The Purpose of a Board of Review

[Beavah 205]

Once a scout learns a skill, the troops program should afford him so many opportunities to use that skill that there is no reason to doubt the skill is learned.

 

I mostly agree, OGE, except that yeh have it backward.

 

The troop program should afford him many opportunities to use the skill so that there's no doubt the skill is learned is the first step to advancement. Only after the lad has really learned the skill (not just done it once) should he be tested and signed off (Advancement step 2)

 

Then, when he comes to a review (Advancement Step 3), since he's really got the skill down, it doesn't take more than a question or two to get the scout expounding to the board about how to run a safe trip afloat or how to handle first aid for shock. The lad feels confident, and the board with just a few questions about requirements is able to determine that he really learned the stuff.

 

Da problem only comes when a boy gets signed off the first time he's done something without really learning, eh? Then when he hits a BOR he's not confident, and the board has to ask lots of questions to try to see if he learned anything at all (or just skip that step because it's too embarrassing and hard on the boys). That's where a good board realizes they have a problem to address with the troop program, eh? But they wouldn't ever recognize that if all they asked was how the boy felt.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[SR540Beaver 116]

Beavah: "The troop program should afford him many opportunities to use the skill so that there's no doubt the skill is learned is the first step to advancement. Only after the lad has really learned the skill (not just done it once) should he be tested and signed off (Advancement step 2)"

 

Yes, the troop program should afford him many opportunities to use the skill. That being said, who makes the subjective decision of when the boy is ready to test for advancement? You teach him a bowline on a campout. Do you wait one, two or three more campouts before you allow him to display his ability to tie the knot?

 

Me, I'm lousy at knots. I have books on knots. I keep a piece of rope in my daypack so I can sit at my desk at work and practice them. Let me go a few weeks without tying knots, and I've got my nose back in the book retraining myself. After all, we are a boy led troop and our troop guides do all the teaching to our new scout patrols. They learned from their troop guides. The boys set up their own patrol sight. I just don't get to use my knot skills very often, even though I go on the campouts each month.

 

My son, he never met a knot he could forget. He fell much closer to his mother's side of the tree and is one of those people who learns it and retains it from now on. You can call on him at a moments notice to teach another kid how to tie a knot. Six years ago when he was working on Tenderfoot, he had peers who couldn't hardly tie their shoes, let alone any knot for scouting. Show my son once, and he had it down. Why should my son be denied to display his knot skills for advancement based on an adult's decision that he needs X amount of time to "really" learn it? The scout advances at his own rate. If he comes to you to do a requirement, you have an obligation to allow him to attempt it. If he can't tie it or ties it incorrectly, you don't sign off. If he does it and can explain it to you and tell you how it is used, you sign off.

 

I dislike "punch list" advamcement as much as the next guy, but I'm not going to keep telling a kid "later" and denying him a chance every time he comes to me wanting to do a rank requirement. They get discouraged and you will lose them.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I agreed with SR540Beaver, and he focused on the same word in Beavah's latest post that I did: "Really." Where in the relevant manuals does the phrase "really learn" appear, as opposed to just "learn"? If the requirement says "tie a tautline hitch", that is what the Scout has to do. It doesn't say "tie a tautline hitch but don't forget how to do it a week later." That's where the "program" comes in -- it should provide opportunities to learn the skill and then pass the requirement, AND to continue putting it into practice after it is passed, so it is not forgotten. That's easier to do with some skills than others. But it is the way to increase the chances that the learning has been retained -- or if you prefer, the skill has "really" been learned.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

No, I don't have it backward

[Eagledad 2779]

>>or if you prefer, the skill has "really" been learned.

[clemlaw 55]

IMHO, if it's even an issue about whether or not a Scout will "pass" his BOR, then there's a big problem with the program.

 

Yes, I suppose that even in the best program, one or two Scouts might show up occasionally having forgotten how to tie a bowline.

 

But if large numbers of scouts have forgotten basic skills, then the BOR should indeed give out a failing grade. But the program, and not the Scout, has obviously earned it.

 

If a troop is worried about "re-testing", then I think they're looking in the wrong place. There shouldn't be any "testing" in the first place, for the vast majority of the requirements. If the requirement is "tie a taut line hitch", then the way to sign it off is to look at the tent that the scout put up and have him show you where he used that knot. There is absolutely no need to have any "testing".

 

I suppose there are a few requirements where a "test" is the best or only way to do it, (e.g., pass the BSA swimmer test). But most of the requirements are best met without the Scout knowing that a "test" is taking place.

 

If no test is necessary, then no re-testing will be necessary.

 

As I noted above, I don't even remember my boards of review, so they must not have been nearly as traumatic as the ones that are apparently taking place today. I can only conclude that in a well-run program (such as the one I think I was in), the BOR is a mere formality. If it's not a mere formality, then I suggest the problem lies somewhere else.(This message has been edited by clemlaw)

[SR540Beaver 116]

Barry,

 

For me, a big part of the issue is who is the deciderer to borrow a phrase from Dubya. When our SAM ocasionally asks a patrol if they cleaned a dutch oven properly, they will respond yes. He then asks, would it be clean to my satisfaction? That is when they go get it and clean it again. That satisfaction varies from one person to another. Beavah wants to know that they "really" know the skill before he will sign it off. To me, if the requirement says, do, tell, show, etc. and they can do that, they have passed the requirement. If the boy stumbles and hem haws around and only gets it half right, I won't sign off. I'll send him back to study more and return when he can do it. But I'm not going to tell him he needs to show me for three months or wait three months from when it was taught to him. I guess another way to do it would be to tell the boys not to approach you about advancement and that you will come to them and sign off when you have a certain satisfaction from watching them over a period of time. But I don't think we will find that method in any BSA literature. We tell the boy HE is responsible for his advancement. For me, if he can do it correctly and confidently and explain it, he has met the requirement. That is "my" satisfaction standard.

 

Now, regardless of how an adult determines that standard, it is incumbent on us to make sure the boys are being taught what they need to advance and that we offer a program that will allow them to repeatedly use those skills. We should never treat an advancement requirement as a one time punch card item. He should be learning the skill becuse he will be using it and needing it in the future.

 

One of the best retests I can think off is being a Troop Guide, Instructor or teaching a skill during a troop meeting. You have to know your stuff when you are in the spotlight.

[Eagledad 2779]

>>We should never treat an advancement requirement as a one time punch card item. He should be learning the skill becuse he will be using it and needing it in the future.

[clemlaw 55]

-----There probably isn't a troop around with the kind of program where scouts practice every skill in the Boy Scout Handbook.----

 

But I think if the troop has a good program, they should be doing things to practice most of them. They've changed a little bit since my time in Scouts, but not too much. As I look through them, I would say that most of them are things that Scouts will do routinely, if they're engaged in a halfway decent program.

 

If a Scout forgot how to tie a taut line hitch, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Maybe he did use a bungee cord to put up his tent. So I wouldn't flunk him out of his BOR for that.

 

On the other hand, if he doesn't have a clue about how to put up the tent that he supposedly put up to pass a rank requirement, then I would start to think that maybe the program had failed him. Most of the requirements aren't exactly rocket science. If a Scout can't consistently do most of them, then I wonder whether the program is giving him enough opportunities to do these fun things.

 

In short, it probably means that there is too much emphasis on the requirements being requirements. They're not really requirements--they're the things you learn by doing a lot of fun stuff. It seems to me that if everyone viewed them that way, then the BOR would revert to being what it was when I was a Scout--a mere formality, and a chance for a pat on the back.(This message has been edited by clemlaw)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Eagledad, I am a little confused about what you think you are disagreeing with me about - to the point where you have decided that a particular word "scares" me. I don't recognize anything I said in what you are disagreeing with.

[moosetracker 132]

OK.. To truth, I seem to have lost where we are.. I've got retesting at BOR's & retesting at program level.. And just having them practice the skills..

 

OH well all I can say, with loosing exactly who is saying what is..

 

That between the boys needing to teach and then sign-off on the requirements for the youth. They should get plenty of practice.. Some of this the troop (PLC) should find ways to make it fun activities, events, challenges or contests, so that it doesn't become boring and redundent teaching the same thing over and over the same way every time there is a crossover.. But regardless if the boys are signing off (if not teaching) the younger scouts.. Yes the scouts should be able to revisit every single requirement in the book over & over & over again.

 

I can only say that with retesting in a BOR, maybe in your council.. With mine it is a formality, and that is the way it is.. I have been beaten into submission, and since right now I don't belong to a troop, I have no reason to ever sit on a board again.

 

Maybe they did remove it because they just can not control how hard or fair or easy troops will be over retesting.. And it would be no better in the SM hands or the older scouts hands.. I have seen it when the boys being unfair while signing off for younger scouts.. Some of it can be corrected by Adult leadership, but that means Adults knowing when to step in, or adults knowing what fair is themselves.. All the troop can teach the scout is what they think is right. If the troop feels what is right is to pick the scouts they favor and be easy on them, and take the scouts they have deemed "unworthy" of being a scout and making sure the retest is impossible. Well that is what the scouts learns is the correct way to evaluate others.

 

In a way, if the committee members are truely not familure with a scout, they should not be bias to one scout over the other.. My original troop committee member was though so it is not a guarentee.. Basically the SM would tell the advancement chair who to be easy on and who to try to fail.. But, if they are truely unbias then will they be fair.. Maybe uniform with all the scouts in their troop, but gauge their BOR with their fellow troops and they may be uniformly very difficult or very easy..

 

So before we teach the scouts how to "test" each other fairly, who teaches us??

 

In truth there is a course somewhere in this.. I am sure there is a supplemental course on it

put out by National with boring Power Point and all.. Now to find the right person who is not flawed by his own viewpoint to be able to teach it.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, so many different threads here... I think we're all talkin' past each other.

 

Let's try an example. Sometimes I go paddlin' with patrols or troops, sometimes just with a few lads who want to work on the badge. We go out and have a good time, I introduce some stuff, coach 'em on a few things, and we do a lot of practice. Usually, learnin' the J-stroke is the hardest part, eh? Once they learn it tandem, yeh put 'em in a boat solo where they really have to use it. They practice some more. They improve.

 

In the end, yeh can see 'em using the J-stroke regularly and confidently on their own. They've become proficient. Then it's time for a fun, crazy test - jump out of the boat, get back in the boat, paddle solo, swamp another boat, rescue both boats, ....

 

The point is that the practice happens before the test and signoff, eh? At the point where they've been signed off, they know it well. Yeh could put 'em in a canoe after a long 8-month winter and sports seasons out of the water and they'd still do fine.

 

A Scout Learns. Then a Scout is tested. A Boy Scout badge represents what a boy is able to do, it is not a reward for what he has done.

 

That's what Kudu means by 300 feet for T-2-1, eh? At the point when yeh sign off on a lad's skill, you're confident he's learned well enough that he can do it on his own without direct adult supervision. As a First Class Scout, he has all the skills needed to be with his patrol on their own. Navigate with map and compass means that he really can navigate with map and compass, not that he did it once on the easiest route possible.

 

What I hear OGE sayin' (an I might be hearin' him wrong) is that at the point of being signed off the boy has demonstrated the skill once, in that easy controlled environment. Then he should get additional experience with it by practicin' it with the troop on campouts and such, until eventually he becomes proficient. At the point when he passes the "test" on canoeing, he really can't be trusted to canoe on his own, or to remember everything next summer. Sometimes summer camp MB's are like this, eh? Just because not enough time is spent on practice. Yeh lecture, then yeh flail about for a few minutes with coaching, then yeh test. There are a couple dozen skills required for the badge, and camp has only 4 hours, so that's only 10 minutes to teach and practice each skill, which is nuts. In a troop, maybe a lad got signed off for bringin' the right gear once (mom helped), but yeh can't expect him to not to forget the right gear for this month's Polar Bear without an adult/parent/PL "reminding" him. In other words, he hasn't really learned yet; yeh can't trust him to be on his own, 300 feet away. He still needs more practice.

 

That's subtracting from the requirements. A boy scout badge recognizes what a boy is able to do. It is not an award for what he has done.

 

Now, in a good program, as clemlaw says, the lads get all kinds of practice with some things (like settin' up tents), so hopefully when their PL tests 'em they really are proficient. Other things, as Eagledad suggests, aren't really used regularly, eh? Some troops are in areas under long-term burn bans, and can't do fires. First Aid for shock is somethin' that isn't practiced on every campout (hopefully!). Not every troop does float trips regularly. So yeh can't rely on troop program developing proficiency in everything on its own, eh? That's why we have requirements for things, eh? Just because for some stuff the daily life of a particular troop wouldn't get 'em there without it. The requirements are meant to push proficiency and real learning before yeh test. It's not OK for a boy to "forget" how to recognize and treat basic hypothermia if his patrol is on his own 300 feet away from adult support on the Polar Bear Campout. That Second Class badge has to mean that he knows it, eh?

 

Of course, in a strong program, the PLs and Instructors and adults make sure the lads get a lot of practice, become proficient, and then test 'em. At that point, yeh can trust the lads to be able to use those skills on demand.

 

But not everything is perfect, eh?

 

Sometimes a PL might get a little lax. Or maybe as moose suggests, he'll sign off for a boy who is a friend just because he likes him. Or maybe an enterprising young rascal figures out that ASM Jones is the "soft touch" and bamboozles ASM Jones into some signoffs because Mr. Jones feels bad that a COH is coming up and the boy isn't "done."

 

That's what Review is for, eh?

 

Now, no BOR is goin' to take my Canoeing MB kids back out on a lake to "re-test". But if they were to ask a lad how he would plan a canoe trip, or what da hazards on local waterways are, or what he felt was the most important thing he learned was, the boy would be able to go on at length, eh? Even a shy boy after just a slight nudge, because it's stuff he really knows. It's immediately apparent that the lad has learned, so the BOR goes on to other stuff like how he feels his scouting is coming and encouraging him to further achievement. That's how it should work most of the time.

 

But a lad who got the signoff from his PL buddy or ASM Jones, that boy is goin' to start stumbling and bumbling and givin' "I dunno" answers. And the BOR then has to decide "Has this boy really shown that he can do this on his own without direct adult supervision? (i.e. at 300 feet). If not, that's an issue for both the program and the boy, eh? They've caught that the program has subtracted from the requirements: A badge represents what a boy is able to do, not what he has done. And they've caught that the boy isn't ready to take on the responsibilities of a First Class (or whatever) scout without puttin' himself or others at risk.

 

So the Board does not approve the rank, because that wouldn't be fair to the boy. Usually, when they talk to him about how he feels, he also admits that he feels like he hasn't done his best. And a good board will encourage him to further achievement, givin' him clear direction and a timeline. Maybe, if they find the Bobwhite Patrol Leader or ASM Jones are consistently weak, they talk to the SM about that, too.

 

That's the Scoutin' advancement method, eh? A boy learns. A boy is tested (and to pass, he demonstrates proficiency). A boy is reviewed.

 

Now, in some good programs, what yeh see is that the SM conference takes on da quality control role that really belongs to a BOR, eh? I think that started happening a lot after boys were removed from servin' on BORs, because the committee members often aren't as good at judgin' skills or talking with youth. So the SMs started takin' over that "review" role. That can work OK. The troop runs the SMC as the last requirement for each rank, and the SM makes sure the boy has learned, and checks on how he feels, and encourages him to more achievement. In essence, the SM has taken over the board's role, so the BOR really does become a sort of meaningless rubber stamp or "interview practice with strangers" as moose puts it. They aren't really as involved, and they really don't know the lad well enough to assess how he feels or encourage him. Not the best, but it works OK.

 

Beavah

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

"What I hear OGE sayin' (an I might be hearin' him wrong) is that at the point of being signed off the boy has demonstrated the skill once, in that easy controlled environment."

 

Beavah, apparently you have as much trouble understanding me as I do you

 

Where in any post did I say that you sign off a boy who has demonstrated the skill once in that easy controlled enviroment?

 

Maybe it would help me understand your thought process if you lead me through what I posted that lead you to the above quote

 

Demonstrate the skill once? Where? When?

 

(This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[SR540Beaver 116]

Yep! A boy learns. A boy is tested. A boy is reviewed. He does this at his own pace and when he thinks he is ready to be tested and requests it. Not when WE decide he is ready. If he shows profeciency while being tested, he'll pass. If he doesn't, he won't. It only takes a couple of times finding out that he isn't getting a participation card punch for him to learn that he has to put more work into it and know his stuff before asking to test.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, SR540. I agree with yeh. With one caveat. The emphasis should be on the first step, eh? On the boy learning (and doing, and having fun).

 

I think too often the way troops run they functionally put da emphasis on the second step - testing. So yeh get the lad who has only practiced for 10 minutes coming up to "test" based on his short-term memory, not on proficiency. That's the only way I can figure a boy having trouble with retaining a skill, and why I can't understand OGE . If a boy has really learned how to set up a tent, then he can go a whole year without setting up a tent and still do it just fine, eh? But if a program allowed the boy to just cram for a tent test and then signed off when he got through it, that's when yeh get problems with retention. Then yeh need the troop program to keep reinforcing it in order to build proficiency.

 

That reinforcing and practice are a part of learning, eh? Which is why I think OGE has it backwards. They're part of the step before testing and review.

 

Let's consider cooking. Without lookin' at any "requirements", how long would yeh say it would take to teach a boy to become reasonably proficient at planning, purchasing, and cooking a weekend's meals? How much practice? Quite a bit, eh? Practice cooking, practice planning a few meals and lookin' at nutrition, practice shopping in a grocery store and learning how to buy thrifty.

 

Problem is, if yeh run an 8-person NSP and are doin' FCFY, each boy gets one shot at it... and his only shot is the "test", eh? That's da point where a lot of troops sign off. I don't care if the lad is any of our genius progeny, he can't possibly learn that set of skills with zero practice.

 

Signing off like that (and then later discovering at a BOR that the boy can't even talk about planning and cooking a weekend's meals) is subtracting from the requirements. Even if the boy "passed the test" and got da signoff, he didn't learn. And the board should send him back to work harder so that his badge represents what he is able to do, not what he has done once. Because as a First Class scout who is operating in a youth-run, patrol-method program, the adults aren't goin' to be supervising him directly, and he needs to know. For comfort and for safety. And because an honorable scout would never wear a badge that didn't honestly represent his skills.

 

Now, if it's happening a bunch, the committee should also sit with the SM and figure out why the boys aren't learning and encourage some program changes. But that's secondary, eh? The focus is on helpin' the boy grow.

 

Because education is the chief function of the Scouting movement and the basis of the advancement program.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)