Wait Time Between Lower Ranks

[Kansascity53]

We have boys in our Troop who have completed all of the requirements for Tenderfoot, Second Class and First Class but did so in a way where the 2nd and 1st Class requirements were all completed before all of the tenderfoot requirements. All are now 100% completed (except for the SM Conference) so they are now ready for their Tenderfoot BOR. The committee wants to make them then wait two months after the Tenderfoot BOR before going for their 2nd Class BOR and then another 2 or 3 months after their 2nd Class BOR before going for their 1st Class BOR. The Troop has BORs scheduled every month so the wait they are looking to impose is strictly because they think there should be a wait as a BOR three months in a row seems to fast for them. #1 - Is this permissable under BSA rules and regs? #2 - regardless of the answer to #1 has anyone put those types of timframes into real world use?

[Eagle69]

Your committee is creating requirements outside of BSA and that's not correct. The Scout Handbook doesn't have any wait times for these ranks, they used to but that's another story, so it isn't right for your committee to add these wait times.

[OldGreyEagle]

it would be against BSA policy to impose the wait time that is proposed

 

 

[Oak Tree]

There are no official wait times, as you know. Our troop has sometimes done two BoRs in one night for a Scout, one time we just combined the BoRs, and sometimes we've made the Scout wait a week or two for the next scheduled BoR.

 

As to whether it's permissible - I'd say it's questionable. The committee is within its rights to schedule BoRs. The Scoutmaster Handbook does mention quarterly BoRs, so it would be ok to have a wait of up to three months in that case. But to delay the scheduling solely based on a desire to delay the Scout - that doesn't seem quite kosher.

 

If they are doing BoRs once a month, then they should allow these Scouts, at a minimum, to earn a rank each month.

[mlg0171]

This is a common occurrence (finishing two at once is more common) and should not be held against the boy.

 

Star, Life, and Eagle intentionally have requirements that keep those ranks in a progressive order, but such requirements are glaringly absent from Tenderfoot - First Class and it is not our place to add them.

[mk9750]

First, please understand that I, too, agree that under the current make up of the requirments, it is wrong to hold a Scout back based on artificial time frames determined by a Troop Committee (or SM, for that matter). In our Troop, we have had 3 or 4 instances in the last 12 years of this happening, and we simply do one BoR for both ranks.

 

However, there is a dichotomy between the idea that we not require Scouts to experience seperate BoRs for each rank, and the desire of the program to provide opportunities for Adult Association. Every chance a Scout gets to demonstrate his abilities, to learn from a mentor, to absorb anything a caring adult is willing to share, is valuable. As I think about it, do we do a disseverice to our Scouts by NOT requiring them to experience seperate Boards of Review?

 

Mark

[Lisabob]

We've done BORS on the same night for all three ranks at least once in the last three years, and for two of the ranks the same night on several occasions. Usually people who want to impose waiting periods simply do not understand that arbitrary timelines (and that's what you are describing) can kill off the enthusiasm of a young scout, and for no good reason either. If the scout really knows the skills and has done the requirements, then what is the benefit from forcing him to cool his heels? If, on the other hand, he has not really fulfilled the requirements then one hopes the SM would not have signed off and sent him on to a BOR in the first place. So clearly, the SM is vouching for this boy, and the BOR should have something a good deal more evident than vague adult unease at the boy's rapid progress before putting road blocks in his way.

 

The other complaint sometimes raised is that boys who burn through the early ranks will become Eagles "too early." Yet, while my observation is that the leadership and service requirements of these ranks do tend to give pause to a lot of younger boys, there are also boys who are just more mature for their age and who are READY for the challenge. In the former instance, the boy will slow down naturally, thus resolving any concerns on his own. In the latter case, a boy who is truly ready and is arbitrarily held back to conform to some adult's notion of adequate progress, will probably become frustrated by the experience and may sour on scouting entirely, or may go somewhere else to find a more challenging opportunity that the troop has denied him.

 

So, long story short, no these sorts of time requirements are not part of the advancement requirements, there's a reason why they aren't currently in the advancement requirements, and your committee folks should think long and hard about whether their desire to slow down a boy has more to do with other issues like their discomfort with kids who are goal oriented, or possibly with a weak program that allows boys who aren't well qualified to advance anyway. In either of the latter two cases the committee folks should focus more directly on the real problem and not take out their issues on the boy.

 

 

[frank10]

mk9750,

If the adults want to meet with the boy more, they can ask him in at any time. If we have a boy stalled at a single rank, we will ask him to come in for a board of review just to see how he is doing.

 

There is no good reason to with hold advancement that has been earned.

 

(edit to fix major typo.)(This message has been edited by wingnut)

[Stosh]

Just my perspective, but those who wish to have the boys wait seem to be a little on the power hungry/control freakish side of things. If the boy earned rank, he gets it. The only motive for such a suggestion would be to let the boy know who's running the show and that toeing the line is expected by those callling the shots.

 

Sounds like it's time to get new committee members that are interested supporting the boys, not place restrictions on them. A BOR is a BOR NOT a Tenderfoot BOR or a 2nd Class BOR, etc. It is no different than a SM conference. Those aren't tied to rank either. If a boy isn't advancing, it's time for a SM conference.

 

It raises an interesting idea. Can there be BOR's called when a boy does not advance? or is the reviewing only for advancement? What if a boy is having difficulty with the SM and isn't progressing because of it? What if the SM has signed off on everything but SS or SM conference and won't until the boy starts to behave, etc.

 

Stosh

 

 

[John-in-KC]

I don't like doing 3 BORs for the same young man in one night. It exhausts both the kids and the BOR members (if I can scratch up 6 other Committee folk on a single evening). I might, as a CC, say... you've successfully completed the BOR for Tenderfoot. Next week, you'll have your BOR for 2d Class... with different folks on it. The week after that, your BOR for 1st Class, again with different folks on it.

 

That's simply a matter of scheduling, so that the Scout gets the full advantage of the Adult Association Method.

 

... BTW, if I was ever directly confronted with this situation, either the SM or I would be having a cup of coffee with the District Advancement Chairman.

 

(This message has been edited by John-in-KC)

[Stosh]

I guess I'm not understanding this BOR thingy very well. I thought a BOR was a BOR. I didn't think there was a TFoot BOR and that being different than a 2nd Cl BOR and then a 1st Cl BOR. What is going on that's different unless maybe there's a little "retesting" going on? If I went to 3 BOR's a week apart and the same question came up "So, how do you like Scouting thus far?" I would figure out really quick that this was a genuine waste of time. I would think that a few extra minutes to review advancement for all three ranks could be done rather quickly and then go on to the questions that would be the same for any BOR. If a boy was doing all three at the same time, I might include a question as to why it happened to come out that way, but it wouldn't take but a minute or so to give an answer.

 

Maybe I'm making too little light of BOR's. I always thought that this was a great time of celebration with the boy and I got to be the first one to shake his hand having earned a new rank. I guess I used the BOR's as an opportunity for the boy to think back over his experiences, (review them, duh!), identify those he liked, those he didn't, those that were easy, those that were hard, what his plans were for his next rank and when did he target that completion, how he like the other boys, did he have any problems, etc. things like that. If I were to do 3 BOR's a week a part, I'd have a tough time trying to remember what I had asked this boy the week before so as to not be wasting his and my time.

 

Nope, I don't think it's necessary, 1 BOR, 3 ranks, no problem. The only downside to the whole problem I can imagine is the boy would never get to sew 2 of the rank badges on his uniform. (Like that would happen even if the BOR's were a week apart!) It would also be a shame that the boy missed out on two spots in the limelights at a COH too but that wouldn't happen without a long wait between ranks either.

 

Stosh

[Bob White]

While it is possible for this situation to happen it really shouldn't. A unit with a PLANNED program can see that the scout completes the recognistions in order even though he is able to complete work in any of the three lower ranks.

 

I agree also that there is no significant new information to come from separate boards, but I am concerned about the length of time it will take the board to review all three ranks in one sitting.

 

I would support doing one condensed board for all three ranks because that is the fairest to the scout. Then I think the committee chair and the advancement committee should have a serious talk with the SM about keeping a closer eye on the advancemet process and helping the scouts complete the ranks in order.

[mk9750]

Wingnut,

 

You make an excellent point, and this is an area I fail at as the advancement chair in our unit. I speak regularly with each Scout about his advancement, and for the "lower" ranks, I review their books almost as often. But I do not schedule BoRs for non advancement reasons. It doesn't seem to be necesary to me, but if I am serious about the Adult Association question, perhaps I should be more diilegent.

 

Let me throw out a hypothetical situation. What would everyone's opinion be about an added requirement (in the actual requirements, not made up by a SM or Troop Committee) that required active participation in the Troop and Patrol for (X) months since your last BoR, similar to the "higher" ranks. Would people find this too taxing or unfair? I am not suggesting it would be a good idea. I don'tknow. I'm just curious what others might think.

 

Bob,

 

Your point is well taken. However, the Scout's advancement plan might not coincide with the Troop's. I have seen two boys earn 1st class in well less than a year, even though our program provides opportunities for a Scout to work on every requirement over the course of a Scout's first 16 months (except the drug awareness program and meeting with an elected official). We've often had boys who are intersted in first aid, for instance, complete all first aid requirements before we have even dealt with first aid. More often, a Scout seems to clump requirements together when he feels he has fallen behind his buddies and wants to catch up. In either case, the Scout's plan for advancement (or lack of) doesn't match the plan the PLC has developed, and could lead to a Scout ready for multiple ranks at or near the same time.

 

Mark

[Lisabob]

I've also seen some scouts who had all of the requirements completed for 2nd and 1st class prior to finishing the physical fitness requirement for tenderfoot. This depends a bit on how the troop powers that be understand the second part of that requirement (the "show improvement" part), and it also depends a little on the scout being interested or willing to do the requirement, practice, keep track, etc.. Not that it necessarily ought to be that way and I'm well aware that requirement can be completed soon after joining, but it just doesn't always play out that way through no particular fault of the troop or the scout.

[Beavah]

Yah, Kansascity, to go on to answer the second part of your question - no, I really haven't seen folks try to put delays in to the T-2-1 sequence very often. But there are troops that set dates for BOR's (like last meeting of each month) and may only do one at a time per boy. Just ways of managin' adult and youth time to be fair.

 

I think I'd sit with da Committee and chat about what their concerns really were. Timing is symptom, but not usually a cause of committee concern. It may be that they're just not seeing the level of personal growth and development they want reflected in the advancement program. I suspect with some conversation about goals for the program a better approach might be considered.

 

Set the expectations higher, and yeh don't need to introduce artificial time hurdles.

 

B