bnelon44

moosetracker If you look at the current and previous Scout Handbooks you will find that firebuilding is becoming less and less of a taught skill. Scouts are being taught more and more about different stoves. Probably because of fire restrictions. Another aside: At a roundtable ask the Scoutmasters which fire lay is the better one for cooking. Name a few and include teepee and log cabin. Chances are the majority of them will say teepee (when the correct answer is log cabin.) Most don't even know what a log cabin fire lay is. (This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Lisabob I don't know what was in the team's mind who put together the requirement. All I know is what it says. moosetracker, Personally, I know about 10 different Scoutmasters who would interpret "correctly" differently in this case (not counting those on this list.) Your tent example is a good one. He needs to sleep in a tent he pitched. So if he pitches it under a tree with a dead branch, would fail him? Where does it say that in the requirement? What about if he pitches it too close to a stream? What about if he pitches it too close to the adults (aka 300' rule), etc., etc., etc. Again, I don't know how the requirements were put together, but I sure can imagine gatekeepers keeping scouts from earning any advancement. Another aside: Who would fail Baden-Powell based upon this self portrate? Can you identify how many improper camping techniques are here based upon the GTSS and LNT camping: http://usscouts.org/history/bpoutlook02.gif(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

moosetracker Actually 4e doesn't say he has to follow safe meat handling procedures (or anything else in 4d) in preparing the meal. He just has to follow what he did in 4a. To say otherwise is an interpretation that is not in the requirement. For example, if he doesn't wash his hands after handing the meat, technically, you cannot refuse to sign him off on 4e. Bad writing of the requirements, maybe, but until they change, they are what they are.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Yea Beavah, We may have different definitions of what advancement means. But ever since I have been a Boy Scout leader (going on 19 years now I guess) you did what the requirement said. If it says demonstrate, you demonstrate, if it says explain, you explain, etc. I remember the same standard as a boy in the program. Although I would be the first to admit my memory of details of those days is spotty. I haven't seen anything in the BSA literature though that would lead me to believe otherwise.

Beavah, Here is what I am trying to say again: As far as 1st class requirement 4d: "Explain the procedures to follow in the safe handling and storage of fresh meats, dairy products, eggs, vegetables, and other perishable food products. Tell how to properly dispose of camp garbage, cans, plastic containers, and other rubbish." If the Scout explains the above he has passed the requirement. There is no requirement that he actually show proficiency in the safe handling and storage of fresh meats. We would like him to show some proficiency in this area but it is outside the requirement and we cannot add to the requirement for him to show proficiency in this area before we pass him. Instead, it should be part of the troop program, and usually is when they camp, they do practice this skill. On an aside: I teach IOLS and often we have the Scoutmasters cook their own foil dinners for lunch. It is pretty consistent that if I don't tell the Scoutmasters to wash before and after handling the meat, they don't do it.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Beavah The BSA organization is presented in all the specifics courses, but only in a very elementary way and I would agree that the volunteers really don't understand it much from that training. This is Scouting was suppose to cover it, but really didn't. The Chartered Organization Rep training is a little better, see: www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/04-113_Training.pdf

Beavah, We cross posted, I added " However more practice is probably warrented outside the advancement process. Troops should be doing this anyway to reinforce the skills." We also need to remember we can't add to requirements, no matter how much we would like to. Never could (that has been consistant since the founding of the BSA.)

Eagle92, where did B-P suggest that if a scout can't perform the skills he has a badge for, he should turn in the badge and redo it? Can you cite a reference? Was it ever put in practice as a process? I don't ever remember it being a BSA process. Seems totally unworkable to me. So if a Scout can't splice a rope 4 years after earning the Pioneering MB at a EBOR, we should take the badge away from him and not pass him? Oh he is 18 years old? Oh well, too bad, so sad.... Phuwee!(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

In the current process: As to who signs off. The accountable person is the Scoutmaster. If he deligates the duty, then it is his responsibility to make sure the person he delegates to does a good job of examining the Scout. Sure it could be the SPL or the PL, or it could be someone else. The model I like is that the PL teaches the Scout the skill and when the Scout and the PL feel he is proficient enough, then the Scout goes to the SM (or designee) to get tested and signed off. OK, so what happens when the BOR or SM discovered the Scout really isn't proficient. Well, if the Scout did what he was suppose to do, that is what the requirement in the book says he needs to do, and he was signed off. Then he has passed the requirement. What's done is done. However more practice is probably warrented outside the advancement process. Troops should be doing this anyway to reinforce the skills. The SM should however change his process. Proficiency is a very subjective term (it is like "mastery" in that reguard.) The requirements however tend not to be subjective. What they say is what the scout needs to do to pass the requirement. That is technically all they need to do. The question is how well they have mastered the skill (e.g., demonstrate a bowline)(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

I think the advice that a SM should make sure that the Scout has proficiency in the skill before signing him off on the requirement is sound advice and follows the current process. The GTA could be clearer on this.

concernedparent The requirement is not that he do a push up. The requirement is that he shows progress. Sounds to me like he has, so why not pass him?

Beavah Maybe it is just the way I read the section but if the unit has clear and communicated attendence requirements, then the part about just being a good band section leader doesn't apply. It would only apply if the unit didn't communicate attendence requirements. Eagle92, The turning a badge over for not remembering a skill may have been a troop custom, I don't remember reading it anywhere in national literature. Handing back the Tenderfoot pin if you did an egregious act violating the Scout Law was something they did that in the very early years of Scouting. Beavah et al, Thanks for the feedback so far, keep it coming! Good discussion. I'll try to keep quiet for awhile and let you guys talk.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Twocubdad "Those are the people who have gutted the advancement program" So you do care about history Sorry couldn't resist. If there was any gutting done, I would like to know what it was and when? The only thing anyone could point to was something back in 1910 in England called a Court of Honor which was the same as the US Examination Board. Still the testing phase and once tested, the Scout was done. What was done was done. You didn't take the rank away if they forgot how to tie a knot. If you make Eagle a strictly 5 year or longer program then a boy who joins at age 14 is out of luck ever hoping to get Eagle. I'm not positive on this, but that is likely why it is made so you can get it in 3-4 years or so. As to how do people get on national committees I think there have been threads in the forum on how people are chosen, and it would get this thread off topic pretty quickly. dkurtenbach I have been an adult leader in a troop for 18 years and I have never been pressured by anyone to move our older Scouts into a Venturing Crew.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Twocubdad I think Eagle was always about a 3-4 year program. If you look at the history of the award. It is arguably harder to get now than at any time in its history. The first Eagle Scout earned it in less than 2 years. You can find the history here: http://www.nesa.org/PDF/58-435.pdf The National Outdoor Achievement Award honors those Scouts who are good in the outdoors and was meant to give them a goal to achieve similar to the Ranger Award in Venturing One thing that could happen is we could make it so you can't earn any merit badges unless you are 1st Class (it use to be that way.) Surveys though indicate that the move would be very unpopular in the field. Those who are signed up to the Advancement Newsletter, by the way, get notification of the surveys the National Advancement Team puts out. You can get to the Advancement News from the Boy Scout page at National's site (it is on the left): http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/Home/BoyScouts Eagle92 said, "If scouts don't know skills, we as leaders need to work with the PLC to get a program going that allows those skills to be retaught and mastered. " That is very true.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Beavah, You are pointing out that the Scout should not have been passed on a skill because he did not learn it. That should of happened in the testing phase (see below.) Which the SM has full control over. Retention after being tested isn't part of the program (never has been that I know of.) Once tested the Scout is done with advancement for that but as Eagle92 points out the unit owes it to the Scouts to put in their troop program activities that will reinforce the skill. My question to all of you is how would you change the current advancement system, if anything? Here is the current process, what would you change? A Scout Learns (preferably from another Scout but the SM is in charge of this) A Scout is Tested (sometimes by another Scout but the SM is in charge of this. If the Scout is passing the testing phase prematurely, that is the SM process to correct) A Scout is Reviewed (this is currently suppose to be the quality control the committee has, they don't override the SM decision on the testing phase. But if they see an issue with the process they feed it back to the SM so he can correct his process. If a requirement was skipped they don't advance the scout and alert the SM. Same if there is a very serious Scout Spirit issue.) A Scout is Recognized (this is normally done with recognition at the next troop meeting and then recognition at a quarterly court of honor) This is essentially the same system Green Bar Bill introduced in 1936 Also, what is confusing about the GTA that should be corrected? What are the contraditions in the guide that need ot be corrected? Keep in mind, as others have pointed out previously, a lot of the training of the Scout happens outside the advancement process and should be part of the troop program.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Beavah Yes, I think the way advancement is setup now is consistant. What your unit does with the skills he learned after getting signed off is what retains the knowledge. Advancement is just one of 8 methods of Boy Scouting. It isn't the end all and be all and those who only do advancement and ignore the other 8 methods shouldn't be surprised if the outcome isn't quite what they expect. But what do you want? Do you want to be able to take away a rank from someone who earned it because they can't repeat a skill learned 4 years prior, or just have them repeat the skill test again. In which case shouldn't each rank have the requirement of being retested in all the skills of the previous ranks? An examination for Life Scout then could take 3-4 hours. But then Eagle would be more like going to school than Scouting, wouldn't it? Would an outdoorsman Scout sit still for such a thing? Is that really what we are after?

Ever since the BOR process was introduced by Green Bar Bill, hasn't advancement been once signed off, the Scout was done with the rank requirement as far as advancement was concerned? Was there ever a time when a badge was taken away from a Scout or a Scout once given or a rank taken away once signed off? Was there a time when a Scout was asked to retest to retain a rank?

dkurtenbach Gotta agree with you there

Lisabob, It may not seem like it but I am listening to you all. What are your ideas? For those advocating retesting: Are you advocating that we retest the Scouts at the SM and BOR? And if so, do we retest merit badges as well? If they can't remember then what? What is the limit as to how far back you go? Do you include what they learned in merit badges?(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Your referencing section 8.0.1.1 8.0.1.1 Not a Retest or Examination Though one reason for a board of review is to ensure the Scout did what he was supposed to do to meet the requirements, it shall become neither a retest or examination, nor a challenge of his knowledge. In most cases it should, instead, be a celebration of accomplishment. Remember, it is more about the journey. A badge recognizes what a young man is able to do and how he has grown. It is not so much, a reward for what he has done. See Mechanics of Advancement: In Boy Scouting and Varsity Scouting, 4.2.0.0. Here is the full quote from section 4.2.0.0: Advancement at this level is subtle. It presents a Scout with a series of challenges in a fun and educational manner. As he completes the requirements he achieves the three aims of Scouting: to develop character, to train in the responsibilities of participating citizenship, and to develop physical and mental fi tness. It is important thus, to remember that in the end, a badge recognizes what a young man is able to do and how he has grown. It is not so much a reward for what he has done. It is instead, more about the journey: As a Scout advances, he is measured and he grows in confidence and self-reliance. The badge signifies a young manthrough participation in a series of educational activitieshas provided service to others, practiced personal responsibility, and set the examples critical to the development of leadership; all the while working to live by the Scout Oath and Scout Law. 4.2.0.0 Mechanics of Advancement: In Boy Scouting and Varsity Scouting So you are using the section that specifically tells you to not retest to justify retesting?? :-/ It must not be that clear then.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

lrsap, I'm not Kudu but I will give my opinion. If the troop needs the positions filled because something that needs to be done is dropping through the cracks, then point it out to the SPL and remind him that the function is not being covered. Ask him what he thinks needs to be done. Chances are he will appoint someone to the job. I would not advise filling a job, say Troop Historian, because it happens to be a box on an org chart someone showed you. The troop doesn't have to fill in all the POR boxes. They are filled when there is a need for that function in the troop. Charmoc, Here is what Hillcourt said about patrol leader retention and what to do with the other boys to give them a chance at leadership opportunities. The pamphlet was called The Patrol Method for Scoutmasters. The entire pamphlet is here: http://bsatroop14.com/history/The_Patrol_Method.pdf Once the Patrol members have selected their leader, the Scoutmaster should not over-ride their choice, except in the most serious emergency in which case he exercises his power of veto. A Patrol may even suffer for a short while the handicap of an unwisely chosen leader and thus learn by its own mistakes. Many successful Scoutmasters advocate keeping the boys best fitted to be Patrol Leaders in office as long as possible. Under this system the other boys should be given opportunity to exercise leadership special activities, instruction, contests, hikes, etc. A good Patrol Leader may be kept in office so long as he gets results. Other Troops allow the Patrol Leaders to be elected for a predetermined length of time, probably a year, at which time they are eligible for reelection, This plan is meritorious as it does offer the opportunity for an annual review of Patrol Leadership. A modern book on the Patrol Method which is a good read is called Working the Patrol Method. It is available at http://www.scoutleadership.com

The SPL, and PL can be reelected and they have no term limits. See Chapter 3 I think it is in the SM Handbook. The idea is that they are forming their own "gang" with their own leaders. If they want to reelect the same guy for 7 years, that is their choice. The unit should make available other MEANINGFUL positions of responsibility for those who are not elected. Adults don't interfere in elections outside of maybe a Scoutmaster minute. More information on the Patrol Method is here: http://www.bsatroop14.com/patrolmethod In practice the average tenure of a SPL is from 6 to 12months. Most troops have elections every 6 months.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Lisabob Your right the thread is about what shoud be changed. But all of us, me included, if we suggest changes we need to be able to defend them based upon the Aims of Scouting. That is the beauty of the Internet. It is a forum for discussion and hopefully for valuable input to those at national who read this forum. Also, I think tradition has something to play as well, but that is only me.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Beavah said; "The whole point of Advancment Method is to give the boys a road map to how to be successful and competent and confident and recognized by their peers for their ability. It's meant to be a lesson in hard work and character and real learning. If yeh award the badges for less than that, for doin' things like only paddling 100 yards in a kayak, or only being able to tie a bowline from short term memory once, then Advancment is destructive to youth. Yeh have subtracted all the meaning and value out of da requirements." Here is what the G2A says the whole point of advancement is: "Advancement is simply a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is one of several methods designed to help unit leadership carry out the aims and mission of the Boy Scouts of America. " "Everything done to advanceto earn ranks and other awards and recognitionis designed to educate or to otherwise expand horizons. Members learn and develop according to a standard. This is the case from the time a member joins and then moves through the programs of Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, Varsity Scouting, and Venturing or Sea Scouts. Experiential learning is the key: Exciting and meaningful activities are offered, and education happens. Learning comes from doing. For example, youth may read about first aid, hear it discussed, and watch others administer it, but they will not learn it until they practice it." "Scouting skillswhat a young person learns to doare important, but not as important as the growth achieved through participating in a unit program. The concern is for total, well-rounded development. Age-appropriate surmountable hurdles are placed before members, and as they face them they learn about themselves and gain confidence. Success is achieved when we fulfill the BSA Mission Statement and when we accomplish the aims of Scouting: character development, citizenship training, and mental and physical fitness. We know we are on the right track when we see youth accepting responsibility, demonstrating self-reliance, and caring for themselves and others; when they learn to weave Scouting ideals into their lives; and when we can see they will be positive contributors to our American society." "Though certainly goal-oriented, advancement is not a competition. Rather, it is a joint effort involving the leaders, the members, other volunteers such as merit badge counselors or Venturing consultants, and the family. Though much is done individually at their own pace, youth often work together in groups to focus on achievements and electives at Cub Scout den meetings, for example, or participate in a Boy Scout campout or Sea Scout cruise. As they do this, we must recognize each young person's unique combination of strengths and weaknesses. As watchful leaders, either adult or youth, we lend assistance as called for and encouragemembers to help each other according to their abilities." Different goals? Same goals? (This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Knot interested: Only one in five young Brits can tie a knot and half say they can't climb trees http://www.npowermediacentre.com/Press-Releases/Knot-interested-Only-one-in-five-young-Brits-can-tie-a-knot-and-half-say-they-can-t-climb-trees-1129.aspx