Denial of Advancement

[Beavah]

 

In da original thread, in a thoughtful post which I agreed with, Hunt wrote somethin' about:

 

denial of advancement without adequate mentoring or warning

 

And I was thinkin' to myself, "Gee, that's an odd way to think about receiving an award."

 

Awards are usually something others give us to recognize our contributions or skills. If a lad gets a Varsity Letter, it recognizes his skill and contributions to his team in a particular sport. Kids who didn't letter in their sport weren't "denied advancement". They just weren't (yet) recognized for that award.

 

Scoutin' awards were to my mind always supposed to be like that, eh? Somethin' a kid earns when he reaches a certain level and others see it in him. There ain't no such thing as being "denied advancement", only not yet havin' achieved it.

 

Maybe if we keep that in mind, and were careful with our language so that kids and parents learn better what it's all about, it might help, eh? Awards in life aren't an automatic thing. They're a gift that others give us when they feel we're ready.

 

Beavah

 

[John-in-KC]

Beavah,

 

I agree with your precept, but I believe advancement in Scouting is based on completing both tangible (skills, Merit Badges) and intangible (Scout Spirit) events, activities, or processes. It's not, respectfully, a gift... just as earning a letter isn't a gift.

 

In either case, the advancement is always in one of three states:

- In progress

- Completed

- Further down the trail (such as looking at Life when the Scout is First Class)

[OldGreyEagle]

This is an interesting topic, I see it different from Beavah, but I wouldn't say that makes either of us wrong. I see Advancement as a Method of Scouting, and I am sure Beavah would say the same.

 

A scout joins a Troop and says I want to be a First Class scout in a year. He looks at the requirements and sets off. He attends events, goes shopping for food, cooks for his Patrol, he learns knots and identifies plants and animals/signs of animals and then when he completes the requirements for each rank, he has a Scoutmaster Conference and Board of Review.

 

He knows when to request a Scoutmaster Conference because he knows the requirements for each rank and has them signed off in his book, or sees them signed off on the wall chart or whatever device the Troop uses to keep track of advancement.

 

So, now that he is First Class the ambitious scout wants to be a Star Scout, he sets off with the POR of Librarian. He earns his merit badges, but does nothing with the Troop Library. He doesnt take any inventory, doesnt keep track of who takes what and generally doesnt care. When he assumed the postion of Librarian, he was told what the duties are and was given the case full of books. At a review one month later, the scout can't account for half the books and is told he needs to straighten things up. At the 2 month mark, no progress has been made and is told to either straighten up the Troop Library or he risks losing his POR, now comes crunch time. After 3 months, the Library is still a shambles, the scout has not done any of the suggested measures to improve and shows no interest in doing so, do you let the scout continue for 1 more month and when he asks for a Scoutmaster conference because he has had the position of Libarian, is he signed off on it because he held the position for 4 months or do you deny him the advancement because he has not fulfilled the duties? He was told at a scoutmaster conference at the 3 month mark or there about he would not be receiving credit for 4 months of a POR because he did not do what was expected and he can continue as Libarian but the clock would be set back at zero time in the position or is there another position that he would like to try? Either way, he does not get his advancement, whether you call this advancement "denied" or advancement "delayed" is of little consequence to the scout, he learns he either performs or he doesnt advance. He has to try.

 

Ranks are awarded because they are earned, not because adults see a scout and "think" they deserve them. This does make ranks different than a Varisty letter for Athletics. While any student can join the Football team as a Freshman, and stay on the team until he graduates, whether or not he receives a Varsity Letter depends on how much talent he has or rather how much talent the coach thinks he has and how much playing time he gets. Any scout who joins a Troop can earn Eagle, he has the requirements and can set off to earn the ranks, he knows what he has to do and with the support of the adults Eagle can be acheived if the scout wants it and is willing to work at it.

 

Fun stuff, aint it?

[John-in-KC]

OGE,

 

When I swam, lettering was 5 points: 1 for 3d, 2 for 2d, 3 for first place in any District meet. Coach didn't have a vote; it was a standard.

 

Son is in the band. His letter is composed of four areas:

Area 1: Attendance. 100%, very limited exemptions.

 

Area 2: Education and community service:

Perfect attendance at school marching band camp.

Drum Major

Consistent private study (yearly)

Summer band camp

Band Executive Council member

TRI-M membership

Squad/section leader in marching band

Section leader for a majority of yearly concert performances

Consistent performance in a community band

Community service (playing at church, helping younger players, etc.)

 

Complete either Area 3 or Area 4 (Music Performance)

Area 3: Music Performance (3 points required)

All-District Band(s) audition, or All-District Band(s) member

1 point for each solo/small ensemble performance of I, II, or III rating at District Music Festival

Pit orchestra member (fall musical)

Jazz band enrollment (counts for two if enrolled in Sym/Con Band; 0 if not.)

Missouri All-State Band(s) audition

Solo/ensemble performance of II or III rating at the MSHSAA State Music Festival

Orchestra concert performance(s) (wind/percussion section)

Music Theory enrollment

College/University sponsored High School Honor Band member

 

Area 4: Achieving All-State Band/Orchestra or a Division I rating in solos/ensembles demonstrates musical performance to standard

 

So, I dispute that coaches have discretion. They set standards, just as Scouting does. The fundamental difference is athletics and band are not "whole person" oriented as Scouting is.

[OldGreyEagle]

OK, I was wrong about the athletic letter thing, in my experience, Varisty letters were given by playing time, then again, it was football and baseball. You either had the playing time in minutes or innnings or you didnt and that was determined by if you played or not.

 

I am glad to see other areas have more standard standards, as it were. I know we both agree Scouting is more more whole person oriented.

 

Of course I realize Star, LIfe and Eagle are more than merit badges and POR's, I was trying to keep variables to a minimum.

[Beavah]

Yah, I'm right there with yeh, OGE, on how things should be handled.

 

I think there's a subtle thing about the way we think or talk. A boy who has completed Tenderfoot earns the badge because he's proficient in a bunch of basic skills. It's a token that we give da lad to recognize or reward his effort at achievin' proficiency. He's "earned" it through his work, but its bigger meaning is we give him our respect and recognition for who he's become. Respect and recognition are ours to give, eh? Not his to take.

 

A boy who hasn't yet been "signed off" on tying two half hitches or on Scout Spirit isn't "denied advancement". It's just sayin' "Not yet, Joe, you've got some more work to do." There's nuthin' bad about not (yet) earning a rank, and it's not takin' anything away from a lad. Just like there's nuthin' bad about a typically disorganized adolescent boy not (yet) gettin' the troop library together. He just has some more work to do.

 

I think that small difference in way of thinkin' is at least a little bit important.

 

Beavah

 

[evmori]

I like the idea! A Scout isn't denied advancement, he just hasn't reached the level to advance at this time! But he will! Great way to look at it!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

I'd like to clarify that I think "denial of advancement" is a bad thing that shouldn't happen. Most cases I've heard of advancement being "denied" by adults have been wrong--a result of retesting, or capricious application of subjective criteria, or a failure to inform a boy in advance of what was expected. In my opinion, a boy should never enter a BOR wondering whether he will "pass" or not. As a corrolary, he should never get to the stage of a pre-BOR Scoutmaster Conference only to find out that he hasn't satisfied the SM's expectations. As others have indicated, advancement is something a boy earns, and the adults are just supposed to verify that he has in fact earned it, and then recognize the achievement.

[Venividi]

Hunt,

I am with you on BOR decisions that a boy is not yet ready for advancement should not be common. Much better for SM/ASM to continue to work with a scout until the scout has earned the rank, and then recommend them for BOR.

 

I think right now that things are in a state of flux/confusion as a result of the memo from national stating that time in rank fulfills the POR requirement. While searching the net for a copy of that memo/letter, I found the following on the Clinton Valley Council web site, which indicates that, while scouts are to be given credit for time in POR whether they have done or learned anything or not, national expects that the scout may not pass his BOR if his service was unsatisfactory. I find this rather confusing, as it seems to move decisions from SM/ASM (where mentorship occurs), to BOR, which is composed of folks who are further removed from the scout.

 

Here is the text, and also a link to the source:

 

The decision also said, The issue of whether their service is satisfactory is resolved at the local board of review for that rank. Therefore, a boy who was in the position of Scribe for six months from Life to Eagle had fulfilled that requirement. That does not necessarily mean that he will pass his board of review, because if his service was not satisfactory, he could be turned down at the board of review.

http://www.cvc-bsa.org/advancement/bsAdvancementFAQ.html#posResp

The text is from the response to the FAQ titled "What can a Scoutmaster do if there is a Scout in his/her unit that is performing poorly in a position of responsibility or doesn't show up at all?"

 

[FScouter]

"I think right now that things are in a state of flux/confusion as a result of the memo from national stating that time in rank fulfills the POR requirement."

 

What memo? I didn't get any memo. Who got a memo?

[John-in-KC]

Venivedi,

 

HUH???

 

This goes directly against this FAQ on the National website:

http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/resources/mbc/rank.html

 

"... However, unit leaders must ensure that he is fulfilling the obligations of his assigned leadership position. If he is not, then they should remove the Scout from that position."

 

I'm going to double back to a POR thread, otherwise we're gonna hijack something Beavah meant for the good of the order!!

 

 

 

 

[Venividi]

OK, I used the wrong word. Sorry.

[Venividi]

John,

 

The Clinton Valley Council web site FAQ is in agreement with the national web site on the issue of a scout being given credit for time in POR if not removed. It goes further than the National web site in providing a statement about BOR's role in such a situation: "The issue of whether their service is satisfactory is resolved at the local board of review for that rank."

Please note that I am not associated with Clinton Valley Council.

[Beavah]

In my opinion, a boy should never enter a BOR wondering whether he will "pass" or not. As a corrolary, he should never get to the stage of a pre-BOR Scoutmaster Conference only to find out that he hasn't satisfied the SM's expectations.

 

Yah, well a little bit of seriousness/nervousness is OK, eh?

 

I agree again with Hunt, in a very well-run program everyone is on the same page. Da instructor who taught the boy a skill fully understood the requirements and gave the boy everything he needed in terms of information and practice. Da PL who signed off the requirement knew exactly what he was doin' and how to uphold the testing standard for that requirement. Da SM or ASM channeled the Spirit of the Committee during the SM conference, and had a deep, personal understandin' of the goals of the organization, and how to use the program to make those happen. And da BOR signed, sealed and delivered. Excellent.

 

Problem is, no troop is perfect, eh? At least not all the time. No boy is perfect, either, and it is a Natural Calling of boys to try to get away with what they can, eh?

 

So sometimes the PL checking on a requirement discovers an instructor didn't do the best job, and has to say "no" to a boy. Not completely the boy's fault, eh? Two things still happen: the boy doesn't get signed off until he actually learns the requirement, and da PL may have a chat with the instructor or a topic for the next PLC to improve the quality of instruction.

 

Sometimes the PL signing off on a requirement doesn't do the best job, eh? The SM might discover this durin' an outing and then bring it up durin' a SM conference. Not completely the boy's fault, eh? Two things still happen: the boy needs to do some more work to really learn the requirement, and the SM has a chat with the PL or somethin' to include at the next TLT to improve the quality of checkouts.

 

Sometimes a SM lets things slide a bit, and doesn't do the best job at mentoring or at a conference. The Committee might discover this during a BOR, when a PL admits he only went on one outing with his patrol and his APL did all the work. Not completely the boy's fault, eh? Yah, but two things should still happen: the boy needs to spend some more time to really earn the requirement, and the CC has a chat with da SM or works to encourage more scouter training to improve the quality of the program.

 

Both things in each case need to happen. The boy, to fulfill his own Honor and obligations has to go back and really earn the requirement, and the unit has to take steps to improve to do a better job for the boys.

 

Beavah

[Hunt]

Beavah, I agree with you, and we've had it happen that a boy came to a BOR, but there had been an error that the SM didn't catch (such as length of time in a POR, or which MBs were done). In such a situation, I wouldn't tell the boy that he "failed" his BOR, just that there was a mistake that needed to be fixed. When this happened, the boy was disappointed but not really upset--he went and fixed the problem. That's a very different story from a boy worrying about whether he will fail his BOR because he might not be able to tie a knot on command.