsel my Scouts to slow down and take longer than a year to earn First Class, you're saying because we have the programs in place which could allow a Scout to earn First Class in a year despite all these objections that we have met our responsibilities under the Advancement Guidelines and can check that box? "

If you are teachinge the Scouts the basic Scoutcraft skills in 12 months, you are teaching them the 1st Class skills. So if you are not giving them the rank, why? Isn't that unfair to the boy?

Anyway, think about what the purpose of rank advancement is. It isn't to check a box in a book.

>Cool. At least you're consistent!

I try to be.

Beavah

Naw Beavah that is not what it says, it says: "Establish practices that will bring each new Boy Scout to First Class rank within a year of joining,

and then to Star rank the following year."

So create the practices = good program. That is what people are trying to say here I think.

If you guys are honest with what you are saying you already have a program in place (I think Beavah for you that would be the past tense since you are no longer active in a unit) that would lead a boy to learn how to camp in 1 year. 1st Class is basic camping and outdoor skills after all. Your not trying to tell us you don't teach your boys to camp in 12 months are you?

You guys are too hung up on the fact that people are telling you that your boys need to be 1st class after 12 months of Scouting (in other words have basic camping skills) If you guys are really taking longer than 12 months to get your guys to that level, then, maybe, just maybe, you should reexamine your program. Just an idea....

But it is an initiative, no one is going to take away your charter for not doing it.

Anyway, that it is saying is to establish practices that will bring each new Boy Scout to First Class rank within a year of joining.

Star is 5 merit badges, some leadership and some service. In a good program a Scout can earn the Star badges in 24 months. (probably a lot earlier than that)(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

twocubdad - I don't see any requirement for FCFY. It's an initiative, but I don't remember reading in GTA or any other guiding document that FCFY is any type of "requirement". Heck the term itself does not lend to a requirement statement. It's just a term around which to discuss and evaluate unit quality.

True

For a number of years now, I have looked at having a unit strive to have their Scouts achieve 1st Class in 1 year as motivation to get them to have a better troop program, not crank out 1st Class Scouts. Troops with good programs tend to produce 1st Class Scouts in less than 1 year.

Twocubdad said,

"No formulas, no inflexible rules, no added "requirements", just kids being given the opportunity to really learn a skill and to work along an adult of character while doing so. "

I keep getting back to using EDGE to teach a skill:

You Explain why the skill is important

You Demonstrate the skill

You Guide them through the skill

Twocubdad

If you allow adding to the reqirements, with an organization of 3 million, there is literally no end. You guys care about cooking. I interviewed a troop that thought engineering was the cat's pajamas. They wanted every Scout in their troop to get the engineering MB or no Eagle.

You can't have universal requirements working that way and we have had universal requirements since day 1.

Beavah wrote: "What I'm saying is that the approach to Advancment which makes yeh use words like "test" and "flunk" is wrong. It's not scouting. "

In Scouting for Boys, B-P called it a test. Here is a quote:

"Before becoming a Scout you must pass the Tenderfoot Test" -- Scouting for Boys Campfire Yarn No. 3

http://www.thedump.scoutscan.com/s4b.html

Green Bar Bill also called it an examination, see:

http://books.google.com/books?id=0GvRa3prw9kC&lpg=PA23&dq=green%20bar%20bill%20examination&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q&f=false

So I don't know where the idea came from that it isn't Scouting to call it an examination or a test????(This message has been edited by bnelon44)(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Beavah wrote: "What I'm saying is that the approach to Advancment which makes yeh use words like "test" and "flunk" is wrong. It's not scouting. "

Originally the BSA and B-P called it an examination or a test. Here is a quote from the Aids to Scoutmastership:

But the object of the Badge System in Scouting is also to give the

Scoutmaster an instrument by which he can stimulate keenness on the part

of every and any boy to take up hobbies that can be helpful in forming his

character or developing his skill.

It is an instrument which-if applied with understanding and sympathyis

designed to give hope and ambition even to the dullest and most backward,

who would otherwise be quickly outdistanced and so rendered

hopeless in the race of life. It is for this reason that the standard of proficiency

is purposely left undefined. Our standard for Badge earning is not

the attainment of a certain level of quality of knowledge or skill, but the

AMOUNT OF EFFORT THE BOY HAS PUT INTO ACQUIRE SUCH

KNOWLEDGE OR SKILLThis brings the most hopeless case on to a footing

of equal possibility with his more brilliant or better-off brother.

An understanding Scoutmaster who has made a study of his boys psychology

can thus give to the boy an encouraging handicap, such as will

give the dull boy a fair start alongside his better-brained brother. And the

backward boy, in whom the inferiority complex has been born through

many failures, can have his first win or two made easy for him so that he

is led to intensify his efforts. If he is a trier, no matter how clumsy, his

examiner can accord him his Badge, and this generally inspires the boy to

go on trying till he wins further Badges and becomes normally capable.

The examination for Badges is not competitive, but just a test for the

individual. The Scoutmaster and the examiner must therefore work in

close harmony, judging each individual case on its merits, and discriminating

where to be generous and where to tighten up.

Some are inclined to insist that their Scouts should be first-rate before

they can get a Badge. That is very right, in theory; you get a few boys pretty

proficient in this way- but our object is to get all the boys interested. The

Scoutmaster who puts his boys at an easy fence to begin with will find

them jumping with confidence and keenness, whereas if he gives them an

upstanding stone wall to begin, it makes them shy of leaping at all.

At the same time, we do not recommend the other extreme, namely,

that of almost giving away the Badges on very slight knowledge of the

subjects. It is a matter where examiners should use their sense and discretion,

keeping the main aim in view.

http://www.thedump.scoutscan.com/a2sm.pdf

Is this the opposite of what Beavah is advocating?(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Beavah said, "But if yeh wanted a general definition, something like "the boy should be able to perform the skill properly and safely, without any help or prompting and as close as possible to the actual conditions when use of the skill would be called for. "

Beavah, your describing the last step in the EDGE learning method which is currently in the Boy Scout Handbook and is what the BSA is currently teaching Scouts and adults to use when teaching skills to Scouts. There is even a Life requirement to utilize it to teach a skill to a younger Scout. I don't know if Teaching EDGE is in the GTA.

Beavah said, "A proficient scout successfully demonstrates the skill on multiple occasions separated by some period of time and changes of context, rather than simple mimicking or repeating a task just learned."

This is a deffinate add to current requirements. For many requirements you have just added considerable duration to achieving rank. For example that they, say, have to cook for their patrol multiple times, not just once, on multiple campouts. Same for building a camp gadget, using a map and compass on a hike (now your saying multiple hikes), etc., etc. This will delay advancement for all Scouts, especially those in larger patrols. Do you really think this will go over well in the field?

Not to mention how long merit badges will take to complete.

Have you actually done all this with your troop? If so, my guess is that you didn't exactly do what I just described.

(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Fred,

I think some people have a problem with the whole idea of there being any rules at all.

Anyway, on proficiency, which I don't think is in the GTA now, how would you all define it?(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Eagle92

I don't like the current version of the handbook for the reasons you have stated. I hope the next handbook will be better in that reguard.

Thanks for the link, cool stuff!

(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Twocubdad

Thanks for the summary, I think you are correct. However, I think most of what beavah is after can be handled in the requirements. In other words, you have the Scouts DO or Demonstrate, not just explain (which is what the requirement says now about food safety.) That isn't a change to the GTA.

The reason for the thread is because I have seen around here a lot of complaints about the GTA and I wanted to find out what, exactly, the issues were.

I have to teach this stuff to Scoutmasters and the more I understand potential issues the better for my job (I'm the district training chair for my districct.)

As was pointed out at the beginning of the thread if you want to get these ideas to national there is an email you can send to.

but I thought expressing them in a thread would be beneficial to the list (and to me as I try to understand issues Scoutmasters face)

And yes, I am still involved with a unit. I am the committee chair and eagle advisor for a troop in Phoenix. The same troop I was the scoutmaster for for 8+ years.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Eagle92 said: "An aside, and changing the topic a bit. BNELLON, have you too found the lack of info in the BSHB for IOLS too? "

We have always supplimented what is available in the handbooks, and have done so for decades before I was involved in training. I compiled some of the stuff here, it dates back quite a number of years.

http://www.bsatroop14.com/outdoor

Twocubdad,

Most of what Beavah pointed out were issues with how the requirements were written. Requirements are not in the GTA. Of course he did say that we should have the lattitude to change the requirements (if I understand him correctly) to fit local troop needs. Personally I think that ain't gonna happen. The idea of not changing the requirements from what is written is too ingrained into the advancement process (it has been there since day one.)

He also suggested, if I understand correctly, that the BOR should be able to retest and flunk a Scout who doesn't retain knowledge in anything he was signed off for previously (that is also Eagle92's suggestion.) That is simply not workable given the time constraints of the boy getting Eagle by 18 (see my example of him failing and EBOR and not having time to relearn a skill, or series of skills, or something he learned in a meritbadge 6 years prior, before aging out. You guys can bash one and done as much as you want, but no one has presented a workable alternative as far as advancement is concerned.

Personally I like making sure the Scout actually accomplishes the requirement on his own prior to signing him off. I also like the idea of waiting a short period of time between the learning of a skill and the examination for the skill (say a week or two).

But those are my ideas, your ideas may very.

(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

I think the paperwork associated with the Eagle project is a turn off. I notice as the paperwork increases, so does the age of new Eagles.

I don't see any problem with you working with your son. Optionally You might want to discuss it with the other Scout and encourage him to attend the sessions. But I wouldn't make getting your son signed off based upon the other scout being there. To do so would be adding to the requirements.

More information here:

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/marketing/pdf/eaglescoutsinformationgraphic.pdf

I notice a decline in the 70s. There was a general decline in membership in the 70s as well. However the requriements for Eagle changed then too.

In 1972 requirements also increased the number of merit badges required for Eagle rose to 24. However, just 10 badges were required, letting Scouts choose 14 elective badges. Changes in the required badges and lower ranks meant that in the 70s a boy could, in theory, become an Eagle Scout without ever going camping, hiking, or swimming. That ended in 1979.

The introduction of a required project was in 1965, it didn't seem to stop the growth of the number of eagles during the 60s. But that was also the height of the "baby boomer" generation being in their teens.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Getting back to the original post. Maybe if people could review the GTA and specifically suggest changes to particular sections it would be of some use to the discussion?

moosetracker,

You said "Second class 3b.

On one of these campouts, select your patrol site and sleep in a tent that you pitched. Explain what factors you should consider when choosing a patrol site and where to pitch a tent. "

"Normal factors are look up to make sure that there is nothing of danger above, look down for poision ivy, water run off areas, animal pathway of moose, bear etc.. make sure you aren't building it on an active Railroad track etc.. (It is all in the BS Handbook what they should look for). "

I think you are correct, most Scoutmasters (I have taught literally hundreds of them) will agree with you that accounting for normal factors, at least what they would encounter in a normal local campout, would be included in the explination.

Do you not sign them off if they miss one of them where they pitch their tent? I think Scoutmasters would probably reply that it would depend on how serious of a breach it was. I don't think many Scoutmasters would signing them off for pitching a tent on a railroad track.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Second class 3b.

Yes it does ask you to explain where to put the patrol. Good point.

The rest about micro interpreting the requirement (doing it correctly vs not doing it correctly) I don't agree with though. The requirement is pretty clear as written and I think if you ask a room full of Scoutmasters your likely to get a pretty clear consenses on what it means.

A lawyer might be able to pick it appart, but I don't think many Scoutmasters or Scouts would.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)