The Role of a BOR and "Retesting"

[DugNevius 10]

Fair enough, FS.

 

We have established that there are unfortunatly many cases where Adult leaders dont conduct fair or proper BOR's which may include "harrassing" the scouts.

 

As well we often read posts about the marvel that the scouting program do to the maturity and leadership of youth, praises of the PLC and patrol method that display just exactly what our scouts are capable of.

 

Do yu see the contriction that this implies when one says that adults are more capable then the youth we are building to be future leaders of their generation that are supposivly living by the scout oath and law?

 

Why then, would scouts of the ages of 15-18 not be capable of asking the same questions to canidates looking to advance through the lower ranks (Not retesting but 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 and to encourage the Scout to advance to the next rank.) despite the fact that these boys have been learning for 4 years or more to live by the scout Oath and Law and should have as much interest in the scouting futures of the boys they teach, lead and befriend?

 

This contridiction leads one to believe that while some have faith in The Patrol Method and the idea of "boy led", that faith has strong limitations. The possibility is that our "future potential Eagles" are no better or worse then adults at many things including what needs to be done on a BOR.

 

We have had this debate before.

[evmori 11]

What if the boy shows up for his BOR in a suit & tie? Or his school uniform?

[OldGreyEagle 5]

So Dug, even though the Board of Review compositon is clearly set as being composed of at least three and no more than 6 Committee members, you have scouts (read youth) serve on your Boards of Review. I was the one who made the twisted comment and before I cued Dee Snider I wanted to be sure.

[Lisabob 13]

Hey OGE, Dug, seems like maybe your ongoing debate deserves a separate thread?

 

I had the privilege of sitting on an Eagle BoR last night. First time I've done that. All the others I've been part of so far were for T21 ranks. One big difference I noticed: very, very few questions about specific scout skills at the Eagle BoR, while in the T21 ranks, a great deal of the discussion focuses on skills (how learned, when used, comfort level with said skill, etc.).

 

Made me wonder: is the purpose of the BOR really to spot-check on skill development, or rather, on the personal development of the young man in question. I understand that the first three ranks are primarily focused on acquiring basic skill sets so it is natural that the boys might be asked about those skills more specifically at those ranks. But I'm thinking that this is also a reflection of developmental abilities of (most) boys as they mature. At the age of 10-12 or so when most boys are working on the first three ranks,(most) boys don't have much ability to be introspective so we ask them about tangible things they've seen/done/tried as a way to help them learn to think about the meaning of those experiences.

 

By the time they're likely to be earning the Eagle rank they may have developed a better capacity to reflect on their own maturation and growth so we ask them different types of questions - less hands on, more cerebral. (Seems like most Eagle candidates are at least 14; the young man in question last night was almost 18 and the typical age in this troop for Eagles is probably closer to 16.)

 

Looking at it this way (which does seem to be consistent with the aims of scouting after all - not just camping/outdoor skills but personal development and growth, using the outdoors as a learning laboratory) puts the whole question of how to "review" scouts and how to engage in "quality control" in a somewhat different light.

 

 

Lisa'bob

[FScouter 24]

Lisabobs point of view is good. A little (lot) more focus on personal growth is in order. Verifying the completion of requirements (skills) is a part of a board of review, but there is bigger purpose. Boards should spend less time testing the candidate and more time talking with him about his experience in the troop and talking about the Scouting ideals and how they apply to his life.

 

Thats really why boys should not be conducting boards of review; the aims and mission are not specifically taught to boys. They do not fully understand the aims of Scouting and the mission of Scouting. They are achieved as a byproduct of the adult leaders using the eight methods including the outdoor method. The board of review is a tool to make sure they are achieving the aims. A candidates peers cannot adequately determine whether the troop is making progress towards achieving the aims.

 

Adult are far better qualified to do that, but of course those adults must have a good understanding of the ideals, aims, and mission themselves.

[ljnrsu 10]

OGE, there was a time when youth did handle the advancement proceedures for Tenderfoot, Second Class and First Class. It started with the Eighth Edition of the Handbook in June 1972. It continued through the Ninth Edition of the Handbook. The Tenth Edition in Jan 1990 changed it to what we have today. BOR's done by Troop Committee.

 

They were not called BOR's but Progress Reviews and were done by the Troop Leaders Council and which may have had a Committee Member sitting in as an adviser.

 

"Maybe the Dug Nevius form of scouting isnt as "Twisted" as previously thought."

 

Dug, though the Troop Leader Council and Patrol Leader Council are similar in composition their training and responsibilities were vastly different. IMHO staying with something that is 16 years out of date is "twisted".

 

 

 

 

 

[DugNevius 10]

FS- I might agree with yu had i not seen and experienced what well led boys are capable of.

 

As for the suit and Tie- I actually would not send a boy home, but it would raise a few questions.

 

OGE- The literature, as posted by LongHaul clearly states that Scouts are to be in proper uniform, but werent yu arguing that this is not needed? Come on, baby, sing it with me: "I WANNA ROCK!"

[evmori 11]

A BOR (not Eagle) should focus on where the Scout has been what he has learned to date. It should also focus on his future development & when he thinks he will be ready for his next BOR. The rest will fall into place if this is the focus of the BOR.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Beavah 205]

Yah, FScouter, I think you missed Lisabob's point entirely, eh?

 

Her point was that younger boys (age 10-12) are not as comfortable or capable of abstract thought about ideals and values and leadership. So the age-appropriate way to ask them questions at a BOR is by asking them concrete skill questions.

 

I can't tell you the number of times I've seen an 11 year old freeze up when a strange adult asks him some long abstract thing about "aims and ideals and how they apply to his life." By contrast, if you ask him about the safe hiking rules, he's on safe ground, and you get to hear indirectly what he's thinking about obedience, and judgment, and taking care of his patrol mates.

 

 

[FScouter 24]

Sometimes adults have a difficult time formulating appropriate questions and discussion points based on Scouting ideals and the aims of Scouting. The Troop Committee Guidebook, the Scoutmaster Handbook, the Advancement Policies and Procedures book and the new on-line Board of Review training module all have several sample questions that work well, meet the objectives of a BOR, and dont intimidate an 11-year-old boy.

 

They are all good resources for conducting useful boards of review.

[Lisabob 13]

Actually Beavah, both you and Fscouter managed to express different aspects of what I was trying to say, probably better than I did myself. Thanks.

 

To try to summarize and clarify what I meant:

1. Younger scouts with less capacity for introspection and abstract thought need to be asked questions that deal more with concrete skill, so as to avoid the situation you describe,

 

AND

 

2. But the point isn't to find out what they know about safe hiking, not really. It is to use those concrete skills as an avenue for considering growth and development.

 

My thoughts after last night's Eagle BOR were that sometimes we get too hung up on the skill (which is, none the less, important) and lose focus on the second part - esp. with these younger guys because so much of their rank advancement is explicitly skill based.

 

Lisa'bob

[FScouter 24]

Younger scouts with less capacity for introspection and abstract thought need to be asked questions tailored to their individual capacities. Those questions can be framed around their experience in learning the concrete skills found in the rank requirements.

 

Developing suitable questions for boys is the challenge and responsibility of the adult board members, led by the board chairman. With the right individuals theres no reason it cannot be done. To take the easy route and re-test shortchanges the boys BOR experience.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Actually Dug, the quote that Longhaul used was in my original post, if you go back you will see the following:

The Scout should be neat in appearance 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)

The blue text is my comment. The scout should be neat, the uniform as correct as possible, doesnt mean it has to be a full and complete. I would hope the scout would be motivated to wear a full and complete uniform if at all possible, but if its not, would you hold up his advancement?

BTW, the above quote comes from the BSA publication Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures, it doesnt say guidebook anywhere. If anyone can direct me to the BSA Advancement Guidebook, please do. Policies and Procedures to me are a lot more than "guides"

And let me make this as clear as I can, I know there are no magic words to use to "make" a troop follow BSA policy. As a volunteer organization, units are pretty much left to do things as they will. But I feel it incumbent that the correct information be posted especially when aberrant practices are passed off as OK,

 

[LongHaul 10]

OGE,

You are correct the word Guidebook does not appear in or on the publication to which you refer. If it is your position that BSA POLICY must be adhered to in all cases the how do we treat the statement that A badge is recognition of what a young person is able to do, not merely a reward for what he has done. Page 3(this is in bold face type where as the no retest clause isn't wonder why?). A Boy Scout badge recognizes what a young man is able to do; it is not a reward for what he has done page 21. In referring to the objectives of a BOR it states that those objectives should include; To make sure the Scout has done what he was supposed to do for the rank page 26. To make sure that the work has been learned and completed page 27. The compliance with these policies would be easier if the line The review is not an examination; the board does not retest the candidate. didnt appear, but it does. How am I as a member of a BOR to comply with the first policies and guarantee the quality and accuracy of the work done in light of the final restriction. I would almost have to find circuitous and convoluted routes to determine whether these skills were indeed learned. As the program encourages First Class in the First year I would be dealing with an 11 year old while I try and carefully word my inquiries as to knot tying and camping skills so as not to give the impression that it is a retest. This would help the boy considerably later in life when he wanted to do something that maybe was in a gray area but he wanted everyone to think he was on the up and up, bending the rules with plausible deniability as it were. You read not a retest to mean no asking the boy to tie a knot I see it as not going one by one down the requirements list. One would think that if these were caved in stone policies not to be ignored National would make them clear or at least not reword them between pages 26 and 27 of the same text as it has done with the objectives of a BOR.

You mention the line about the uniform being as complete as possible, what about the NEW Training module put out by National after the publication on advancement policy which states "A board can expect a Scout to be neat in appearance and properly uniformed" to operative term changes from complete as possible to properly. Who now decides the definition of properly, the board, the PLC, the TC, the CO? Should we just ignor the NEW Training module becasue it isn't in the printed publication with the proper title?

In checking the threads on what a SM should do with a Blue Card signed as complete by an approved MBC when the SM knows without doubt the requirements were not in fact met you chose to remain silent. Care to tell us what you would do as a member of the BOR if you knew one of the merit badges being used for advancement was awarded in violation of published BSA policy? How do you meet the objectives of the BOR. Which publication should we use to determine which sentence in a publication to use when different sentences within the same publication conflict?

LongHaul

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Longhaul, I thought the Policies and Procedures for Advancement were pretty clear cut. I am not sure how to respond to problems I dont see, although you clearly do.

 

A troops program should be constructed so that a scout never "loses" his proficiency of a skill once learned. If a scout never has an opportunity to use a bowline other than when he "passed" the requirement, how will he retain the knowledge? If a scout only uses his map and compass skills the day that was signed off, can we expect him to know his stuff? if the troop program gives frequent and ample opprtunity to use scout skills the whole retest/redo/reexam thing is a moot point. If a troop has poor scout skills, is it the scouts fault? Is it the Instructor fault? or is it because the scouts dont use the skills they learned because they arent placed in positions to use them?

 

WHy not set up a troop program where there isnt a chance a socut doesnt know his skills becasue he is given ample opportunity to use them.