bnelon44

Doing some research on if the BOR ever was allowed to retest. Keep in mind that in the early days of Scouting it was taught that the examination and sign off of the Scout from T21 should be done by the Scout's own Patrol Leader, as long as the Patrol Leader has made it to that rank. From the Handbook for Scoutmasters 1947 (Author is listed as William Hillcourt): The members of the Board should keep in mind that the review is not a re-examination and does not require that the boy again demonstrate the skills in which he has been examined. The main purpose of the review is to check-up to see that what should have been done was actually done.... The 1947 handbook is the 1st edition after the famous Hillcourt 2 volume 1936 set which is the real 1st Scoutmaster Handbook that introduces the Patrol Method. The Board of Review is not described in the 1936 edition of the handbook only to go to your local council for instructions.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

SeattlePioneer You don't need your Totin' Chip card to be able to use a knife in Scouting. Tearing a corner off may be a troop custom, but it isn't BSA policy. You won't find it in any of the BSA literature. Not sure if it ever was in any BSA literature. see Scouting Urban Legions at USScouts: http://usscouts.org/factfiction/safety.asp Retesting a Scout once they have been tested on a skill isn't done in Scouting. I would like to know if anyone has any old official literature showing BSA Board of Review policy allowing retesting. It may have happened in the past, I am courious when and when it stopped happening.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Here is an article written by Green Bar Bill on 1st Class emphasis dated 1953 http://books.google.com/books?id=scvQk3L2_r0C&lpg=PA23&dq=green%20bar%20bill%20board%20of%20review&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q&f=false Here is an article by Green Bar Bill to Patrol Leaders telling them how important advancement is and 1st Class emphasis for every Scout in their patrol. Dated 1933 http://books.google.com/books?id=Zbtu_glJDyAC&lpg=PA42&dq=green%20bar%20bill%20board%20of%20review&pg=PA42#v=onepage&q=green%20bar%20bill%20board%20of%20review&f=false

dkurtenbach, It all depends on what the Scout did after making 1st class. I don't think that is any different today than it was in 1911. When I was a Scout we had canvas 1/2 tents (remember those?) So knowing how to tie a taught line hitch and two half hitches got me though my 200 miles of hiking I did as a Scout. I never mastered the bowline nor lashes until I became a Scoutmaster because our Scouting experiences consisted of a lot of back packs. We didn't build stuff with rope and logs. (This message has been edited by bnelon44)

>I'm not sure what the fix is, but maybe allowing folks to hold back Scouts after a BoR or SM conference rather than passing them along to be spared the wrath of a parent. The issue here is them being signed off before mastering the skill and the troop not reinforcing the training. The BOR and SM conference are not the right places to test. Testing should have been done adequately earlier on.

dkurtenbach, Except for some exceptions (e.g., camp gaget using lashings), haven't Boy Scout requirements have always been that way?(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Beavah, Maybe I'm prejudiced because I was a Scoutmaster for a long time and I now teach Scoutmasters but program is my Scoutmaster turf, not the committee's turf. If the committee wants the patrol to have a more balanced diet on campouts then the committee talks to me about it. It maybe that I didn't realize it or maybe I am concentrating on getting the boys to do their own shopping first. Whatever the case, it isn't up to the committee to recuit a chef. Well meaning committee members muck too much in program and it confuses the Scouts. The BOR should feed information back to the Scoutmaster to improve the troop program, not start outlining program. But maybe I didn't understand you correctly (happens) my 2-cents(This message has been edited by bnelon44)(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

If Camping merit badge and requirement 9a not allowing but 6 days of one long term camp any indication, I would expect to see more troop outdoor oriented requirements.

I am enjoying the debate. I have a bit of a question about the BOR recommending program though. If it becomes apparent that a Scout doesn't remember a skill, shouldn't the best approach be to refer him back to the SM or to a troop program already in place? There is a danger that a BOR member may remember how something was done 'back in the day' which isn't done anymore and may be against the G2SS. Remember committee members are not required to attend either SM Specifics or Intro to Outdoor Leader Skills. They are not usually experts on program and current regulations, that is the job of the Scoutmaster and the direct contact leaders. I can just imagine some BOR member explaining the importance of trenching a tent.

How about instituting an organized testing session? The Scouts learn how to tie the basic knots, in a week or so the PLC tests them individually. If they pass they get signed off, if not, they don't. Troops signing off on cooking when the Scout doesn't cook isn't following the BSA process, so it is hard to blaim the GTA for them doing that. The BOR however, if they find out it happened can hold a scout back from advancement. The process is the Scout is tested, if that didn't occur then the requirement isn't completed. One of the reasons I have found that Scouts think Star is a nothing rank is that they earned the merit badges during their T2F time and the POR is a nothing job. Make the POR a real job and something they can be proud of and they take ownership in the troop. It is in the Start to Eagle time frame they should be taking ownership in their troop.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

I don't know exactly the rationale for FCFY, I remember back when it was introduced (or pushed) a few years ago that the reason was because the Scouts stayed in longer if they made FC in 1 year or less. However, I think it is a good idea because Scouting is camping and you learn how to camp when you go through the T2F requirements. I want our Scouts to be good in the outdoors as quickly as possible so we can do stuff with them. So the T2F requirements are a good tool for me to utilize and it gives the Scouts a set program to use with rewards to accomplish my goal of getting them to know a bit about camping, hiking, first aid, swimming etc. so we can go out and do stuff.

The audience for the Guide to Advancement are unit, district and council adults responsible for advancement. RememberSchiff, nice list of items. By the way, it is the unit's responsibility to schedule BORs and invite Scouts to them. Always has been. Not sure where the idea that Scouts had to go begging for them came from. Maybe from the idea "don't do anything for a Scout that he can do for himself." But that doesn't mean make him do the work of the committee. Eagle92, didn't we have a thread on what "master the skills" meant awhile back and for some it was pretty strict.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

If the boys want it tougher as some here have said, why would they run away from a tougher troop to one less tough? Either they want it or they don't. Or is it a matter of age? Isn't the thread getting away from the Guide to Advancement though. I am still interested in people's views on that manual.

By all means let national know your ideas. But I thought it would be an interesting topic here as well.

NACAP, Originally, and by that I mean the 1911 Handbook for Boys has the following requirements for Camping: 1. Have slept in the open or under canvas at different times fifty nights. 2. Have put up a tent alone and ditched it. 3. Have made a bed of wild material and a fire without matches. 4. State how to choose a camp site and how to prepare for rain; how to build a latrine (toilet) and how to dispose of the camp garbage and refuse. 5. Know how to construct a raft. So if you want to get technical about it, originally you could count all the BSA summer camp camping or family camping you want. Including camping in your back yard ;-) However, it does say "at different times" I guess inferring something, what is anyone's guess. (This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Guide to Advancement is here http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/AdvancementandAwards/resources.aspx

This forum has been talking about the GTA and advancement policies a lot. So what is confusing in the GTA? What should we tell national to change?

It all boils down to what is and what is not a good program. Camping MB is a very easy badge for Scouts to get if their troop has a good outdoor program.

I was redoing our Board of Review training we do in our district a year ago or so, and did some research on some examples of when a BOR can deny advancement keeping in mind the process and policies in the, at the time new, Guide to Advancement. Here is what I came up with: Requirement not signed off by someone authorized by SM A requirement was skipped The list of merit badges earned for rank does not match requirement (not enough Eagle badges earned) Scoutmaster signs Scout off as active for 6 months but Scout was only active for 5 months (SM can't read calendar) A very serious incident that would cause the Scout Spirit requirement to not be met (stealing, drug taking, etc.) Scout did not complete a requirement even though it was signed off. The presentation is here: http://www.bsatroop14.com/advancement (This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Scoutfish said: "So I'm wondering why nobody has asked "Why" there is a limit to just one long term camping instead of just counting 20 days. I figure that it's because they want the scouts to get variety. Instead of knocking out all the camps at 3 or 4 sittings, you have to go more often. " That is my understanding as well

It isn't a matter of pleasing anyone. It is simply not your call. Units don't have the authority to award the Eagle Award, neither do Districts.

"Wonder if the questioner - "Bill, a district-level training chairman" - exists, or if he's on this board? " Just a made up character, I'm sure

"Wonder if the questioner - "Bill, a district-level training chairman" - exists, or if he's on this board? " Just a made up character, I'm sure

"Wonder if the questioner - "Bill, a district-level training chairman" - exists, or if he's on this board? " Just a made up character, I'm sure

Sorry, the date is the date on the paperwork is the date of his EBOR, but he isn't an Eagle Scout until National says he is. It's their award, not the units, not the Council's and not his grandpa's