Board of Review

[theysawyoucomin' 10]

I have seen literature from BSA saying that TF to star a boy should never fail a BOR.

 

Have you ever failed a Scout and why?

 

 

The BOR is not supposed to be a retest, how do you make sure all the requirements have been met?

 

Say a PL wants to be a nice guy and signs off and then the SM doesn't catch it that a skill has been missed and it comes up in the BOR what do you do?

 

I feel like sometimes we are just passing kids along, kind of like Schools used to do until to Sr. High and some mean teacher took and interest in making sure Johnny was somewhat prepared for the real world and then found out he couldn't read. Why is Mr Finney picking on my johnny so?

 

The BSA makes a BOR sound like the old Mike Douglas show: How are you? What's you favorite place to go?

Is there anything we can help you with? Yadda freakin' yadda yadda

 

What feeling of accomplishment is there in that?

 

Back in the old days could you ever ask questions that you made sure the kid knew his stuff?

[FScouter 24]

"freakin'"

 

What does that mean?

[evmori 11]

I have seen literature from BSA saying that TF to star a boy should never fail a BOR.

 

Have you ever failed a Scout and why?

 

Is this official BSA literature?

 

Yup have failed a Scout at a BOR. Didn't know the Oath & Law.

 

The BOR is not supposed to be a retest, how do you make sure all the requirements have been met?

 

Ask what the Scout did to complete the requirements.

 

Say a PL wants to be a nice guy and signs off and then the SM doesn't catch it that a skill has been missed and it comes up in the BOR what do you do?

 

Tell the Scout to learn the skill & come back.

 

I feel like sometimes we are just passing kids along, kind of like Schools used to do until to Sr. High and some mean teacher took and interest in making sure Johnny was somewhat prepared for the real world and then found out he couldn't read. Why is Mr Finney picking on my johnny so?

 

No one is being picked on. Just being held accountable for what they should know.

 

The BSA makes a BOR sound like the old Mike Douglas show: How are you? What's you favorite place to go?

Is there anything we can help you with? Yadda freakin' yadda yadda

What feeling of accomplishment is there in that?

 

I don't think the BSA does this. I think there are some unit leaders who do this.

 

Back in the old days could you ever ask questions that you made sure the kid knew his stuff?

 

Who says you can't now??????

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[theysawyoucomin' 10]

Ed,

One thing is knots, we can't throw a kid a rope at a board and say "can you demonstrate a bowline for us". Or a tautline.

 

Last week I had a kid admit to me he could not tie a tautline in a BOR. Didn't know what the knot was used for.

 

We had two kids that could not do even one pull up. We have all been down that road with a thread saying "from locked down to 90 degree arm flex is improvement".

 

I didn't vote to fail both boys, but if you have zero of something improvement is 1. In kindergarten, in 1968 we did pull ups every week. I spent an entire year flopping around hanging under that bar like a hooked fish. I did not do one until first grade, but I sure remember the day my chin got over the bar. Why do we "sea lawyer" the requirement to mean any miniscule improvement is ok?

 

I think it was in Scouter magazine that I read that a Scout should never fail a board.

 

Last night some of the parents discussed having every Scout make a knot board to display his knot work and bring it to the board.

 

Somebody said it best, "Some knowledge is a mile wide and one inch deep"

 

This week end I'm making a couple of lashing boxes for the boys to learn with. This stuff has to stop.

 

 

 

[evmori 11]

One thing is knots, we can't throw a kid a rope at a board and say "can you demonstrate a bowline for us". Or a taut-line.

 

Sure ya can! And if the Scout says "What's a bowline?" then maybe he never completed the requirement.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I've always thought that a Board of Review was a review of the boys progress as well as the integrity of the troop's program. There is nothing I know of that prevents a BOR from throwing the scout a rope and asking him to tie a bowline, there is a problem if you fail the scout because he can't tie it. If you throw that "cursed" rope 5 times to 5 different scouts and none can tie the bowline, whats your first move? do you need to fail 5 scouts or figure out what's wrong in your knot tieing program? . BTW you could ask those 5 scouts to lead a knot tieing class in bowlines, french or otherwise after they have learned the knot.

 

In the Scouting Magazine March-April 2006 issue, there was a feature in the "Front Line Stuff" titled "how best to inform a Scout (and his parents) that the boy wasn't fully prepared for a rank advancement board of review".

 

I dont think the BSA would publish such a piece if you couldnt "fail" a scout. Check it out at http://www.scoutingmagazine.org/ and look for back issues.

 

(N.B. one reader says no scout shoudl fail a Board of Review, not because it's BSA policy but because if the program is working, it shouldn't happen)(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Hunt 11]

Personally, I oppose rope-throwing, because it's contrary to what a BOR is supposed to be about. Rope-throwing is, in my opinion, a symptom of adults emphasizing that they have the power.

 

But, if I accept OGE's idea that you can throw the rope, it seems to me that there are two likely reasons that the boy can't tie a bowline today:

1. He never learned to tie it in the first place. If this is the case, the problem is with the troop's sign-off procedure. Of course, if a boy admits that he never actually fulfilled a requirement (even though it was signed off), I personally would suggest that he go do it and come back for another BOR later.

2. He learned it, but didn't use it enough to remember it by the time the BOR came around. This problem (if it is a problem) is a problem of the troop's program. Scouts should practice skills by using them.

 

I suppose I can see how BOR members who don't know the scouts well might focus in on details like whether a scout can tie a particular knot. If you know the boy, you are not likely to focus on something like that--either you know he's a good, deserving scout, or you know that there are more important problems to discuss.

[Trevorum 24]

Back when I was on committee, I remember several fellows who, for one reason or another, left their BoR without a signature. However, the Board didn't "fail" them. We, including the Scout, agreed to adjourn the Board until a specific date in the future when we would reconvene and complete the Board. We did this in a few cases when the Scout was clearly not prepared for the Board. All of those Scouts got a unanimous vote of the Board upon reconvening a week or two later.

 

The only case of which I know of a failed Board was for an Eagle candidate. I've written of that incident here previously.

 

[Beavah 205]

Sat in on lots of BOR's for different troops. Seen everything from the 10-minute "Hi, how are yeh? Did you have a nice time last weekend?" boards to the hour and a half skill review fests.

 

I gotta agree with the old Owl. The most useless waste of kid and adult time are the former. In addition to bein' pointless, they convey an attitude that "adults don't really care about this stuff" and "this is a blowoff." Not what I like to see troops teach kids by example. Yah, the kid spent a lot of time and effort workin' through all those requirements, eh? Seems like a matter of simple courtesy for adults to spend some time lettin' a proud lad show his stuff.

 

That's not to say I'm fond of the hour and a half skill reviews either. Half the time the adults who are "strict" about such things don't know what they're talkin' about, and are coverin' for their own lack of skill.

 

Balance, balance is the key. And knowin' and respondin' to the boy. A bright, saucy lad might need a little challenge, eh? An ADHD boy might be better served by doin' a few knots and lashings than tryin' to answer abstract questions about the Oath, at least to start. A quiet, shy, nervous lad I find is usually best answering simple questions about a skill he knows well to start warmin' to the members.

 

As OGE says, a boy who forgets a few things gets the rank, eh? But a boy who's just lost, or who clearly has been blowin' things off or scammin' his way by gets to try again. The first because he needs to have the experience of real success, the second because a temporary setback is the right lesson.

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Beavah and OldGreyEagle agreeing? In the words of Judy Tenuta

"it could happen"

 

Remember Hunt, I am talking about reviewing the program, not retesting the boy. I am with you that if the boy was signed off, he was signed off, although you may have sign off issues on which to focus

[EagleInKY 14]

I believe the issue here is with the word "fail" and not the concept. I, too, agree with Beavah & OGE. A scout may be told that he's not ready to advance. That's not the same as saying he "failed". In our 4 years as a troop, I guess we've done close to 100 BORs. I believe one (or maybe two) were not passed. The one I remember was a scout going up for his Tenderfoot BOR and totally froze up. He couldn't have told them his name if they asked. They worked with him for a while and finally asked him to relax and come back next week. He did, and passed.

[LongHaul 10]

First let me say that this is not directed AT Hunt, I seem to be in opposition to her views in other threads as well, it is directed at the condition she brings to light. The BOR instructions per the Advancement Committee publication state that the BOR is to be made up of troop committee members. It states that unit leaders, assistant leaders, and relatives are not allowed to sit on the board. When Hunt writes I suppose I can see how BOR members who don't know the scouts well might focus in on details like whether a scout can tie a particular knot. If you know the boy, you are not likely to focus on something like that--either you know he's a good, deserving scout, or you know that there are more important problems to discuss. she touches on something I believe is over looked far to often. If you know the boy to the extent that you have made up your mind before the BOR convenes whether he is a good scout or not should you be sitting on the Board in the first place? If you are a committee member who has constant or repeated contact with the troops daily function should you be on the BOR? Is the exclusion of unit leaders and assistant unit leaders a matter of registration or a matter of pre disposition? As SM I pretty much know who can tie a bowline and who cant, who is a leader and who isnt. The BOR is supposed to make a decision based on the things brought forth in the BOR not personal opinion based on contact over the course of the scouts tenure. If I cant give a scout Ive never met the same consideration as a scout Ive interacted with over many years then I should not be sitting on his BOR. Far to often those sitting on BORs hold a committee member registration but function as an assistant unit leader and are too close to the scout to be impartial.

The other thing Im seeing in these threads is the notion that a BOR can be adjourned. Are we so worried about telling a boy he is not ready to advance? The BOR should always reach a decision and that decision should be given to the scout. If the BOR is held for the purpose of considering advancement then they either advance or not and the procedures are spelled out in the Advancement publications. Is it a matter of not wanting to give written notice and go through all the details? We worry about retesting and what we can ask and how but ignore the details at our convenience. What example does this show?

 

LongHaul

 

[Lisabob 13]

OK I admit some confusion. Every time I think I've about got this BOR thing figured out then you guys throw me a new one and off I go again to think things through. Not that that's bad... this time it has to do with asking for skill demonstration.

 

So let me see if I understand the consensus I seem to find here. It is ok to ask a scout to demonstrate specific skills (like knots) at their BOR but it isn't ok to decline to advance them, if they cannot do the skill in question? Does that mean that we are bound to advance boys who just don't know the skill? Isn't that a rubber stamp if ever there was one? If that's the case then does it even make sense to distinguish, as Beavah did (others too I'm sure), between boys who don't know it because they've forgotten it, and those who don't know it because they never learned/are scamming? When it comes down to the skill, in both cases, the boy just doesn't know the material.

 

As a somewhat more practical matter - while some committee members do camp a lot and have pretty good knowledge of scoutcraft, I notice around here that many do not - they are good at the "business" side of the program but they may not know the difference between a square knot and a granny. So I'm not all that worried about them tossing the kid a rope and asking for a bowline because I don't know that they'd be able to recognize it if it was right or wrong. (Call me cynical but I've seen boys mess up the oath and law and nobody else on the BOR picked it up because THEY didn't know it either.) And I think you get the "fluff" BORs in these cases too because not only do the adults not know the skills but as a result, they also don't know how to ask intelligent questions ABOUT the skills and judge the answers.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I understand Lisabob, let me say this about that:

 

If during the Board of Review you find a scout who can't tie a bowline, look back to what I have said, be sure the scout learns it and have him teach it at the next possible time, at least thats what I hope I posted. The idea is your program should not be about learn a scout skill, pass it and forget it until the BOR process or something like that. The scoutcraft skills should be woven into the troops program so inherently you can ask any scout to tie any knot (if its rank appropriate) and the knot is tied, not because the scout "remembers" the knot, but because he is used to tieing it, because he knows how to use it and uses it for non-scouting purposes. Why is a BOR not a retest? because the program is built on using the learned skills and the program designed so once the boys learn a skill, they can and do use it "all the time" so its not a case of, "gee I am a little rusty on that one" because the skill has been used. Now, if the scout hasnt been around alot, then they will need more work, but then again there's nothing that says a scout cant practice his scoutcraft skills outside of a scout meeting. (The horror, the horror).

 

If you have 5 scouts in a row that can't tie a bowline or a knot du jour, then its time to examine the program and that should happen only once every 5 years or so, does that help?

[theysawyoucomin' 10]

First, thank you to all who replied. You really can learn a lot here.

Second, thank you to the old grey fellow bird of prey(those with talons rule!)that was where I read a Scout should never fail.

 

I guess I'd like to be known as an adult that expects 100%. Who wants to be known as easy? "Ah, give it to Mr. Jekyll to sign off on, he's easy"

 

I think you cheat a kid when you do that. It gives me no pleasure to refuse a Scout promotion but even less to pass a boy and have him think the whole program is a bunch of male bovine soil.

 

They come to be challenged. Nothing in the world is better than the "achievement smile". That's the look you get when the whole thing comes together. That's golden!

 

I'll admit a kid could pitch tents in our unit all year long and never have to knot anything because of the way our tents are made. I'm sure many of you have some of the same kind of tents.

 

As far as freezing up. They do get scared once in a while but I've know some of these kids for 5 years.

Some times we tell them to lighten up and calm down.

 

Thanx again for all your replies.