The Role of a BOR and "Retesting"

[Beavah]

Seems like this should be a separate topic from BOR pass rates, eh?

 

Mike F in dat thread talked about how a BOR in his troop acted as quality control, discovering that a kid hadn't really served in a Position of Responsibility, and how they used that to address quality control in their unit by helping both the boy and the adult leaders.

 

Exactly. Da advancement method only works if it means somethin'. It's too easy for adults (and kids) signing off to get lax. BOR's to determine if a boy has really met the requirements are an important part of quality control.

 

But to do that, the BOR has to ask some requirement-based questions. Not "retest everything", but also not avoid reviewing a boy's understanding.

 

So a good review DOES ask a boy to recite the scout oath and law, and explain what (parts of) it mean to him and how he's lived it. That may be "retesting" in some people's mind, since the Tenderfoot requirement was already signed off. But it is important for a committee to hear and see how a boy's view changes in order to evaluate the program.

 

A good review also might ask other skill questions - how you would recognize and treat for shock, or when a person should or should not use a line rescue. Unlike the Scout Oath and Law, these aren't "retests" in that the original requirement is to "demonstrate," and the BOR isn't asking the boy to demonstrate again, just to tell what he would do.

 

Such reviews can catch simple problems, like an ASM who is teaching a first aid procedure incorrectly. They can catch more complex problems, like a SM who is signing things off without having each boy actually learn and demonstrate. And the act of reviewing itself helps keep people from gettin' lazy.

 

Now, should quality control or skill review consume a BOR? Of course not, it should only be part of da time. Should a BOR defer a scout because he's nervous and forgets "and to obey the Scout Law" in the Oath? Of course not.

 

But it is important to determine that the requirements have been met... not the SM's requirements, but da BSA's. A BOR that isn't asking boys some questions about skills to determine his level of understandin' isn't doin' its job.

 

And someone who claims that no questions can be asked to determine a boy's understandin' because that's "retesting" just doesn't understand their job. They need some retrainin' by someone who knows what he/she is talkin' about, eh?

 

 

[dan]

So what you be trying to say dat.

The Scoutmaster and his Assailants (did I spell that correclty?).

Are doing a bad job.

So the BOR has to make sure the scout was really trained.

So you be saying the BOR people are really testing the SM.

EH?

Seems like a backbuttway to do it.

Seems if the COR would have got a good SM.

The BOR could focus more on what they are suppose to do.

DAT.(This message has been edited by dan)

[OldGreyEagle]

From the BSA Publication, Advancement Committee, Polcies and Procedures

(Please note my comments will be in blue)

Review for Tenderfoot Through Life Ranks and Eagle Palms.

 After a Scout has completed all requirements for Tenderfoot, Second Class, First Class, Star, and Life ranks, or an Eagle Palm, he appears before a board of review. This board of review is made up of at least three and not more than six members of the troop committee (Denotes BSA Policy, oh and notice no mention of scouts sitting on the Board of review). One member serves as chairman, usually the committee member responsible for advancement. Unit leaders, assistant unit leaders, relatives, or guardians may not serve as members of a Scout's board of review. (Again BSA policy)

The review shall be conducted at a convenient time and location, such as a meeting, summer camp, or the home of a member of the troop committee.

The review has three purposes:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To make sure the work has been learned and completed.

 

 

 

 

To check to see what kind of experience the boy is having in his patrol and troop.

 

 

 

 

To encourage the Scout to advance to the next rank.

Because many boys are ill at ease when talking to adults, it is important that the board be held in a relaxed atmosphere. A certain amount of formality and meaningful questioning should be used during the review.

The Scout should be neat in appearence and his uniform should be as correct as possible, with the badges worn properly. (Sorry, as correct as possible doesnt mean a full and complete Field Uniform)  It should be the desire of the board to encourage the Scout to talk so that the review can be a learning experience for the candidate and the members of the board.

The review is not an examination.  (Not sure how to more clearly say the review isnt an exam or a retest) The Scout has learned his skill and has been examined. This is a review. The Scout should be asked where he learned his skill, who taught him, and the value he gained from passing this requirement.

The Scout reviews what he did for his rank. From this review, it can be determined whether he did what he was supposed to do. The review also reveals what kind of experience the Scout is having in the troop. With that knowledge, the troop leaders can shape the program to meet the needs and interests of the Scouts.

The board should attempt to determine the Scout's ideals and goals. The board should make sure that a good standard of performance has been met. A discussion of the Scout Oath and Scout Law is in keeping with the purpose of the review, to make sure the candidate recognizes and understands the value of Scouting in his home, unit, school, and community.

The board of review members should feel free to refer to the Boy Scout Handbook, Scoutmaster Handbook, or any other references during the review. The Troop Committee Guidebook contains examples of questions that could be asked during a review.

The review should take approximately fifteen minutes. ( so much for those multi hour marathons we sometimes hear about)  At the conclusion of the review, the board should know whether a boy is qualified for the rank or Palm. The Scout is asked to leave the room while the board members discuss his achievements. The decision of the board of review is arrived through discussion and must be unanimous. If members are satisfied that the Scout is ready to advance, he is called in, congratulated, notified as to when he will receive his recognition, and encouraged to continue his advancement or earn the next Palm.

(Please note the following)

If the board decides that the Scout is not ready to advance, the candidate should be informed and told what he has not done satisfactorily. Most Scouts accept responsibility for not completing the requirements properly. The members of the board of review should specify what must be done to rework the candidate's weaknesses and schedule another board of review for him. A follow-up letter must be sent to a Scout who is turned down for rank advancement, confirming the agreements reached on the actions necessary for advancement. Should the Scout disagree with the decision, the appeal procedures should be explained to him. After the board of review is completed, the Scoutmaster is informed of all of the decisions that were made by the board of review.

Remember, after a Scout satisfactorily completes a board of review, he cannot be recognized until that action is reported to the council service center on an Advancement Report. A monthly report keeps unit records current and is a good practice. The troop scribe should also keep a record in the Troop/Team Record Book for easy reference by the Scoutmaster and use by other boards of review.

(Do it any other way, and you are doing it wrong)

 

[Venividi]

Dan,

 

Feedback of info from the BOR IS one of the responsibilities of the advancement committee. That is one way to help programs get better, and/or to maintain high quality.

 

Sure, things would be nice and rosy in an ideal world where a CO was able to find and hire a SM and ASM's, and the committee was able to sit back and assume that the program was well taken care of.

 

Perhaps the CO should have hired a "good" SM. But, just perhaps, they hired an inexperienced SM, that was not yet comfortable sitting across the table from a scout, looking him in the eye, and telling him that he was not yet ready for the next rank because he had not attempted to fulfill his duties in his POR, and that did not demonstrate sufficient scout spirit. Perhaps the scout had a parent that was always riding the SM about advancing his kid. Perhaps no one else on the committee was paying attention, so didn't give the SM the support he should have. That was my case, when I was a new SM. Feedback from the advancement committee about areas of improvement was welcome.

 

It is similar in my place of work. It is a requirement for supervisors to give feedback at reviews twice a year. Not in a "Guess we should have hired a better employee" manner, but more in a "that last widget didn't meet our standards; do you have any ideas on how to improve quality? Any areas where you need additional support so you have more time to work with the widgets " kind of way.

 

All parents are in this together, and hopefully, have the willingness to support each other in improving the program, and helping each other out when quality slides more towards "advance the scout" rather than "are the aims being met".

 

Here is a quote from an older edition of the SM Handbook (1981 - its all I have at hind right now):

The purpose of the (BOR) review is to make sure that all requirements have been met. This means a check of both the technical skills and the Scout's attitude and practice of the ideals of scouting. Care must be taken that the review does not become a reexamination. Spot checking is all that need be done.

 

Beavah's post is consistent with this.

[John-in-KC]

Thank you OGE. You certainly added value to this thread

 

As far as Q/C of a unit program goes, the Committee should be out watching the program in action. Far better to stop problems before they ever get get to a BOR.

 

Now, considering my District Advancement Chairman, who was training a mew District guest at a recent Eagle BOR in my unit, had the candidate begin by shaking all our hands with the Scout Handshake, then leading us in the Pledge of Allegiance, the Scout Oath, and the Scout Law, I consider that to be valid and viable example for how my units should begin unit level BORs.

[Beavah]

had the candidate begin by shaking all our hands with the Scout Handshake, then leading us in the Pledge of Allegiance, the Scout Oath, and the Scout Law, I consider that to be valid and viable example for how my units should begin unit level BORs.

 

Yah, I agree with you, John. But there's many that would say that expecting the scout to know the Oath and Law by heart is "retesting" the Tenderfoot requirement, and condemn you to some circle of hell where as soon as you arrive at any campsite it starts to sleet.

 

OGE, it's important to remember that bold indicates policy only in the Guide to Safe Scouting. Bold in other BSA publications like the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures is just bold - it indicates emphasis. You will notice throughout the book that clauses, sentence fragments, and sometime single words are bolded.

 

In your extended quote, I note that the first purpose of a BOR is "to make sure the work is learned and completed." If we look earlier in the same book to try to understand that BOR role, we are told:

 

"A Boy Scout badge recognizes what a young man is able to do; it is not a reward for what he has done." That's emphasized in bold, even. So the first purpose of the BOR is to make sure he has learned and is able to do the things specified by the requirements.

 

The BOR is also there to ensure that boys are expected to "measure up to a challenge or a standard" and that "the same measuring system is used for everyone... a single standard of fairness."

 

So it sure seems to me like using a part of a BOR to figure out what a boy has really learned and making sure it meets the standards is consistent with the rules.

 

It's certainly consistent with the aims.

 

[LongHaul]

As I read OGE's quote from the Advancement Committee guide I was ready to begin this reply but decided to read the other replies first, glad I did because Beavah beat me to my quote. Over the years I have come to believe that the National Publications are not written or edited by people with first hand experience in delivering program. There is too much contradiction and too much confusion created because the author doesn't seem to understand the material in a real world sense. IMO we must always keep the boys welfare foremost. Are we doing something because we have the power? because we have set a standard? because that's the way our leaders did it when we were scouts? We should be doing it because it's in the best interest of the boy.

[Lisabob]

From OGE's post:

The review is not an examination. (Not sure how to more clearly say the review isnt an exam or a retest) The Scout has learned his skill and has been examined. This is a review. The Scout should be asked where he learned his skill, who taught him, and the value he gained from passing this requirement.

 

I think most of the questions and problems tend to stem from this part of the policy on BORs. In an ideal world, when the BOR "reviews" with a scout, they will find that he learned the skill just fine, etc.. However, even in my limited experience with BORs I know there have been times where a boy clearly HAD NOT really learned the skill in question. Couldn't remember where/when/who taught it; was vague about what the skill actually was; agreed that he'd been "taught" but also stated he didn't really know how to do it anyway, either at the time it was taught, or now, or both.

 

From discussion:

1. Some folks seem to believe that deferral in such situations would be wrong because once something is signed off (which it must be, to get to the BOR) it is sacrosanct and the BOR can't "re-test."

 

2. Some would say that deferral is obvious because the boy clearly hadn't learned the skill and maybe the boy even agrees that he doesn't know the skill.

 

3. Some would say that if he knew the skill at the time of sign-off but doesn't by the time the BOR happens, that's ok, and still others would say, no it isn't.

 

4. Some others will say that the boy (should or shouldn't) be advanced and that the SM, not the BOR, has failed to do the job of Scoutmaster's conference properly.

 

5. And finally others will say it was neither the SM, nor the BOR, but the person who signed the boy's book to start with, who messed up (and that the boy should/shouldn't be advanced as a consequence).

 

I can see a reasonable interpretation of OGE's quote at the beginning of the post, for all of these responses, but they lead to quite different outcomes, both in terms of the BOR outcome and in terms of where to go with constructive feedback regarding responsibility for quality of advancement. That's the problem I see.

 

Lisa'bob

[OldGreyEagle]

Beavah, what are you talking about? From the tone of your post it seems like you had a rebuttal to me, but heck if I can figure it out.

 

The whole issue of what a Board of Review is and what it isnt is explained in the section I quoted, save for Eagle of course. If you want to justify the way you do it by using the quote, go ahead, I can't stop you but I did want other people reading this thread to know what the BSA says.

 

There is enough mis information floating around BSA that when there are actual guidelines published, I want to be sure as many people see them as possible. How they use the information is up to them.

[OldGreyEagle]

Lisabob, you snuck in while I was composing. If you run into a situation where a scout is clueless about a skill, where and when it was taught, etc. Then you do have a problem. But, then it should only happen once. The scout may be assigned to teach the skill in question at the next opportunity. And the Troop Program adjusted so the skills are actually learned, requirements met.

 

Its not like the troop committee is barred from attending troop activities and outings and the BOR should not be the only exposure a committee member has with the troop. How many forum members do we have that would only do "Quality Assurance" activities once a quarter? Or only on a limited basis with limited resources? QA is ongoing, as should the Troop Committees oversight of the Troops Program.

 

I have to admit maybe I am in an unique situation. In the Troop I serve, the SM and Committee Chair agree on nearly all things. There are no "cowboy" or "rogue" ASMs out there subverting the process. The adult leaders of the program appear to actually like and respect each other. I have every confidence that ASMs and Committee Members are there to improve the program, not go on the only power trip their life affords. If these are huge issues in other troops, I may not understand how such things are possible as I am limited by my experiences, then again, arent we all?

[FScouter]

It is pointless to look for justifications for retesting. There is no justification at all and BSA makes it very clear that retesting is wrong. A little more time spent learning about the purposes of a board of review and the proper way to conduct one will help ensure that the objectives of the advancement method are met and that boys are having a quality Scouting experience.

 

Quoting from the Troop Committee Guidebook, the Advancement Committee policies book, and the Supplemental Board of Review Training module :

 

The board of review is not an interrogation, not a retesting of a Scout's competence. It is not an examination; rather, it attempts to see that the examinations that went into getting the Scout signed off were up to standard. It is a checkup to see that what should have been done actually was done. This review is not and should not be an examination or retest of skills learned.

 

From the advancement book, one of the three purposes of the board of review is to make sure that the work has been learned and completed. Make sure does not mean re-test the Scout. The review is not an examination. The Scout has learned his skill and has been examined. This is a review. From this review it can be determined whether he did what he was supposed to do. The board of review is not a time to retest the Scout.

 

The challenge for the board is to determine that the work has been completed and learned, but to do so without putting the boy through more tests. A skilled and thoughtful board can do this, but it takes careful discussion with the boy to make the determination. It should be the desire of the board to encourage the Scout to talk so that the review can be a learning experience for the candidate and the members of the board. The review also reveals what kind of an experience the Scout is having in the troop. With that knowledge, the troop leaders can shape the program to meet the needs and interests of the Scouts.

 

The wrong way, (but the easy way), to make sure that the work has been learned and completed is to simply re-test the Scout. The proper way is to have a conversation with the boy. The Troop Committee Guidebook has a good discussion about how to conduct a board of review, and includes several samples questions board members can use to achieve the purposes of the review without retesting. A new guide on conducting boards of review is available on the national web site at

http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/supplemental/18-625/index.html

 

It is quite comprehensive and never once does it suggest that boys should be retested. There are lots of sample questions there to help the board meet the objectives of the review.

[Beavah]

Lisabob, good analysis and breakdown, eh?

 

I'm with LongHaul here. The answer to how a unit chooses between your various cases/responses should depend on what's in the best interest of the boy and the program for all da boys.

 

Generally, I think one of our goals is to help boys learn things, and by really learning things to develop self-confidence and leadership. I don't think givin' any boy a badge when he, and the adults, and his peers all know that he doesn't yet understand something is Trustworthy, Loyal, or Kind. I not only think it doesn't achieve our aims, I think it subverts our aims and does the boys a disservice.

 

So my answer to your question is that when you find a boy who comes to a BOR having not really understood or learned the requirements, you help the boy. You don't pass him along by "social promotion," you make arrangements to meet with him and reteach him and help him practice so that he is able to do what he really wants to do - get good at it! I think you also then help the program by working with the SM to figure out how the boy got shortchanged and you fix it.

 

But in order to do that, you need to ask a boy questions to determine his understanding and ability. I don't think it matters a whit whether you ask him to tie a bowline or you pussyfoot around for 3 minutes asking him who taught him a bowline and what a bowline is used for and what method he used to remember how to tie the knot. A boy who has learned it will snap off a bowline for you in 10 seconds. A boy who hasn't will struggle and be as uncomfortable with the "questions about" as with the task.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Beavah, what was said in any part of this thread that makes you think that anyone here is in favor of "social promotion"?

 

Lisabob, I have given you what the BSA guidelines and policy is regarding Boards of Review, its up to the adult leaders to either deliver the BSA program as was promised when they filled out the adult application or do their own thing

[FScouter]

What I like about BSA publications, guides, policies, procedures, etc. is that they represent the combined best practices of thousands of troop around the country. These practices are all developed to fulfill the mission, by achieving the aims, through working the methods. Yes there will be others that say in my troop I do or BSA publications are written by idiots. Lisa make 5 observations that some say this, some say that, and other have still different ideas . It can all be so confusing trying to sort out all these comments.

 

For my part, I dont have time to second guess proven practices. If BSA says a board of review is should not be an examination, thats good enough for me. Besides which it makes sense too.

[LongHaul]

 

I am not being allowed to format this, a reoccuring problem of late, so I can't highlite sorry

 

From the Avancement Committee guide book

The Scout should be neat in appearance and his uniform should be as correct as possible, with the badges worn properly. It should be the desire of the board to encourage the Scout to talk so that the review can be a learning experience for the candidate and the members of the board.

 

From the Supplemental Training Module put out by National on its web site.

A board can expect a Scout to be neat in appearance and properly uniformed.

 

With the rewording of the sentence has National just decided that a uniform is indeed necessary for a BOR? The first excerpt leaves room for interpretation while the second is clearly an indication that some form of uniform is expected.

 

You know what I like about the National publications is that you almost know that they will contradict one another. Again I offer this as an example of authors and editors that dont have a first hand understanding about what they are writing. That is why we call them guide books.