Why First Class First Year?

[Bob White 20]

"Still, I don't think FCFY is required. Motivation to create the FCFY program was to increase scout numbers in the troop,"

 

Actually not. FCFY was a certificate you could present to a scout who achieved that personal goal. First Class Emphasis is a program plan for teaching and applying the basic scout skills. In field testing it showed to retain a significant higher number of 1st year scouts in units that used it compared to units where scouts were not exposed to the skills of Tenderfoot to First Class in the First year.

 

"I heard not too long ago that the scout numbers today are not all that different from the scout numbers just before the FCFY program."

 

Rumors are not a good basis for making program decisions. What is the actual data?

 

 

"That suggest that we missed understood the problem and the solution."

 

About the same time that First Class Emphasis was begun so was the two-year Webelos program, Drugs-the Deadly Game, The BSA's first youth protection video was released, not to mention a number of elements that have been added or deleted in the last 20 years. How exactly has it been determined that from all of these changes it was the First Class Emphasis program that negatively affected the membership totals? I don't see how anyone can make that correlation.

 

In fact, based on how few leaders seem to understand and use the First Class Emphasis program (which is now actually encapsulated in the New Scout Patrol program) it would seem that a much stronger argument could be made that the membership drop is in part due to the LACK of use of the First Class Emphasis program.

 

Perhaps rather than scrap the program at a time when troops are again failing to retain membership, now would be a good time for troop leaders to learn it again?

 

 

[BrentAllen 10]

"While I think there are times that a skills class may be required in the troop, I think it should also be seen as a red flag that program needs some help."

 

Maybe I am not understanding your definition of a "skills class" but according to my training, and the Troop Program Features, nearly every Troop meeting should include a time for "Skills Instruction." To me, the activities you mention would happen in the interpatrol activity, using the skills learned in the Skills Instruction.

 

My guess on FCFY or FC Emphasis is a lot of new Scouts were getting lost in the shuffle in a lot of Troops. To me FCFY is just a program outline to help SMs or ASMs/NSP (or the PLC, more appropriatly) organize their program to give the new Scouts the opportunities to reach the rank. If the Troop uses NSPs, it is easier to keep up with. But if a Troop is using integrated Patrols, it's not as easy to make sure that new Scout gets to select the patrol site or serve as the patrol's cook.

 

FCFY isn't a race, it is a goal. Is teaching the new young Scout to set a goal a bad thing? The first thing he should recognize is that he is going to need to attend nearly every campout and meeting that first year to reach the goal. That is exactly what I want out of my new Scouts - very good attendance. To me, the positives of the program/emphasis far outweigh the negatives.

[Beavah 205]

Rumors are not a good basis for making program decisions. What is the actual data?

 

The actual data is that Boy Scouting membership has declined substantially since First Class Emphasis was put into effect. That decline is substantially greater than the demographic change for the age group. There continues to be substantial wolfs to webelos, webelos to scouts, first year boy scouting and early high school boy scouting attrition.

 

When yeh change lots of things at once, of course, yeh can't really figure out causes, eh? Lots of things changed inside and outside the program.

 

Durin' the same period, there has been a substantial year-over-year increase in the number of Boy Scout-aged youth playing paintball, and in da number of days playing paintball of individual boys each year. With a better safety record than scoutin', eh?

 

Yah, I think Brent's right. For a minority of SMs and troops, FCFY made some sense and they were able to use it to think about improvin' their program. That's good for them, but it's not how to evaluate a program, eh? For a program, yeh gotta take the net effect, includin' all the damage done. That includes all the folks confused by it, and all the troops where it didn't work.

 

FCFY on the whole has been an unsuccessful initiative, IMO. I suppose we could try again for another 18 years and hope to get a different result .

 

Beavah

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Eagledad, thats Old Grey Eagle

[Bob White 20]

"The actual data is that Boy Scouting membership has declined substantially since First Class Emphasis was put into effect."

 

Untrue. The membership decline did not begin until 2000, First Class Emphasis plan was introduceed in the late 1980's. There is no way to explain that a plan to help scouts develop basic scout skills caused a reduction in membership more than 10 years after it was introduced.

 

How can you say that a minority of the units used it yet it caused the membership nationally to drop? How can both conditions logically be related?

 

To say that to teach scouts the skills for advancement hurts the program makes no sense. Learning the skills of scouting IS the program.

 

I would welcome any evidence that actually linked having a planned program to teach the Tenderfoot to First Class Skills in 12 to 14 months has caused membership loss in a council let alone nationally.

 

 

While we wait for that example to arrive let's give a shout out to a unit who has it absolutely spot on. I did a google search for units using First Class Emphasis and while I found some doing it wrong, I found some doing it as it was designed. Here is a shining example of a unit that not only "gets it" but does it. Kudos to Troop 175 in Peachtree , GA. HEE HAAAW!

http://www.ptctroop175.org/firstclass.htm

 

 

[Philt 10]

OK, here's some more data from our study in 2005:

 

Remember I said that 100% of the 1st year Scouts reaching First Class maintained their membership for at least a second year. This group represented 33% of the population in the study (that is, 33% of the first year Scouts in our District that year.

 

38% of the study's population earned no rank advancement at all during that year. None, zip, nada. Of these Scouts, 50% re-registered at the end of the year.

 

15% or the population reached Tenderfoot; 76% re-registered.

 

13% reached 2nd Class; 90% re-registered.

 

The study was designed to simply examine the relationship between FYFC and retention. We did not make any attempt to measure program quality, the tenure and training level of a unit's leaders, etc.

 

The conclusion we naturally reached was that FYFC has a direct relationship to retention. I suppose it would be interesting to see if those Scouts reaching First Class re-registered for a THIRD year, but someone else can undertake that little chore.

 

Regarding the methods of Scouting, I'm not sure how you choose which ones to use when. I thought we used all of them all of the time equally to achieve the aims of Scouting. From the SM Handbook: "Advancement is one of the eight methods used by Scout leaders to help boys fulfill the aims of the BSA. Properly used, a troop's advancement program can tie together and energize the other seven methods."

[evmori 11]

Why is a specific plan needed to help Scouts develop basic skills? Isn't that what the ranks of Tenderfoot through 1st Class do? If the advancement method is properly administered during these ranks, a Scout should be able to earn 1st Class in one year.

 

I've heard the retention line to defend First Class Emphasis & have asked numerous times, where's the data. I have yet to see any other than the limited data posted by Philt. And that data does show that 28% that did advance to either Tenderfoot or 2nd Class re-registered at an 83% rate. Not bad!

 

If First Class Emphasis was such a great program tool, where are the numbers to prove it? It is possible it has outlived it's usefulness & maybe it is time to let it go.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

 

[FScouter 24]

C'mon folks. If we all had to have verifiable "data" to support our comments, the forums here would be empty. Opinions, gut feelings, "I heard", and personal points of view are all completely valid. One's position if hardly bolstered if the best argument against another person's statement is "show me the data".

[BrentAllen 10]

"Why is a specific plan needed to help Scouts develop basic skills? Isn't that what the ranks of Tenderfoot through 1st Class do? If the advancement method is properly administered during these ranks, a Scout should be able to earn 1st Class in one year."

 

FC Emphasis is just that - an emphasis to make sure the program includes the elements so the new Scout has the opportunity to reach FC. I think some are reading way too much into the program. Turn to page 123 in your SM HB and read what it actually is.

 

The "advancement method" does not contain the FC Emphasis - read it on page 8. A troop could be focused on a certain type of camping or activities, where their annual program did not include opportunities for a new Scout to learn all the skills and earn FC in a year. A troop could develop a program plan that would allow a new Scout to reach FC in 2 years, and still be employing the advancement method. FC Emphasis just says try to make sure your program includes the opportunities for them to earn it in a year, because he will have a better than average chance of earning Eagle. I think it will help keep them in Scouting longer, as well.

 

If a Troop is running a program that allows new Scouts the opportunities to earn FC in a year, that Troop IS following FC Emphasis - maybe they just didn't know it.(This message has been edited by BrentAllen)

[Eagledad 2779]

>>The conclusion we naturally reached was that FYFC has a direct relationship to retention.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, philt, that's nice data, eh? Problem is, it's really hard to collect data that actually answers a question.

 

Lisabob's point is that the most likely explanation for your data is that Boys who really enjoy Scouting tend to advance in rank and to stay in Scouting. Boys who don't like Scouting tend to do neither. Dat's pretty obvious, eh? And you've got great data to support it!

 

To answer the question "Does FCFY improve retention?" yeh have to get a sample of all da troops who say they're doin' FCFY and all the ones who say they're not, and compare their retention figures.

 

It has to include even troops that might not be doin' FCFY well, because that's important data when evaluatin' a program. It tells you the program is hard to implement successfully, or hard to understand, or might need more resources than some troops have.

 

Beavah

 

[Lisabob 13]

Please understand, philt, that I am not saying FCFY is bad, or that it does not work (my views on that question are mixed). I am simply saying that the data national has distributed, and the data you have, while interesting, do not answer the question of whether or not FCFY causes improved retention. There are too many other unmeasured factors involved. We don't have to go to the point of "show me your data" on every question here because FScouter is right, that would pretty much kill all discussion of practically anything. But I hate to see people draw conclusions from existing data that may be erroneous or unsubstantiated, that's all.

[FScouter 24]

I'm pretty much of the opinion that most folks have made their own conclusion, data notwithstanding. The data either supports their conclusion, or gets disputed if it does not.

[Beavah 205]

I'm pretty much of the opinion that most folks have made their own conclusion, data notwithstanding.

 

Nah, F, yer bein' too hard on everybody!

 

I think there's no good general data available.

 

So most folks with experience make their conclusions based on the data they have access to - the unit(s) they work in or work with. For some of us like Eagledad, that includes tryin' a whole bunch of ways to make FCFY work as prescribed, and then switching to something that worked better. For other folks like me, it involves seein' a lot of units try different things, and watchin' how they do with it.

 

What's interestin' is that forums allow us to share all that neat locally-generated data and try to make sense of it. I don't get to see units outside of Central Region much, eh? Except when doin' international stuff, but da scouts doin' international stuff invariably come from really well-run programs.

 

Eagledad's point is very well taken, eh? FCFY seems to generate a lot of angst and confusion across da nation in multiple forums with people collecting good local data. We see some good programs that use somethin' like FCFY, some good programs that don't, and a lot of programs where it seems to generate weird things like rushin' kids through ranks. That gives us more (or less) confidence in our own observations.... and gives us all new, broader ways to think about how to make da program work for our kids.

 

Beavah

 

[Herms 10]

I see a lot of negative comments on the First Class Emphasis concept and had to add my two cents worth. I think it is a great program for several reasons:

 

1. For those kids (and lets be honest sometimes their parents) who want to achieve the rank of Eagle, a boy needs to be a First Class by at least the end of his second year, or in most cases he will never make it as they are entering high school and their lives become more involved with other things like the "fumes" (Car fumes, perfume...), sports, friends, band...

 

For data to back this up I look to our troop. We have 12 boys over the age of 14, 11 are Star or Life, only one is First Class or lower (just got First). We leaders have talked about this at cracker barrels, and very seldom will you see a 14 year old and up who has not advanced still in Scouts.

 

2. I talk with the boys a lot, and the older boys get tired of doing basic scout skills ALL the time. If your program is wrapped around doing the skills every meeting, every year the older scouts will get bored and we lose them. Most of the boys are excited to finish (and I remind them that they are never truely finished) these basic scout skills (cooking, knots, first aid ...) so that they can get on to doing the Merit Badges that they want to do. For some reason they alway feel like they must finish First Class before they can do Merit Badges.

 

Now I understand what everyone is concerned about, and see it in some of the posts; that the boys will push to finish the skills and advance to First without truely mastering them. That is always a concern, but if we do our jobs as (for lack of a better word) "testers" and not be afraid to say no, they do not know the skill well enough, and ENCOURAGE them to study and come back, it will teach them to Be Prepared.

 

Mmmm seems I've heard that somewhere?! (This message has been edited by Herms)