bnelon44

Just a reminder. See section 2 of the Guide to Advancement.

Rumors I am hearing are that outdoor emphasis will be increasing, not decreasing in the future. That seems to fit with the marketing we are seeing featuring the West Virginia Scout Ranch.

We have a new CSE and a new National President. I don't know either but those who do know them say they both have histories of success.

On the youth training side, what is mentioned in the status report is that they are moving NAYLE to the Regional and Council level.

The June and July Advancement News is here:

http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1109945141041-2/Advancement+News+JuneJuly+2012.pdf

Previous issues are here:

http://scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/AdvancementandAwards/AdvancementNews.aspx

Found more info:

Strategic Plan Progress Report: Summer 2012

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Media/StrategicPlan.aspx

I think Kudu was pulling my leg

>Maybe I'll send that in to the program resource email bnelon44 posted.

That would be the right place to send it. It is definately and specifically not in the Star and Life requirements now.

Thanks Kudu,

What are you quoting from? I found a lot of so called quotes by B-P on the web that turned out were not his.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Serious question: Other than G2SS changes that may require adults on patrol campouts, and some Leave No Trace rules that restrict forest destruction, why can't you implement the program in the 1938 handbook?(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Strategic Plan 4-1-1 Chairman Russ Hunsaker provides an update to the multi-year goal aimed at examining the BSA's program offerings.

Video here:

My understanding is that suggestions concerning program should be sent to

program.content@scouting.org .(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Beavah said,

What Green Bar Bill and the BSA materials I quoted from were describing is Step 1 of Advancement: A Scout Learns. Learning requires a lot of practice. Yeh don't learn how to cook by doin' it once. Yeh learn how to cook by doin' it a bunch. A Scout has to learn first. A Scout has to learn before he is tested. That is the BSA program. That has always been the BSA program. That is what the Rules & Regulations and every BSA training tries to explain. "

I'll buy that. BSA advancement since Green Bar Bill has always been in 4 steps. (A Scout Learns, is tested, is reviewed and is recognized) The first being that the Scout learns. It's a linear progression. I think my only objection has been when people try to turn the review step into the testing step.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

I agree with the previous comments. They did do a study and came up with an average project as taking approximately 130 man hours. Those in the district I am in are closer to 200 man hours.

see:

http://www.scouting.org/Media/PressReleases/2012/20120410.aspx

Better to concentrate on does the project show a good amount of leadership. The new GTA stresses that more than total hours. See:

http://scouting.org/scoutsource/GuideToAdvancement/EagleScoutRank.aspx

"Yah, hmmm.... BNelon44, the requirement is "Explain the procedures to follow in the safe handling and storage of fresh meats, dairy products, eggs, vegetables, and other perishable food products". So I guess you'll have to explain to all of da rest of us how the G2A considers knowing about safe handling and storage of eggs is an "arbitrary roadblock in front of the Scout" when the requirement explicitly demands that he know about eggs. "

A Scout saying that you keep the fresh eggs in the ice chest would satisfy the requirement. Requiring that he know exactly how long eggs stay fresh in 75 degrees F vs 100 degrees F is outside the scope of a 1st class requirement. I understand you are an expert in the subject, but a 1st Class Scout need not be an expert to satisfy the requirment.

Fred, Beavah is describing how a boy prepares to be tested. Then he jumps a bit to try to justify the BOR retesting without calling it a retest. I can buy into the first part, get the Scout ready for testing and have the SM then test him. I can't buy into the BOR retesting. If the BOR discovers he was not tested and someone just signed him off without the Scout actually doing what the requirement asks him to do, then yes, the BOR, as I read the GTA, can ask the Scout to go back and get tested. But if the Scout is tested as to what the requirement says and passes, the BOR can't flunk him because he didn't do it the way someone on the board would have liked. In fact, the GTA is trying to stop arbitrary roadblocks in front of the Scout (knowing how long an egg stays fresh in the field, for example.)(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

>Well, please define "define" then.

Sure. Beavah is using terms like "mastery"

OK, over the centuries we have had master plumbers, master masons, master gunners. Is this what he means? Obviously not. Well then a definition is in order.

How about "good camper" What does that mean? Does that mean he can camp on his own without adult supervision? No where in the requirements does it describe such a requirement.

What does "good hiker" mean? That he can hike without adult supervision? Again, no where does it say that to pass Second Class a Scout has to reach a level of "mastery" that he can go on a 50 mile hike without adult supervision. So obviously that isn't what he means. Well, what exactly does "good hiker" mean?

Before we throw out terms we assume others understand we need to understand ourselves that others will interpret what we say differently.

(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

You are using words that different troops would define differently:

"mastery"

"good hiker"

"good camper"

If we are going to use such terms in a national organization we need to define them.

I think saying that it is expected that the Scout is confortable accomplishing the requriement as stated is probably a good starting point for such a standard definition.

Beavah said, ". But it should determine that he actually met the full requirements by being able to prepare a meal smoothly and well under real life conditions. "

If that is the requiement, that is what he should have done before getting signed off. The BOR job is to figure out if the Scout did do what he should have done and was signed off. You don't punish the Scout though if the person signing him off did so if the met the requirement but didn't test him as strenuously as you would have. As long as the Scout met the requirement as written, was tested and signed off, he did what he had to do to meet the requirement.

If you want to turn him into a master food handler, then you add that to your program, you don't make it an obsticle for his advancement and you don't add it to the requirements.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Beavah,

Ah but what does proficient mean? It means something different to you than it does to others. Do we just except a vague term without a clear definition?

In this discussion I am more concerned with people putting arbitrary obstacles in a Scout's way because they feel "a First Class Scout should be know how to ____" fill in the blank. Which I think is what you are advocating. That isn't the standard nor was it ever the standard. The standard to advance is and has always been that the Scout does what it says to do in the requirements. Also, as I have shown, ever since Bill Hillcourt started writing the handbooks, BORs don't retest the Scout and don't "flunk" the Scout if they don't pass a skill test. The rest is left up to program, but you don't add to requirements because you want to have a "troop two" troop.

Isn't the Guide to Advancement clear on this?(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Beavah said:

"For the first three quarters of a century or more of Boy Scouting, there was no need to ever explain that we actually expected boys to have skills (like handlin' food safely). Everyone just knew it. Yeh don't need to write down what everybody knows. "

Remember the 10 second rule? (aka 5 second rule, 2 second rule, 5 min rule, etc., etc., etc.) People made up all kinds of stupid rules that caused more problems than not. People don't "just know" how to handle food safely. Green Bar Bill had a whole chapter on keeping food safe in camp in the 1936 Handbook for Scoutmasters.

For the first 1/4 of Scouting history national was just trying to get the troops to stop drilling their Scouts. To many Scoutmasters drilling = teaching. There was no skill training in those troop programs at all. They didn't just naturally know what Scouting was.

"da literature assumes an understandin' the Scouting movement and its goals when it comes to things that should be so obvious. "

Not really, that is why there are introductory chapters in the Guide to Advancement and the Scoutmaster Handbook that explain the goals of the program, and one in the Scoutmaster Handbook and the Guide to Advancement that describes what advancement is.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

Beavah said, "I think what confuses people a lot is that "the requirements" are meant to be the Test. They're what a boy has to demonstrate at the end of learning, not a place to start from. And like any test, "the requirements" don't measure everything a boy needs to be a First Class Scout. No test can measure everything without bein' way, way, way too long. Instead it samples da most important skills, and assumes that a boy demonstratin' those has also picked up on lots of other skills. So, for example, while the test is to explain food safety, the assumption is that in the course of learnin' the boy has gotten a lot of practice and can also do food safety. It's just that that's much harder to test. "

Whereas I agree the requirements are the test. I don't see any evidence that they assume the Scout learned more than what is in the requirements.

Where I may agree with you that there is a need here; I see no assumption in the requirements nor in the literature that the Scout, "has gotten a lot of practice and can also do food safety." Your adding assumptions here that are not present in the literature and adding to the requirements by doing so.

(This message has been edited by bnelon44)(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

JMHawkins said, "So, if units are going to update their own records, then why is ScoutNet necessary for mandatory training? Just switch over to Mandatory Training and ask units to check a box next to each required traning that each member of the charter has taken. I mean, if units are going to need to manage their own training reports, then why not have them manage their own training reports? "

Because the units never do that correctly. They mix up what needs to be taken all the time. You need a system that leads them by the hand. This isn't very sophisticated companies have had training management systems in place for years.

OK, here is a hypothetical for all of you.

Which troop Position of Responsibility is the most important to make sure is fully trained and really is doing a good job? You only get to pick one. Explain why.

I think you could do a beading but realize they represent drastically different sizes of endeavors and the ceremonies need to reflect that.

Woodbadge is a one week training course the beading represents you completed it and did a few tasks afterwards. That really is all it represents.

Eagle represents usually at least 7 years of learning scoutcraft skills, frustration, practical leadership, etc., etc.

They are completely different recognitions. You shouldn't short change the Eagle and the beading ceremony can certainly do that. Expecially if the singing goes on for 20 minutes.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

GKlose

I guess the question to ask the parents is are they interested in developing their sons into leaders or getting a red/white/blue badge asap? What's the goal. If it is the former, the best way in Scouting to do that is the Patrol Method, and that takes a little bit more time than the latter.

The positions of responsibility in the troop (like scribe) should have clear job descriptions and should be held accountable for getting the job done. Doing nothing close to what is expected is not acceptable and they should be removed and not credited for the position. See the Guide to Advancement. Get your PLC to write up job descriptions and then task the SPL or an ASPL to make sure the jobs are getting done. You follow up with them and get a status report periodically (like once a month.) Have SM conferences with those who are not listening to the ASPL and then REALLY REMOVE THEM if they don't do the job. The troop will get the message real quick that you mean business.

my 2-cents.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

The hold up on mandatory training is ScoutNet. As soon as training can be tracked correctly and there is a way for units to update their records, I would expect mandatory training to happen nationwide. We are probably a couple of years out from that.

well, I've hit a dead end. My guess is B-P never said it.