Is it time to just shoot FCFY in da head?

[Beavah 205]

I based what I said on the fact that I went to scouting.org and actually entered first class first year with and without quotation marks and fcfy and came up empty handed.

 

Yah, I reckon that says more about how incredibly bad da search function is on Scouting.org than anything else.

 

I ddn't see where a unit was encouraged to sign off requirements for skills that were not demonstrated.

 

Yah, except it's da unit's responsibility to establish practices that will bring each boy to First Class in a year, eh? When a leader who isn't an old fart like you or I reads that, what's he or she goin' to take away from it? Most new, inexperienced scouters comin' up from Cubs take that to mean what it meant in Cubs, eh? Every boy should earn Wolf or Bear or First Class by the end of the year. In fact, yeh can plan ahead on what day they'll almost all be "done."

 

The effect of a policy is often a lot different than what was intended by da words, eh? And we should evaluate a policy not by its words, but by the actual effect it has. Da actual effect of FCFY is to justify the adults who would run an adult-led curriculum-based Webelos III program with once-and-done signoffs. Just like da actual effect of "don't add to the requirements" is to enable those who don't believe in helpin' scouts to master skills. The intent may (or may not) be different, da actual words may (or may not) be different, but yeh judge da policy based on its effect, not on its intent.

 

Beavah

[RichK 10]

My son's troop has adopted the FYFC enthusiastically - at least one of the ASM's who runs the 1st year program has. Even the CC refers to it as our Webelos III program. Some of the negative results I think I've seen include

 

The no fun summer camp - (on one night I resorted to giving some of the 1st years $5 to go to the trading post so the ASM wouldn't find them and make 'em work on requirements in the evening)

 

Mucking up the transition to boy scouts/independence

 

Meetings are odd - the 1st years have their regulated meetings, some of the 2nd years will help the ASM with his program, the ones who aren't helping with the first years are either hiding somewhere or wandering aimlessly.

 

Patrols are meaningless

 

The troop doesn't do any group things . . the 1st years go on their hike, but after that, no one older bothers to do anything that's not required.

 

The troop keeps an active count of such things as merit badges earned, eagle scouts, . .etc. This ASM also encourages the parents to pay $50 per merit badge to the scouts (This also helps the scouts complete the financial management requirement - though I don't know if any of the parents have actually done this)

 

 

[SeattlePioneer 144]

In a word, Rich ---- Ugh!

 

It doesn't sound like a good program to me at ALL!

 

Unfortunately, the ASM seems to be carrying out National's bright ideas with enthusiasm!

[Eagle92 110]

In regards to national's search engine, as a professional librarian who is trained to do research I can tell you it is horrible, stressing HORRIBLE. I have found it easier to use whatever term I am looking for and "and scouting.org" to find the info I want than to use the BSA's search engine. It is that bad.

 

In regards to Rick's troop, I quote the 9th Doctor

 

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES

 

That is not how a troop is suppose to be run, and I am amazed you still have any new scouts still.(This message has been edited by Eagle92)

[Lisabob 13]

Hey RichK, not sure where exactly you are in MI? But there are a handful of us on this forum from the state and I venture to say most of us would run far, far away from what you are describing (ugh!) Say so, if you want to find some kindred spirits.

 

 

[Basementdweller 608]

Just curious, How many 10 year old first class scouts out there???????

 

I bet more than we care to admit. In all honesty how many 10 year olds can take care of themselves on a camp. Not too many, not going to argue the point because we have a lot of type A parents who will argue other wise.

[mds3d 90]

I did not read each post for memory, and I cannot find the actual National Policy on FCFY... BUT

 

As a UC I have been taught that FCFY is supposed to be where a troop has made it POSSIBLE for a scout to get to First Class in one year. The concern that created the policy was that Troops were making it so that the advancement of a scout was slowed by limited opportunities instead of pacing his advancement based on his own motivation.

 

This is at least what I tell my SMs. If they can show me it is possible, even if all scouts do not do it, then I say they have achieved the goal.

 

As for actuality, I think that First class in 18 months or so is appropriate. Especially since we expect merit badges are also being worked on during this time.

[JMHawkins 15]

but we also don't want a bunch of 17 year and 364-day old Eagles either, right?

 

We want as many 17 year and 364 day Boy Scouts as possible. I'd rather have a guy age out active with whatever rank than have him get Eagle in the bare minimum time (with Mom, Dad, and the Troop Advancement Committee carefully scheduling everything to fit) and then drop out of Scouts to move onto whatever resume enhancer is next on on the list.

 

As far as pushing advancement, the new Journey to Excellence requires 65% advance one rank each year for Gold level. Now, I don't think that's particularly unobtainable, but it's definitely pushing the idea. FWIW, advancing 65% of your Scouts at least one rank is worth as much in the scoring system as going on 10 overnighters and getting 60% of the Scouts to summer camp combined. Obviously that doesn't force units to become diploma mills, but it sure seems like it might push inexperienced units that direction.

 

Advancement is a powerful tool in helping the Scouts learn to set goals and focus on them, and a great way to reconigize them for their growth and accomplishments. But they're not little kids any longer, they recognize when something is a Participation Award instead of a real award for merit. And teenagers aren't very motivated by participation awards. If we water down the requirements and make a Troop into an advancement academy, we're throwing away a powerful tool.

 

As far as retention goes, yeah, in the absence of adults marching the Scouts through the requirements, what sort of kid is most likely going to make FC in one year? A kid who loves camping and goes on every trip he possible can. A kid who constantly has his nose buried in his Handbook because he just digs all the cool stuff in there. A kid who doesn't have a lot of other obligations (Band, Sports, Robotics Club) that limit his Scouting time. In other words, the kids who most love scouting and are most committed to it - regardless of what advancment awards they get. For them, FC absolutley comes via the suntan method - naturally as part of being active in the Troop. Those kids are least likely to drop out later. But a kid who doesn't really like camping, or who isn't really interested in knots and lashings, or who is really into sports and ends up on a big-deal team with lots of required practice, they're all less likely to make FC in one year and more likely to drop out later. Because it's just not their priority, and sticking a badge on their pocket isn't going to change that.

 

I think it's time to do away with FCFY. Long walk off a short pier...

 

 

 

[mds3d 90]

Just want to point this out. Some have referenced the Journey to Excellence one rank each year requirement. Remember that 1 rank per year is very different than FCFY. One rank per year means 6 years to eagle. That is a 16 or 17 year old Eagle scout. That is very different than the 14 year old Eagles people are complaining about.

 

Also think about this... FCFY fits a plan for a boy to move into Venturing at a younger age without having to complete his Eagle once he moves to a Crew. I think that this may be the direction that National is heading. Boy Scouts being 11-15 year olds and Venturing being 16-21 year olds without having the two overlap very much. No real source for this, just my impression.

[JMHawkins 15]

mds:

 

Just want to point this out. Some have referenced the Journey to Excellence one rank each year requirement. Remember that 1 rank per year is very different than FCFY. One rank per year means 6 years to eagle. That is a 16 or 17 year old Eagle scout. That is very different than the 14 year old Eagles people are complaining about.

 

No, that's not quite correct. The advancement schedule that National seems to want is for the Scouts to get the first 3 ranks - reach FC - in the first year (hence, FCFY, First Class First Year) and then make one rank per year after that. JtE doesn't mention FCFY (yet, I suspect it'll make it into a revision if it survivies, which is another reason to support Beavah's "shoot it in da head" position), but FCFY remains the directive to unit leaders from BSAs advancement folks.

 

So, FC at 11 (because of course they got AoL as Webelos and joined at 10), Star at 12, Life at 13, Eagle at 14 as the average. Now, there are Scouts who can absorb all the experiences and lessons involved in an honest achievement of that rank by 14, but they're the exception. For most of the Scouts, it would be a disservice for us to force-march them through the ranks.

 

But I suspect you're right about the overall objective being Eagle in a Troop so they can move to Venturing, I just think BSAs timetable is a couple year's faster than your. Venturing by 14. I wonder if National is moving towards the LDS model where the various alternative units aren't "alternatives" any more but expected stepping stones.

[Eagle92 110]

MD,

 

FCFY came about when Exploring was mostly career interest oriented, and hadn't split into Venturing for traditional posts, and Exploring under LFL fro the career oreinted posts. It was strictly a tool to get folks to stay in the movement.

 

As far as Venturing upping the age, I do not think it will happen since they just lowered the age to 13.5 and completed 8th grade.