Denial of Advancement

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Hunt's comment sparked a thought, so if you don't like it, blame Hunt. A scout never "fails" a Board of Review, if the rank is not given, the scout is told what must be done to obtain the rank, a letter must be sent to the scout confirming the agreements reached on the actions necessary for advancement, so it is not a message of "you don't qualify", its "you will qualify if..."

 

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[LongHaul 10]

I don't see how the Clinton Valley statement "directly contradicts" the statement on the National web site. The National site doe not address the issue of time in position at all nor does it address credit for time served. Both statements say that a boy that is not performing the duties can be removed from that position.

My question is if the BOR were to decide a boy has not performed the duties assigned to him in a satisfactory method even though the scout had held the position for the required length of time, what would be the actual reason for not advancing the scout? What could the scout do to correct the situation? Can we ask him to re due the POR requirement?

LongHaul

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

LongHaul,

 

From the BSA website

 

http://www.scouting.org/nav/enter.jsp?s=ba

 

 

Board of Review Training

 

"...If the Scout is not advancing, the board should certainly give the Scout the opportunity of learning what he needs to do to advance. He should be given a definite time for a subsequent board of review. Finally he should be given information about appeal procedures. In a good troop, having a Scout deferred for advancement by the board of review is unusual. If there is a problem with a Scout, normally he will not be presented to the board of review..."

 

Now I found the above at the National Website, I am not sure if the link will work, but if not search the phrase "Board of Review Training".

 

In the BSA publication "Advancement Committee Guide, Policies and Procedures" you find the following concerning a scout who is not successful at a Board of Review

 

"...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..."

 

Both lay out the expectation that the Board of Review will tell the scout what needs to be done and when the scout's next Board of Review is, they also are to explain the appeal process. I think sending the scout a letter is a good idea. It gives the proceedings a solemn note and it puts down on paper what needs to be done. This makes certain both scout and troop are working off the same page

 

Interetingly enough, the final sentence from the BSA website is quite telling, "...If there is a problem with a Scout, normally he will not be presented to the board of review..." which indicates to me the Board of Review is not the place to decide POR effectiveness.

 

I think the best job we can do for the boy is to be sure they know where they stand with the troop, they know if they are doing a good job, because we have told them, they know if improvement is needed because such suggestions are being offered virtually almost all the time.

 

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Beavah 205]

Goin' back a bit to avoid the stuff that repeats what's goin' on in the other thread, Hunt writes:

 

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.

 

and OGE responds

 

A scout never "fails" a Board of Review, if the rank is not given... it is not a message of "you don't qualify", its "you will qualify if..."

 

I'm with OGE here. Advancement is recognition of skill and achievement. If a boy hasn't yet fully learned a skill or achieved to a certain level, it's not a "denial" or a "failure". It's just a "hey, good job so far, let's keep workin' so you get it!"

 

I think the key here is the attitude and message of the adults. If the adults have a notion that it's a "failure" and they communicate that to the boy, then that attitude is hard to stop in youth and parents. I always cringe a bit when I hear adults talk about "failing" or "denial" 'cause it's the wrong message. It just ain't Scouting.

 

Sorta like swim checks. A boy just demonstrates where he's at in terms of swimming skills. We record it for information and safety reasons, and then we work with the boy to improve from where he's at. It's totally the wrong attitude to talk about "failing" a swim check, but if it happens that where he's at meets the 1st class swim requirements, he gets that signoff.

 

That's why in the BSA program we're supposed to have Boards of Review without rank advancement (even though most troops never do). A BOR is supposed to listen to a boy tell about where he's at, and offer some encouragement. If it happens that where a boy is at is a new level of recognition, the board should grant him a new rank. Either way, they keep encouragin' him.

 

And it's OK in that sort of environment for a SM or a BOR to say, "Johnny, your PL signed off on 'what to do when lost' but you still seem kinda unsure, you should work on that some more." It's just the boy tellin' us where he's at, and us helpin' him progress.

 

It's only when we adults start thinkin' of Scouting=School, with "classes" and "failing tests" that we send da wrong message. As B-P wrote, we "trench on the work of schools" rather than doing real Scouting.

 

Beavah

 

[acco40 95]

On a light note, I gave a young (10 year old) "go-getter" Scout his SM conference last week and informed (okay, slightly teasingly) that he better get ready for some tough questions for his 1st Class BOR. He had a puzzled look on his face and asked me if it was even possible to "fail" a BOR. I told his it could happen from a technical point of view but from a practical point of view he had nothing to worry about. He laughed and thought I was pulling his leg, "Nobody can fail a BOR," he stated assuredly. I told him to ask the advancement chair and he was shocked to find out that yes, one could have a BOR and not pass. Has not happened on our troop during my tenure as SM but the boys need to know that it is a possibility.

[MarkS 11]

Beavah said, "Awards in life aren't an automatic thing."

 

No... but if most parents had their way, they would be. For example, last year my son's school awarded a grand prize and nine recognition ribbons for their annual science fair. A parent complained and this year they awarded ten recognition ribbons. Apparently, their's no room for failure in elementary school.

 

Most parents today just don't want to expose their children to the potential for failure in the things they do.

 

BTW... my son won the grand prize ribbon. ;-)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

It does some strange, doesnt it? There seems to be a segment of the population who never want children to fail, to the point of having schools do away with the Honor Roll, National Honor Society, et al and seemingly not wanting to put any praise on anyone for being "smart" less some other student feel dumb but in athletics, however, higher, stronger, faster, seems to be the motto

 

And we wonder why kids have screwed up priorities, its a learned behavior

[LongHaul 10]

OGE,

Seeing that you prefaced your recent post with "LongHaul," I take it that the post was a response to my recent post. I just cant see how yours addresses mine. I know what the BOR is supposed to do if it decides not to advance a scout I asked just how that written response would be worded if the BOR felt the performance in completing the POR requirement was inadequate. What would be the purposed action the scout could take to rectify the situation?

LongHaul

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I would say whatever was decided at the end of the initial Board of Review. Perhaps if the scout is in charge of the troop library, the Board of Review letter may look like this:

 

Dear Tommy,

 

As you know, you did not receive the rank of Star at the board of review held on (dated). Another Board of Review has been scheduled for you on (date). Before that time, please assure the following has been done concerning the Troop Library:

 

1. Inventory of all Books with publication date and author

2. List of all merit gadge pamphlets

3. List of outstanding library items in the possession of scouts

4. List of publications/books.resources that would augment the library

5. Construction of a new carton/case/device to transport the library

 

We on the Board of Review hope to see you on the (repeat date) having accomplished the above.

 

 

 

Thats all, not a lot, just what the expectations are and when the next Board of Review is to be held. Of course, the scoutmaster and any interested adult may help Tommy along, ask if he needs help with organization, fabrication, etc. Letting him know he is not alone, but that no one will do it for him either. I know my "letter" is not much, but I use it as an example. In a "real" situation I am sure much more would be covered.

[LongHaul 10]

Understand that I am not disagreeing with OGE here but does anyone else see this as adding to the requirement? The written requirement says "While a XXXX scout serve actively in one or more....." When a boy presents himself to a BOR and the POR item has been signed off how can we ask him to do extra work in the POR? If the BOR felt the boy didn't actually earn say Lifesaving Merit Badge could they ask him to do extra work in the Lifesaving area to qualify for advancement? I think I can see National's intent here but when they say we can not add to or subtract from the written requirement how can we now refuse to accept something that has been satisfied in the opinion of the person designated to make that decision?

LongHaul

[evmori 11]

If a boy has a POR & it is signed off when he comes for his BOR, asking him to do any more for this POR is adding to the requirements. He, at least in the Scoutmasters eyes, has met the requirement. The BOR would have an issue with the Scoutmaster, not the Scout.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[FScouter 24]

Ed, that is not correct. The requirement is not for a boy to get a check-off in his book. The requirement is to do the work and learn it.

 

One of the purposes of the board of review is to determine if all the requirements were completed. If through thoughtful questioning the board finds the boy did not fulfill the duties of his position of responsibilty, it is entirely correct that they defer his advancement. The board must inform the boy what must be done to meet the requirement, and follow up with a written letter. This process is not "adding to the requirements", it is following BSA advancement policy.

[ScoutNut 147]

Most people associate a BOR with advancement. With the entire focus on making sure the Scout measures up. What seems to get lost in the fervor of re-testing & making the Scout terrified he will "fail", is the fact that the BOR should also be reviewing the TROOP.

 

From BSA Supplemental Training - Board of Review Training -

 

"The board of review is a chance for the troop committee or other adults in the community to get a sense of how the troop is doing and to permit them to offer support where needed. It gives three to six other sets of ears to hear how a Scout is doing, how he feels about the troop and his role in it, how he is advancing, and whether he is striving to live up to Scouting's ideals."

 

If a BOR discovers that a Scout did not really do a whole lot in his POR, but it was still approved by his SM, that is a TROOP problem, a SM problem. The Scout can be counseled to take a more active role in his NEXT POR. The BOR should then take the SM to task for the problems that were discovered & help to make sure they are not repeated.

 

 

[Beavah 205]

If a BOR discovers that a Scout did not really do a whole lot in his POR, but it was still approved by his SM, that is a TROOP problem, a SM problem. The Scout can be counseled to take a more active role in his NEXT POR.

 

Yah, with due respect to ScoutNut, this is where I think folks make some mistakes.

 

If a Scout comes to a BOR havin' not yet met the expectation for some requirement as FScouter describes, it's a "problem" for both the boy and the troop.

 

The boy needs to learn that an honorable man admits when he doesn't know something, and goes back and improves himself before he accepts public recognition. The boy needs to get the full benefit of the program. The boy should not be put in the place of looking the fool in front of his peers and other adults by being "the Life Scout who can't plan a meal". Giving a boy a badge because we feel the adults should have done better does not help the boy!. I think sometimes we fool ourselves into thinking that it does.

 

There's a second issue that I believe matters a lot for the troop. If we set the expectation that a boy who doesn't know/hasn't accomplished some of the requirements is always approved by a BOR (because the assumption is it's the "adults' fault") then that creates a unit culture. The unit culture it creates is that the best/easiest way to get recognition is to scam a signoff from the "weakest link" adult or youth leader. Once it's "in your book" nobody else will ever review it. I've watched this culture play out in a number of units. Funny thing, it seems to go hand-in-hand with bullying in units, too... perhaps kids start bullying to get themselves recognition because the Advancement Method becomes a joke. Certainly it seem to encourage a sort of "What's the minimum I can get away with?" attitude.

 

So we're back around to how in the BSA program, a problem caught at a BOR is supposed to be addressed with both the boy and the adult leaders... in the same way. Both get congratulated on what they've accomplished so far, and then get told they need to go back and work on a few things a bit more until they've got them "down."

 

Beavah

 

[LongHaul 10]

>>If a BOR discovers that a Scout did not really do a whole lot in his POR, but it was still approved by his SM, that is a TROOP problem, a SM problem. The Scout can be counseled to take a more active role in his NEXT POR. The BOR should then take the SM to task for the problems that were discovered & help to make sure they are not repeated.>but is still approved by his SM,> The Scout can be counseled to take a more active role in his NEXT POR.> The BOR should then take the SM to task for the problems that were discovered & help to make sure they are not repeated