New Advancement Requirements

[OldGreyEagle 5]

This is from the thread on asking whether or not it was time to eliminate Advancement. I guess the question is whether or not its time to overhaul the Advancement Requirements.

 

So, what do you think appeals to todays youth. What requirements would you have? You Youth posters, what requirements would make sense to you? I know this could turn comic, but actually try to be serious, I know I will struggle with being serious, but I will try. What skills are important in todays world and how do you boil that down to a scouty requirement?

 

 

[Kudu 186]

"What skills are important in today's world and how do you boil that down to a scouty requirement?"

 

Scouting should not pander to passive adult ideas about what "modern" boys want.

 

More than half of the sixth-grade boys in my area want to join Scouts to learn about fire, knives, bears, rattlesnakes, and learning first aid skills to be a hero.

 

New Advancement Requirements:

 

Test First Class skills with a 14 mile First Class Journey. Make it sound scary.

 

Turn summer camp into preparation for progressively more difficult journeys. Ban summer school schedules and cafeteria food.

 

Convert Star through Eagle into a challenging outdoor program.

 

Move the Fake Scouting requirements, including Positions of Responsibility, Scout Spirit, Boards of Review, and the required schoolwork Merit Badges (Citizenship, Communications, Environmental Science, Family Life, Personal Fitness, and Personal Management) to the University of Scouting and give that program an academic-sounding name that looks good on a college application.

 

Kudu

 

[acco40 95]

Mr. Horn, I don't quite understand your attribution of the "fake Scouting" label to position of responsibility. Are you in disagreement with the Star/Life/Eagle POR requirements or have a beef with the concept of PORs?

 

I feel that having a designated, usually youth elected, POR is a great learning experience for the boys. Most neophyte patrol leaders always explain to me what "bad" Scouts they have in their patrol. They never listen to them. They are just cutting their teeth on leadership skills and it is accompanied by a lot of growing pains.

 

I know that leadership is not one of Scoutings aims but most of us put it up with the aims to an extent. I don't see any problem with the POR requirements if implemented correctly.

[Gold Winger 9]

"Are you in disagreement with the Star/Life/Eagle POR requirements or have a beef with the concept of PORs?"

 

My beef is with the unit adults who allow the PORs to be nothing more than wearing a patch. My son's troop had an SPL who NEVER came to a meeting but he still got credit for it and was given his Eagle. When he was the Guide assigned to my son's new scout patrol, he NEVER came to a meeting and when he went camping with the new scouts, never did anything with them. He was given Life for that job.

 

If Scribes scribed and Historians did history and the QM actually worried about gear instead of some hapless parent doing all of the work THEN the POR requirement is accomplishing its requirement.

 

 

[evmori 11]

In those cases, GW, the problem is with the SM!

 

Don't add PC requirements to deal with bullying just so National can say "We are addressing the issue". Nothing more than CYA!

 

And bullying, like hazing, is very subjective!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

A blessed Christmas to all

[FScouter 24]

Hey Ed, you've mentioned this before. What do you mean when you say the national council can

"CYA". What does that mean? Is there some hidden agenda behind the new requirements?

[GernBlansten 10]

Rank requirements should be designed to measure a scout's mastery of scoutcraft, independence and self reliance. Each should build on the foundation of the previous rank. There should be a capstone test (challenge) at each rank that each scout should have in their sights. When they are ready, they take the challenge. Similar to the OA Ordeal in structure.

 

If a requirement cannot be objectively tested or is unrelated to the capstone challenge, take it out. Put those things in some other mechanism that can be delivered to the scouts.

[evmori 11]

CYA = Cover Your A**.

 

No hidden agenda I know of!(This message has been edited by evmori)

[scoutldr 732]

I have an idea!!! Let's make little metal loops that they can wear on their belts...we can call them "Skill Awards"!!!

[Kudu 186]

acco40 writes:

 

"Are you in disagreement with the Star/Life/Eagle POR requirements or have a beef with the concept of PORs?"

 

Both.

 

POR requirements are based on the idea that the older Patrol Method should serve the newer Leadership Development Method by providing it with convenient leadership training laboratories. The more traditional approach is to use the Patrol Method under the strongest leader to facilitate more challenging "boy-led" Outdoor Adventure.

 

The "concept of PORs" is based on using the term "POR" rather than "Patrol Leader." When we think of things in terms of Advancement Requirements, it makes discontinuing position-specific training just for Patrol Leaders seem "more fair to everyone."

 

Thinking in terms of PORs lumps Patrol Leaders in with the indoor Troop Librarians, Historians, Scribes, etc. and then abstracts their training down to the least common denominator.

 

This follows the Wood Badge model in which Boy Scout Leaders are lumped in with Committee Members, Cub Scout Leaders, and other indoor types, and their training is abstracted down to the least common denominator.

 

The concept of PORs is based on a "model" of the "skills" that all "leaders" have in common: "In general, Patrol Leader training should concentrate on leadership skills rather than on Scoutcraft Skills. The Patrol will not rise and fall on the Patrol Leader's ability to cook, follow a map, or do first aid, but it very definitely depends on his leadership skill."

 

acco40 writes:

 

"I feel that having a designated, usually youth elected, POR is a great learning experience for the boys...They are just cutting their teeth on leadership skills and it is accompanied by a lot of growing pains."

 

But for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction. What you gain in the satisfaction of having "everyone be a leader" and celebrating the growing pains of a constant turn-over of newbies cutting their teeth on leadership skills, you lose in providing your Scouts with the experience of more advanced outdoor adventure under their most gifted leader.

 

When is the last time your SPL asked the Patrol Leaders to report to the PLC on the Advancement Requirements they signed off on separate Patrol Hikes organized on their own initiative?

 

We should teach a Patrol Leader how to be a Patrol Leader rather than "how to be a leader."

 

Kudu

 

[LongHaul 10]

Kudu you assume a lot! Serving in a position of responsibly to the satisfaction of my Scoutmaster was a requirement 47 years ago so saying it is intended to serve the new leadership focused training is ridiculous. Considering the PL as holding a position of responsibility exactly the same as the Scribe is holding a position of responsibility in NO way affects or effects the training each is given. Just because I train scouts in the general skills and traits of leadership does not mean I do not train my PLs to be PLs. Are you saying that in your unit the PL is the only leader that is job specific trained? If this is a boy-led PATROL METHOD organization how am I as SM supposed to control who the PATROL elects as their PL? How does requiring each scout to perform in a POR stop an individual scout from being elected PL? Saying that the patrol should be under the strongest leader seems to imply that someone other than the patrol members identify and empower this person. Or is it your position that the "strongest leader" is the one that manages to be re elected?

LH

[Eamonn 61]

I was holding back from posting in the hope that maybe some of the younger forum members would add their two cents.

I really haven't given this much thought!!

I like the idea of not having set specific requirements. I'm fed up hearing about what is and what isn't a pull up!!

The skills we teach need to be seen by the youth we serve as being relevant. - Something that they are going to use.

Maybe having some kind of list of interest areas that Scouts can choose from, where they (A Patrol?) set a goal to participate in some sort of an activity.

Along the way they learn the skills needed for that activity.

As I say I haven't thought this out!!

But areas could include :

Citizenship - The group might want to do some sort of community good turn. Or participate in a flag retirement ceremony. Maybe go to the pack and teach a Den about the history of the flag. What they decide to do would be up to them, but maybe having the PLC approve the project might be a good idea.

Personal Fitness could be another area. This might be something they do outside of Scouting?

Outdoors? They could plan an event and learn the skills needed to pull it off.

I'm thinking we could go through the methods of Scouting and find an area that Scouts would need to plan and participate in an event that they have planned that coincides with the area.

If there is a need to "Keep count"? The count could be X number of "Participations" from X number of areas.

Forgive me if this sounds like a bit of a muddle!!

Eamonn

[Kudu 186]

 

"Serving in a position of responsibly to the satisfaction of my Scoutmaster was a requirement 47 years ago so saying it is intended to serve the new leadership focused training is ridiculous."

 

1960? My copy of the Advancement Requirements for Eagle that year reads: "While a Life Scout for a period of at least six months show to the satisfaction of your leaders that you--Work actively as a leader in meetings, outdoor activities, and service projects of your unit." There is no definition of "leader," or "leaders" for that matter.

 

Star requires only to be "active" and "dependable" and Life requires a Scout to "accept and carry out responsibilities...."

 

Specific POR requirements only slightly precede Leadership Development. These legalistic specifications of what positions must be held for Advancement coincide roughly with William Hillcourt's retirement and the subsequent decline of the Patrol Method.

 

"Considering the PL as holding a position of responsibility exactly the same as the Scribe is holding a position of responsibility in NO way affects or effects the training each is given."

 

Sure it does. The BSA Patrol Leader Training course was canceled in 1972 when "Boy Leadership" was moved away from the Patrol Method and introduced as an "equal" new Method called "Leadership Development."

 

"Are you saying that in your unit the PL is the only leader that is job specific trained?"

 

My unit? We don't have general elections so individuals can be trained individually by the person before them, or the SPL, or me. We have a good Quartermaster now (usually the position before Patrol Leader). First I let him watch me use a checklist to pack the Troop's gear for a campout, then the next month I watched him use the checklist. Now he can pick a different assistant every campout (if he wants) who will be exempt from washing dishes. People learn by watching, then doing, then teaching.

 

Sometimes I use the old Patrol Leader course, but this year we will do a leadership theory campout. I don't believe in that stuff myself but my SPL is a big supporter of NYLT so I will let him run it. I think the main function of formal training is to boost confidence and make the Junior Leaders feel special. Mostly it gives me an excuse to show them the movie Master and Commander.

 

"If this is a boy-led PATROL METHOD organization how am I as SM supposed to control who the PATROL elects as their PL?"

 

You probably do that to some degree already: Some Troops require a Scout be a minimum Rank for instance.

 

"How does requiring each scout to perform in a POR stop an individual scout from being elected PL?"

 

I don't understand your question. The idea that elections should be Troop-wide and force all Patrol Leaders to face re-election seems to have coincided with the introduction of "Leadership Development." Before then the SPL was selected by the Patrol Leaders and Patrols acted more independently.

 

"Saying that the patrol should be under the strongest leader seems to imply that someone other than the patrol members identify and empower this person."

 

When a Patrol needs a new leader I generally follow Baden-Powell's model and discuss it with the PLC. Then I usually ask the most dependable Scout to run for election. If a real idiot decides to run against him, I follow William Hillcourt's advice and meet with the Patrol to discuss the qualities that make a good Patrol Leader. We don't have any rules about elections. Sometimes a Patrol will switch leaders without telling the rest of the Troop.

 

"Or is it your position that the "strongest leader" is the one that manages to be re-elected?"

 

Re-elected? Why should a Patrol with a gifted Patrol Leader be encouraged to hold regular elections unless the evil of POR Requirements is a factor?

 

Kudu