Is it Once and Done?

[Eagle92 110]

Oak,

 

But it IS (emphasis, not screaming at you) written

 

GTA says: It is important thus, to remember that in the end, a badge recognizes what a young man is able to do and how he has grown. It is not so much a reward for what he has done. emphasis is mine.

 

And a very similar quote has been in use for a very long time in previous advancement books.

 

Also as mentioned by a previous poster GTA states that teaching the skill is part of the learning process.

 

4.2.1.1 The Scout Learns

He learns by doing, and as he learns, he grows in his ability to do his part as a member of the patrol and troop. As he develops knowledge and skill, he is asked to teach

others; and in this way he learns and develops leadership.

 

So not signing off on a requirement until after they have done "his part as a member of the patrol and troop," or has taught the skill are legitimate reasons, and not adding to requirements.

 

Unfortunately the BSHB cannot have every single rule, tibit of info, etc in it. Otherwise the book would be to big to be practical. Trust me the "District Operations" book that DE's get is a 3" binder, and it doesn't everything in it, let alone the Field book and HB information.

 

Also in reviewing the current BSHB to prep for IOLS, I've noticed that some basic, commonsense info from previous editions is no longer in it. Hopefully the info is in the various MBPs on the topic. So again the BSHB is not the end all be all. Ratherit is a tool for the boys to use.

 

Remember our job as leaders is to train, guide, and mentor these young men and ladies in our charge. And we have additional information and training to help us in that goal. And that includes the G2A, G2SS, and other resources. That's why we as leaders have expectations bases upon these resources. We expect a scout to be proficient in a skill, because it is stated that the scout should be able to do the skill in order to wear the badge. That means we have to make sure that who ever is signing off on requirements knows that the scout must be proficient in a skill by being "able to do" the skills that are required.

 

Now folks are correct in that retesting is allowed. And we all agree that it is as it should be. Section 8.0.0.0 has all the details on BORs. BORS are suppose to determine the quality of his experience, decide whether he is qualified to advance and, if so, encourage him to continue the quest for Eagle or the next Palm. pp44 . In a nutshell the rest says that while retesting is not allowed, asking questions about expereince is how you determine if they met the requirements The answers will reveal what he did for his rank. It can be determined, then, if this was what he was supposed to do. GTA pp 45. So even if the requirements are signed off, say by an overzealous PL, if the BOR determines that the requirement was not met, then they have no choice to deny the rank, counsel the scout, and write up their recommendation for him to meet the requirements as well as appeal the decision.

 

Again I am not trying to be mean, add to requirements, etc. I am trying to follow policy. And I have seen first hand leaders try to add to requirements, bully scouts, etc. Remember I'm the one who had to confront a DAC at his EBOR when he asked "what if we told you that we think you did not meet the requirements?" And when I asked why was told, "because I didn't approve your project." had to remind him that the project was approved by one of his successors 4 year prior, the project went off as planned, and that all requirements were met when the project was completed 4 years prior, so I do not see a problem, and if there is I want to know who I would appeal this decision to.

 

As you can see, I've been on both end of this conversation.

[Venividi 35]

> A boy feels like if he meets the letter of the requirement, he should get it signed off.

 

Oak,

A nice sentiment, but it is not supported by material in the SM/ASM specific training class. A video module in the course presentation material about advancement shows a PL that is reviewing scouts doing an advancement requirement (happens to be a first aid bandage on a forearm). A boy shows his bandage to his PL, and questions why he is not being signed off. He obviously believes that he has completed the requirement. The PL looks at the bandage, and explains that he needs some more practicing before he will sign off on the requirement.

 

(This message has been edited by venividi)

[fred8033 1593]

If I remember right, the bandage in the video was okay, but not 100% up to par. Now if the scout had done a bandage that was up to expectations, should he have been signed off? Yes.

 

I'm okay with tough expectations. IMHO, that's a matter of good coaching and a good program. Also, I've rarely a seen a scout protest if when asked to try again or to fix what they've done.

 

...

 

Scouters keep quoting the GTA where it says a badge recognizes what a scout can do, not what they've done. But then reject the idea that if they can "do" the BSA requirement that that's enough. Instead they want more experience or calendar time or teaching other scouts or something else not written in the rank requirement. That's very much a reward for what they've done and based on expectations not written in the BSA requirements.

 

...

 

Eagle92 wrote: "You do not sign it off after they just learn it. You let them use the skill some and practice. you give them time for them to get comfortable with the skill before signing off." ... and he wrote ... "Then once it is signed off, THEN they need to keep using it and teach others."

 

Fine as long it doesn't become an extended part of the requirement. Example: "Sorry, you only learned the skill yesterday. We require a month and a camp out between learning and signing off on the requirement."

 

The worst is bouncing a scout back for a requirement that's already been signed off.

 

...

 

desertrat77: I agree with the part where you wrote. "Somewhere along the line, I think the indoor folks got tired of being upstaged by the outdoors folks. So the reduced focus on outdoors and adventure was reflected in scout advancement requirements, and woodbadge as well. No more embarrassment for the folks not so good at sharpening an axe, who hated sleeping in the outdoors, or smelling like campfire smoke...."

 

I agree. It's like advancement has become a religious certification to some unwritten metaphysical concept of the ideal scouters overtaking all the other methods of scouting. Some scouters have imbued a legendary status on the ranks when reality is that a rank just indicates a scout met the requirements published in the book when tested.

 

...

 

Since we can't agree what the requirements are even when they are explicitly written, why don't we just ditch the whole advancement program and just say tenderfoot is 5 nights camping in a tent. Second class is ten nights camping. First class is twenty five. Star is fifty. Life is seventy five. Eagle is a hundred nights camping in a tent.

 

That would raise the standard. My 17 year old son has over 150 nights with his troop, 15+ with his jambo troop and at least another 100+ as camp staff over the last three years. My 13 year old son has around fifty nights with his troop.

 

But wait, that's recognizing scouts for what they've done instead of what they can do. And BSA advancement requirements haven't included time spans or past performance except when called out. Be head cook for one meal. Five activities with your troop. 4 months as a star scout.

[lrsap 10]

Reading this thread and the other has made me think about how, if you do not believe in "one and done", do you actually know when certain advancement milestones are met. Two that come to mind are FC requirements written as follows:

 

8a. Demonstrate tying the bowline knot and describe several ways it can be used.

9b. Successfully complete the BSA swimmer test.

 

You would think they would be simple. Scout comes to you and say "SM (or PL, SPL, or however your unit works), I have been working on tying the bowline at home so I can earn FC. Let me show you." He then proceeds to tie a perfect bowline while describing its many uses. Is he done? What if he missed it the first time but recovered on his own and got it right? Does it have to be perfect every time? Or is there a limited number of attempts one gets before not being deemed "proficient". Also, how many times does he have to tie it for you to know he learned?

 

For the swim test, you have a young man new to the troop. He goes to Summer Camp and passes the swim test, but he is no fish. It was quite an accomplishment and struggle for him, but he did it. Do you sign? If you do, what if during his next swim test he doesn't pass? What now?

 

Now here is the thing you may not get from my questions. I'm not in the camp of "bare minimums" for signing advancement. If you are to serve as your Patrol cook I wouldn't require Chef Ramsey standards of excellence, but in my mind it means your PL, SPL or anyone else in leadership does not have to do the whole "Now light the stove. Now get the water. Etc.." thing. You are told you are the cook, now cook. If you perform, the book is signed. If not, try again next month, along with some encouragement of what you can work on to be successful.

 

I guess what I'm looking for is a litmus test. If it is not "one and done", then how many? How many bowlines, how many swim tests. If I were a boy working on advancement, I would want to know. And if the answer is "There is no number, it's until I'm satisfied" I can see that as something a boy can see as frustrating.

 

 

 

[Eagle92 110]

Fred,

 

I did a little research on the topic by reviewing some of my BSHBs. There is a reason why old fogey's like myself and others uses words like "master skills," "show proficency," etc etc. And that is because those word WERE used in previous editions of the BSHB, and not just in the advancement literature for leaders.

 

From the 9th ed, 12th printing, page 453 under the chapter entitled SCOUT ADVANCEMENT

 

...[bP beleived that]any boy who took the time and trouble to master (emphasis mine) certain Scoutcraft skills should be rewarded for his effort. And so he came up with this idea: He gave each scout who passed certain tests a badge to wear on his uniform.

 

...For all ranks , you are required to show active Scout participation in your troop and patrol.You are required to master (again emph. mine) certain Scout skills

 

Either those exact same quotes, or very similar ones, are found under Chapter 27 ADVANCEMENT IN SCOUTING on page 589 of the 10th ed,7th printing.

 

Now the 11th ed, 9th printing states on page 14 under THE RANKS OF SCOUTING Of greater value is what the badges represent. The skills you master (emphasis mine again), the wisdom you gain, and the experiences you enjoy....

 

So the expectation to master the skills was up front in the BSHB from the beginning. Older Scouts and adult leaders signing off didn't even need to express the expectation, except by their example, because it was already written in the BSHB.

 

Unfortunately the current BSHB doesn't even have an advancement section as I can find. So I do agree with you, it needs to be put back in the BSHB.

 

But until a new BSHB is out, leaders should continue with the expectation of a scout being able to do the skills required since it is in the additional materials, specifically the G2A, that we use.

 

 

(This message has been edited by Eagle92)

[Beavah 205]

8a. Demonstrate tying the bowline knot and describe several ways it can be used.

9b. Successfully complete the BSA swimmer test.

 

Yah, lrsap, I think what we want for 9b is that the boy actually knows how to swim, eh?

 

So yeh sign off the requirement when he actually knows how to swim. The 100 yards swum in "a strong manner" with da ability to rest while swimming/in water and not be exhausted is a measure. If yeh use that measure well, and actually sign off for the ability to swim, then there will be no question that the lad will still be able to swim in three months, or next summer.

 

Da problem only comes when yeh feel "he's worked hard enough" or somesuch and then sign off for drowning in a forward direction for 100 yards because actually making him learn to swim would be "mean" or because da scouter isn't willing to take the time with the boy to really teach him how to swim. That's the only time you'll find the lad somehow can't swim 3 months later.

 

No different for any advancement topic.

 

Beavah

 

[lrsap 10]

First of all "drowning in a forward direction", excellent. I'll make sure to give you credit when I, er, borrow that one.

 

Troubling aspect can be where there are judgement calls when these things are concerned. The kid that struggled still, in the eyes of the SC Aquatics Leader or Director, passed his swim test. So do you sign because he did what the requirement demanded in the eyes of others, or do you not sign because he did not meet your standard? Also, since in your mind he did not meet the requirement, are you then required by conscience to take his swim tag from him even though the person in charge of the venue said he passed?

 

And yes, I know we can hypothetical anything to death.

[Eagle92 110]

IMHO,

 

Allow him to keep his tag at camp yes. Best way to practice is to do it. Plus with the swim buddy and LGs around, I'm more comfortable than at public pools.

 

As for signing off the requirement in the book, not right away. I would want him to practice and keep workign on it and improving.

 

 

Upon reflection, I think another reason for the 'One and Done" mentality is national's emphasis on FCFY and the doing away with time requirements at the T-2-1 level. back in the day, a scout had the time to "master" the skill per the BSHB. There was no hurry.

 

And yes I know about the research that supports FCFY, and I'm willing to bet the real reason for A) keeping the interest of the scouts, and B) Them advancing in the 12 month period, was because of PROGRAM.

 

Develop a PROGRAM and they will come.

[Eamonn 61]

Boy oh boy!

My head is spinning!

It's only if and when we allow advancement to drive or be the driver of the program that any of this becomes an issue.

 

I'm a bit of a lazy toad.

There is no way that I'm ever going to be willing to take the time to up-date any Scout's advancement at the time he thinks that he might have met the requirements.

99.9% of the time I can't ever remember what the requirements are!

It's just not that important.

I like to think that the program offered (The things that we do and are doing) encompasses most of the basic skills.

A Scout doesn't cook just to advance, he cooks because it's his turn to cook, he learns from the other guys in the Patrol.

We don't waste time at a Troop meeting with frayed little pieces of rope, we have activities where using rope and line are important.

The newbie is the guy working along side the PL or older Scout reading the map and using the compass.

So what tends to happen is that when the Scout feels that I've sat on my duff long enough, he will come to me and say "Hey Eamonn can we take a look at my book please."

What follows is me asking when and where he thinks he did such and such? Him telling me.

Sometimes we agree, sometimes we agree that next time we do whatever he will be the ??? (Fill in the blank.)

Sure there are times when a Lad does forget something, it's not the end of the world or a hanging offense.

Fact is that we are far too busy doing stuff and having fun too worry about advancement.

Still when it comes to knowing and having skills I'm willing to say that I think the Scouts from any unit that I've been with are as good as the best of the rest.

One of my great rewards is watching as a little Lad works with older Lads learning, picking up things and mastering skills till he gets the opportunity to pass them on to others, thus not only proving that he has indeed mastered the skill but is also going a long way to become the good citizen of the future and someone who cares for and about others.

Ea.

 

 

[desertrat77 1144]

As JoeBob said, important skills should be cumulative.

 

Do we need a giant red tape machine to re-test proficiency? No.

 

If scouts know that their leaders expect cumulative proficiency, the scouts will strive for that. They won't want to let anyone down.

 

On the other hand, if they sense requirement sign off is nothing but a big pencil whip, they will met those low expectations as well, even though the vast majority of scouts are capable of so much more.

 

The scouts' ability to learn and achieve high standards isn't the problem. The adults often set the bar low, and the program goes from there.

[Eagle92 110]

E,

 

 

AMEN! again PROGRAM PROGRAM PROGRAM

 

Rat said The scouts' ability to learn and achieve high standards isn't the problem. The adults often set the bar low, and the program goes from there.

 

That's one reason why I like Scouts signing off on the T-2-1 ranks, as well as them sitting on BORs at that level too like they did in the 1972-1989 range.

[desertrat77 1144]

Eagle92, I concur...scout led BORs and training are invaluable experiences....

[qwazse 4344]

Ea, Eag and Rat,

 

Ditto.

 

There is no "boy feeling he met a requirement". There is going to the PL and saying "Let me show this to you." or "Did you like the meal I cooked for you all?" or "You remember how I kept us from hiking miles out of our way?" and following up, "Well here's my book, it deserves a signature on that line."

 

Some of the pro-O&D posters sound like they are signing off on requirements instead of the PL/SPL. First of all, that's really tiring watching 10 newbs tie bowlines, etc .... Second, that sets yourself up as the sole judge and jury. Trust me, the older boys will come to you when there is something that is ambiguous. Thirdly, whatever your opinion on these matters, you miss out on sharing it with the boys who need to hear it the most (your leadership corps). Finally you miss out on the really fun part of the SMC ... "I see PL Tom signed off on cooking. I hear he's pretty strict. What did you do to impress him?"

 

By the way, did I tell you we had the best FC SMC ever this summer? Three adults and the candidate were on resting on pine needles watching the sun set across the edge of a canyon while the rest of the troop was on a water run. I'm really glad the boy took as long as he did to make rank; otherwise, we would have missed that moment!

[Oak Tree 15]

a badge recognizes what a young man is able to do and how he has grown. It is not so much a reward for what he has done

 

Right, I knew that was coming. Yes, that general philosophy is written out. However, that philosophy does not carry over into the actual wording of the requirements.

 

The swimming requirement is one that I think of as the only real exception. You do have to know how to swim.

 

For the rest of the requirements, I think you have to add to the requirements in order to make it reflect something that "a young man is able to do" as opposed to "a reward for what he has done."

 

I've decided I'm not really worried about it - I'm going to do as Eamonn suggests and focus on putting on a good program, and the advancement stuff will get signed off along the way. We'll try to do it by the letter of the requirements because that's what seems fair to the boys. Some skills they'll pick up and use over and over, and others they'll do once and be done with it.

 

The PL looks at the bandage, and explains that he needs some more practicing before he will sign off on the requirement.

 

Yes, I'm fine with this. It's reasonable for the person signing off to have some standard for what an acceptable bandage is. But what if the bandage was perfect? The Scout learned it two minutes ago, did it perfectly. Will he remember it in a week? Probably not if he doesn't practice it again. But if he's done it correctly, would you then not sign off? Or is it once and done?

[fred8033 1593]

Eagle92 - I appreciate the history. I've only seen two revisions of the BSHB and two of the ACPP/GTA. Interesting how words change and interesting how BSA is inconsistent with wording across documents that exist at the same time. Which printed words should be treated as authoritative?

 

...

 

I agree that it's program program program. That's where our focus should be. That's all eight methods used together to develop our scouts.

 

...

 

The swim test is an excellent debate example. I'm really surprised by the responses though. The BSA rank swim requirement is very clear and includes an explicit proficiency expectation. In addition, swim tests are administered by authorized individuals who have received special aquadics training. If a scout passed the swimmers test, I'd have a really hard time explaining to him why I wouldn't sign off on that rank requirement.

 

SM...: "Sorry Timmy, your not ready to receive your first class rank yet. I just don't think your a good swimmer yet."

 

Scout: "But Mr. Scoutmaster my handbook says pass a BSA swim test and I did."

 

SM...: "Yes, but I'd like to see you become a stronger swimmer. You need to keep working on it."

 

Scout: "But it says pass a swim test."

 

SM...: "You see Timmy those BSA rank requirements are more like guidelines. Remember that Pirates of the Caribean movie. Remember parlay?"

 

Scout: "So how will I know when I can advance?"

 

SM...: "Just keep trying. I'll let you know when your ready."

 

...

 

Now you can debate proficiency. What's a strong stroke? Powerful or just adequate. Was he winded? How heavy of breathing is okay? Was it a pool or a lake? Was the water 75 degrees or 40 degrees? Smooth water, choppy or waves? Clear water or dog days of summer? Were carp and perch nibling at his leg hair? The problem is what criteria are you waiting for and how are your justifying it.

 

...

 

(Side discussion) ... If you do feel strongly enough to not pass the scout on the swimming rank requirement, you MUST change his swim tag. The scout parents entrusted his safety to you and you just decided he's not up to the swimming test proficiency. Now, you've drawn a line at advancement because of a safety claim. Sure he can practice swimming at camp, but he can do it in the non-swimmer / learners area. You don't want him in the swimmers section that has deep water, further out and the life guards have an expectation he is a proficient swimmer. You don't want him checking out a canoe or sail boat where if he gets in trouble it is harder to get to him in time.

 

And also, I'd hope you immediately take it up with the camp director and the council scout executive so it doesn't happen to other scouts. We're talking safety right? Someone drowning in a forward direction? What does it say to the scouts if you think aquadics staff arn't doing their job and you don't do anything about it.

 

This isn't Penn State right?

 

...

 

I'd hope this is something we can all agree on. If someone inappropriately passes a scout on a requirement, you need to talk to that person who passed the scout so it doesn't keep happening to other scouts. You also should look for a way to correct the mistake. That's our big debate. Do you unpass the scout or not recognize the test or expect more than is printed or treat the 1st test as a learning/practice/screening waiting for a final test at a later date or something else. My preference is to see the learning happens, preferably through the normal troop program; not to undo signed off requirements.

 

...

 

IMHO, the rubber hits the road with activities, not advancement. When you have responsibility, you need to make sure scouts are prepared, capable and safe. It doesn't matter what rank they are or what merit badges they've earned. Canoe trip? It doesn't matter if the scout earned the swimming merit badge two years ago. I'm going to make sure they took a swim test within the last year, preferably in the last three months. If I'm not sure they are a good swimmer, we'll do it again. That's my right as the person taking responsibility for their safety. Hiking trip? I don't care if your tenderfoot or Eagle scout. We'll review what to do if lost. We'll review first aid and make sure people have a first aid kit with them. If I'm not sure they are physically capable, we'll do practice hikes.

 

I don't care what troop advancement program you have, you can't trust rank as a certification or trust they are ready now because they were once judged proficient.

 

...

 

(another side discussion) I like scouts signing off on T21 with one exception. If you give scouts the authority and they sign off, it's signed off. Done and gone. But, that's yet another twist on this discussion.