Signing off on Advancment

[OldGreyEagle 5]

How does one "push too hard" on Advancement? Either the scout has the skill or he doesnt. Either the scout demonstrates the sucessful completion of the POR or he doesn't

 

When is the next BOR scheduled? In 6 months? 4 months? Who will be typing up the letter outlining the steps the scout has to take to be successful? WHen the process of appeal was explained to the scout, did he show any interest in appealing or does he accept the committees decision?

[Stosh 3452]

How does one "push too hard" on Advancement? Either the scout has the skill or he doesnt. Either the scout demonstrates the sucessful completion of the POR or he doesn't

 

>> He made FC in about 7 months and had his advancement signed off by his PL. All three ranks were one BOR covering each of the ranks separately. The focus was entirely on the boy's own success and he did not do anything for anyone besides himself. He's good, but he has a high achiever older brother than he stands in the shadow of and doesn't have the natural abilities or temperament of his older brother. He has fantastic leadership gifts but not the same as his older brother whom he's trying to emmulate.

 

>> Now that he's going for Star, the BOR was looking for more leadership/teamwork etc. and didn't "hear" that from the boy who's still operating on a "my achievement" track.

 

When is the next BOR scheduled? In 6 months? 4 months?

 

>> BOR's can be scheduled whenever someone would like one. The next COH is in March. It's always the 5th Monday of the month.

 

Who will be typing up the letter outlining the steps the scout has to take to be successful?

 

>> This will be the discussion I will be having with him next week after he has had a week to think about the issues discussed in his BOR.

 

WHen the process of appeal was explained to the scout, did he show any interest in appealing or does he accept the committees decision?

 

>> Who does one appeal to? I'm not thinking the Council is interested in dealing with an appeal from a Star candidate on his BOR. The BOR was conducted by the CC and Committee.

 

Stosh

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Not sure how your answer on him pushing too hard has anything to do with him pushing to hard. Either he has the skills or he doesn't. He can push all he wants, but unless he can ties the knots, knows how to read a compass, he doesnt have items signed off in his book. If he got to First Class in 7 months, he must be an active scout, if he gets things signed off, is that "pushing"? Was the proscribed process followed?

 

Either he successfully completed the BOR for the ranks or he didnt. He can't be faulted for completing a BOR and attaining a rank, can he?

 

I am glad he has a crackerjack brother, but what has that to do with this scouts advancement?

 

From the on line BSA module on BOR 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."

 

SO, the Board turned him down, yet you are the one who will decide how he "gets better" I thought that was the function of the BOR as well as giving him a date when the BOR reconvenes, its just in recess now

 

 

[Stosh 3452]

Yes, I was questioned before and after the BOR as to why this candidate was presented to the BOR unprepared. I explained and they are in the process of further clarification on who signs off on which requirements. Scout Spirit, POR, and SM Conferences will now be signed off by the SM and not the PL.

 

Yes, the BOR is in recess. They felt the scout needed more time and directed him to visit with the SM as to what he might be able to do to satisfy the BOR recommendations. So to answer the question, Yes, I'm the one responsbile for helping the scout "get better".

 

His "crakcerjack" brother was the PL who signed him off in the first place. So it is relevant. So the question the BOR had was, did he really satisfy the requirements. They had doubts and they acted on them. This is the solution they came up with because they knew it wasn't appropriate to retest him on anything, but the answers the boy was giving left a poor impression on them.

 

Stosh

[Eagledad 2781]

>>SM Conferences will now be signed off by the SM and not the PL

[evmori 11]

Sounds like a good resolution Stosh!

[Stosh 3452]

"6. Take part in a Scoutmaster conference." (Star Requirement, cut-and-paste from www.Scouting.org)

 

Nowhere in the requirement does it say that any approval or disapproval be involved in the process. He had a conference, he was advised against continuing on to the BOR but he did it anyway, and they caught what was aired in the SM conference. Yes, he took part in a SMC and the PL signed off on it.

 

If I am not to add to the requirement, then if the boy comes to me and we talk about his advancement status and he's intending to make a presentation to the BOR for rank, then what the SM says is totally irrelevant. He had a conference and the requirement was fulfilled and whether the SM or PL signs it makes no difference. In this very same situation, the scout comes for a conference at the end of our discussion I sign regardless of what advice I give, the requirement is fulfilled.

 

"7. Complete your board of review." (Star Requirement, cut-and-paste from www.Scouting.org)

 

The boy did not "fail" the BOR, they only postponed their decision to give the boy more time to work throught his POR. Had they "completed" the BOR, even if he "failed", they would still have to award the rank.

 

My CC and Committee know that just because the SMC is signed off it does not mean that his advancement is recommended by the SM.

 

There is a reason why the SM isn't in on the BOR's. If they find something awry, they can ask the SM what he recommends on the situation before making their decision. The SM has his part in the process and the CC/Comm have their part and because there are two different requirements, there's two different obligations and responsibilities occuring here. Remember, these requirements are only by TRADITION in this order. There's no requirement that says the SM Conference must preceed a BOR. After all a BOR's can be held at any time!

 

Stosh

[Eagledad 2781]

>>Yes, he took part in a SMC and the PL signed off on it.

[NE-IV-88-Beaver 10]

"The boy did not "fail" the BOR, they only postponed their decision to give the boy more time to work throught his POR. Had they "completed" the BOR, even if he "failed", they would still have to award the rank."

 

If he failed, why would they award the rank? That doesn't make any sense. Why bother to have one if that is the case? Have it, they fail, give them the reasons, outline the steps necessary to satisfy opportunities for improvement and give them the time to do it! I thought that was the way it was supposed to work.

 

"There is a reason why the SM isn't in on the BOR's. If they find something awry, they can ask the SM what he recommends on the situation before making their decision. The SM has his part in the process and the CC/Comm have their part and because there are two different requirements, there's two different obligations and responsibilities occuring here. Remember, these requirements are only by TRADITION in this order. There's no requirement that says the SM Conference must preceed a BOR. After all a BOR's can be held at any time!"

 

I believe that the requirement is for the SM Conference to proceed the BOR if the BOR is being held for the purpose of the Scout's advancement in rank. BOR's can be held for other purposes "at any time".

 

Do yourself and your boys a favor and discontinue the policy of having anyone other than the SM sign off on the successful completion of POR's and Scout Spirit. This is your job and doesn't have anything to do with having a "boy-led" program. This is your time to evaluate and coach in how well that particular boy is functioning in that "boy-led" program.

[Stosh 3452]

The basic understanding of the BOR is for a seperate group of adults who do not work directly with scouts to judge the performance of the SM. In this situation, what do you think the BOR Chair should suggest to the SM?

 

>> Beats me, I'm not the CC. And I find it strange that the BOR of a scout is the means by which the performance of the SM is judged. The BOR is for the boy, not the SM. The boys decide when they think they are ready, the SM supports them in THEIR decision. It's a means by which maturity is measured. If the CC has a concern, he simply talks to me directly.

 

A SM may have a dozen confrences with a scout about his performance between rank advancements, which one is the PATROL LEADER is signing off?

 

>> The requirement doesn't specify. Sometime during the rank advancement process the SM has a conference with him. If it's near the end of the requirements it may be a bit more helpful, but not manditory.

 

In your situation, how does the SM check the skills performance of the scout who signs off the requirements of other scouts?

 

>> Boy-led, patrol-method... PL is responsible for the patrol members. The SM isn't devoid of the process, he/she should know what's going on in his troop and deal with it as issues come up and supports the work of the PL's. These PL's don't learn in a vacuum, they make mistakes, they are corrected and life goes on.

 

Have you asked your Council if they accept Patrol Leaders signitures in the SM confrence box? I mean before you send a scout up for Eagle, have you asked?

 

>> My Council doesn't micro-manage the troops. I don't "send a scout up for Eagle". When the boy is ready he makes an application and goes himself. I go along for moral support, but in the end this is HIS Eagle and HIS responsibility. Just as the Council doesn't micro-manage the troops, I don't micro-manage the boy-led process, the boys do.

 

NE-IV-88-Beaver: Unfortunately what you believe and what the requirement says are two different things. That's the point I am making. How many personal beliefs interfere, interpret, reinterpret the requirements until they are eventually a whole new requirement?

 

Nowhere in the requirements does it say who is to sign off, other than a "leader". Is that an adult leader?, youth leader?, SM?, CC? The requirements are vague and what one person understands them to mean may not be what others "believe".

 

We may be boy-led, but they all know that sooner or later they are going to have to deal with people outside the troop. The expectations these others have will have an impact on the decisions of the boy-led leaders. This is a good thing.

 

The PL who signed off on the SS and SMC for this boy is now in discussion with the CC and the two of them are working out the details. I was called in as SM to advise on the issue. My CC is 100% into the boy-led program. They know things like this will be coming up in front of them and they take the responsibility to be the "sounding board" for other boards these boys will face outside the troop. They are part of the training process as much as the SM.

 

Stosh(This message has been edited by jblake47)

[Eagle92 110]

Call me old fashioned, but I like the idea of Scouts signing off on advancement, with some limits. I also like having Scouts on the BORs for T-2-1, but that is no longer acceptable, and to me that is a shame, but I digress.

 

What limits would I have on a scout signing off?

1)PLC members only signing off EXCEPT for a scout who is appointed by the SPL and approved by the SM to do so, ie a Scout teaching FA skills to earn his FAMB.

 

2)All advancement sign off by scouts is limited to T-2-1. reason being is that those are the basic skills that ALL scouts should have. Going to S-L-E is more challenging and should be the SM's perogative.

 

3) PLs can only be signed off by SPL or ASPL, and any other senior scouts approved to do so, i.e Venture patrol members IF used on the old LC model, i.e. experienced scouts taking on essentially troop staff duties (Instructor, QM, etc)

 

4)IMHO only the SM should signoff on SMC for all ranks.

 

5) Relatives cannot sign off on advancement, i.e. brothers, cousins, etc.

 

 

[Stosh 3452]

Scouts may no longer be allowed to sit on the BOR's but there's nothing in the book that says the PL can't sit IN ON the BOR.

 

While there is no BOR required for the Scout "Rank", all our new boys go through one. The PL sits in with the boy to assist him in dealing with a BOR and how to improve his interviewing skills to better communicate with the BOR. The new boys get through this scary process before it becomes a requirement and learn that the CC and Committee members are there to help them, not judge them.

 

All subsequent BOR's the PL is available upon request to sit in on their patrol members' BOR.

 

I as SM sit IN ON the EBOR, so why wouldn't a PL sit in on his member's BOR's?

 

PL is the highest ranking officer of the troop and functions in that spot. It is their responsibility that their members are progressing through the ranks and showing improvement in their skills and responsibilities. Why would it be necessary for the SM to micro-manage that process? The SM trains the PL's, he doesn't do their job for them and then call that leadership.

 

PL: "Mr. B, Johnny feels he has finished all the requirements for Star. I checked his records with him and everything looks to be in order. Have you had a chance to visit with him on his progress?"

 

SM: "Yep"

 

PL then signs off on SMC and lets Johnny know that everything is in order and he should make arrangements for closing out his BOR that was started six months ago when the SM suggested one to the PL to arrange because Johnny was sluffing off and not doing his POR work and it might be a problem at the BOR if left unattended.

 

Never do anything a Scout is capable of doing.

 

Stosh

[Eagledad 2781]

>>I find it strange that the BOR of a scout is the means by which the performance of the SM is judged

[BrentAllen 10]

Stosh,

IMO, what you have is a recipe for disaster, and that is what you are getting.

 

The Scoutmaster is in charge of advancement. The buck stops with him.

 

From the ACP&P:

The Scoutmaster maintains a list of those qualified to give tests and to pass candidates.

 

The SM can give PLs or others the authority to sign off on rank advancement, but the SM maintains the responsibility to make sure the advancement program is run correctly.

 

Since the SM is in charge of advancement, the BOR is certainly a review of his performance. If the boys aren't learning anything but are having requirements signed off, whose fault is that? The person in charge of advancement - the SM.

[Stosh 3452]

Stosh,

IMO, what you have is a recipe for disaster, and that is what you are getting.

 

>> Everyone's entitled to their own opinions. But no one seems to think we have a disaster here.

 

The Scoutmaster is in charge of advancement. The buck stops with him.

 

>> Advancement is the responsiblity of every Scout with the SM's assistance. Buck may stop with the SM, but advancement stops with the Scout. I am not responsible for boys not advancing or every SM would be blamed for everyone that dropped out of the program. Just can't see the logic in that

 

From the ACP&P:

The Scoutmaster maintains a list of those qualified to give tests and to pass candidates.

 

>> Instruction and giving tests and passing a Scout is not the same as signing off in the book. The Instructor is not signing off, the PL is. The PL is kinda like a pre-SMC/BOR. He CAN re-test the boy, whereas the adults can't.

 

The SM can give PLs or others the authority to sign off on rank advancement, but the SM maintains the responsibility to make sure the advancement program is run correctly.

 

>> This is what I've been saying all along, but from the opening remark, it sounds as if it's a recipe for disaster...

 

Since the SM is in charge of advancement, the BOR is certainly a review of his performance. If the boys aren't learning anything but are having requirements signed off, whose fault is that? The person in charge of advancement - the SM.

 

>> The BOR is a review of the Scout's performance. If the boys aren't learning anything at school whose fault is that? The teacher's? Sorry, but the responsibility to learn is the learners. The responsibility to teach is the teachers. Maybe that's why they use those terms to describe the individual's responsibility. If we adopted the philosophy of teacher/learner that is being advocated in your posts, in the school system, we wouldn't have any teachers for the schools. Sorry, I don't buy that program.

 

Like school, 95% of the Scouts do just fine with the PL signing off system, but like school there's always going to be those who "fail" along the way. It's not a disaster, it's a learning opportunity and if the scout picks himself up, dusts himself off, and avoids that pitfall in the future, it's a good thing.

 

I seriously think this particular scout will some day be a great SPL and Eagle Scout. He's just "not there quite yet".

 

Stosh