Guide to Advancement - What Needs to Change?

[Twocubdad 665]

Here's some of the what, the when makes absolutely no difference to me:

 

-- When "participate actively" was defined as being registered, the policy which was effective until January 1 of this year when,

 

-- "participate actively" was defined to include participation in non-Scouting, but Scout-like activities.

 

-- When the policy was put in place which allows a Scout to receive credit for time served in a position of responsibility even though his performance was so miserable that he was removed from that position before completing his term.

 

-- when Scoutmasters were told their role as the "gatekeeper" of advancement means they should stand at the gate and heard kids through.

 

-- when Scoutmasters were told that authorizing Scout to start a merit by signing the blue card doesn't mean the Scoutmaster has any descretion in determining if the Scout is ready to tackle the badge. It is simply an opportunity for the Scoutmaster to have a friendly chat with the Scout. (And thank heavens for that. I would never chat with one of my Scouts if the Advancement Team didn't provide the opportunity.)

 

-- When time-in-rank requirements were taken out of T-2-1.

 

-- When Scouts were allowed to work ahead on requirements instead of working on ranks sequentially.

 

-- When all this stuff was taken out of the hands of the people who know their Scouts best and are charged with actually delivering the program to the boys and taken over by some anonymous Advancement Team.

 

 

And by the way, there is a big difference between an 11 year old finishing Eagle in three years and a 15-year old doing the same. The 15-y.o. should be able to easily make up the stuff which should have been challenging to an 11-y.o. If a fifth-grader can blow through the material in the same time, where was the challenge for the 15 y.o?

[Beavah 205]

Yah, hmmmm...

 

You're still missing it, bnelon44. I don't have any problems with da steps to advancement. I agree with 'em. I don't believe there has been too much of a written change in da program materials on advancement at all.

 

What has changed is da interpretation of the program materials by some of da national folks, as evinced by some of da things you have been saying, eh? We never had the notion that active = registered or that active = going to band instead of scouts in the past. We never had da notion that a Patrol Leader could get full credit for being a Patrol Leader without doing the job of Patrol Leader, just because he held a patch for a period of time. We never had a notion that "don't add to the requirements" meant that yeh had to parse each requirement in the most absurd, picky, legalistic sense. We never had da notion that you keep expressing (and which is NOT part of da BSA materials anywhere) that "retention" isn't expected and that it's a function of review, not of A Scout Learning in the first place. We never had da notion that Boy Scouting and Boy Scout Advancement were only a 4-year program. We never had so many "explain" requirements and so few "do" requirements. We never thought da occasional newsletter and other guidance trumped the Rules & Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America which set proficiency as the standard for Boy Scout Advancement.

 

Those are all novel and recent interpretations which are completely inconsistent with da traditional BSA Advancement program and with da Rules & Regulations of the BSA. More to the point, they aren't good for kids. They don't push kids to work hard, they don't teach 'em to value learning and knowledge, they don't teach 'em character or fitness or citizenship. So like TwoCubDad says, they take away da third leg of the stool, eh? Now we're relying only on leadership (teaching others) and outdoor program (your bit about retention) to do all the work, because we've removed all da value from Advancement.

 

Now, what to change? That's easy, eh? Yeh just roll back da novel interpretations of the past 15-20 years.

 

More on that in a bit

 

[bnelon44 17]

Beavah

 

Maybe it is just the way I read the section but if the unit has clear and communicated attendence requirements, then the part about just being a good band section leader doesn't apply. It would only apply if the unit didn't communicate attendence requirements.

 

Eagle92,

The turning a badge over for not remembering a skill may have been a troop custom, I don't remember reading it anywhere in national literature. Handing back the Tenderfoot pin if you did an egregious act violating the Scout Law was something they did that in the very early years of Scouting.

 

Beavah et al,

Thanks for the feedback so far, keep it coming! Good discussion. I'll try to keep quiet for awhile and let you guys talk.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[Beavah 205]

Maybe it is just the way I read the section but if the unit has clear and communicated attendence requirements, then the part about just being a good band section leader doesn't apply.

 

Might be just da way you read the section. I've heard others argue that it means that the the band involvement trumps the unit attendance expectations. That's the issue with some of this stuff sometimes, eh? Yeh have to consider unintended consequences.

 

This can be easily resolved, though, in the guidance, with some bridging language and examples.

 

By bridging language, I mean language that connects the paragraphs about goals that you quoted with the procedural stuff for advancement, eh? Stuff that links the procedures back to the goals, so that the 90% of the folks who grab the book to just look up what they need get the procedure they look up placed in context.

 

So yeh start by copyin' da bit from the Rules and Regulations into plainer language. Somethin' like this:

 

"Because genuine learning and the development of character are the goals of Scouting and of Advancement, the proper interpretation of all Advancement procedures, policies, and requirements is achieved by asking ourselves the question "What will be the best example to boys of real hard work, learning, and achievement?" It is that hard work and achievement which we desire to model and inspire in the youth. It is that hard work and achievement which gives a boy confidence and the ability to lead. It is that hard work and achievement which makes Advancement meaningful to a boy's peers and community. "

 

Then yeh follow it up with examples.

 

"How do you interpret requirements?"

Sometimes people have questions about how to interpret individual requirements. The proper way to interpret requirements is to ask "What will be the best example to boys of real hard work, learning, and achievement?" In that sense, it is generally wrong to believe that requirements can be met by doing something just once, or even a few times. Real learning in scouting comes from doing, and that requires time and practice.

 

The goal of each requirement is to provide a scout with a challenge to become proficient in an age-appropriate and useful skill. So when a requirement says "Explain the procedures to follow in the safe handling and storage of fresh meats", the intention is that the boy is proficient in the handling and storage of proteins. He should be able to properly handle and prepare meats for his patrol mates' supper, and should not just have the steps down by rote but understand and be able to explain the reasons for those steps. A boy who understands not just the How but the Why of things will be confident and able to apply his learning in the future.

 

What does "no adding to or subtracting from the requirements mean?"

The goal of each requirement is to provide a scout with a challenge to become proficient in an age-appropriate and useful skill. The set of skills are chosen in a way to help specify and flesh out the goals, so that boys have a clear picture of what constitutes hard work, learning, and achievement in a given area. The requirements aren't exhaustive, but are rather a guide to important things for boys to learn in an area.

 

The most important principle is that you should never subtract from the intention to promote proficiency in a skill through hard work and learning. So in the above example, Expecting a boy to actually be able to properly handle meats is not adding to the requirements. The intention is for the boy to have a skill, and the skill is to be able to handle and prepare meats safely. It would be subtracting from the program to believe that simply "explaining" by repeating a memorized passage on food safety meets the expectation, since that does not constitute hard work, learning, and achievement.

 

In a similar way, expecting a boy to go shopping to "secure the ingredients" for food after making a list and budget should be considered a normal part of proficiency in meal planning and preparation. Simply grabbing everything from mom's cupboard would not demonstrate that proficiency or the hard work, learning, and achievement we would expect of a First Class Scout. That would be subtracting from the expectations.

 

At the same time, to ensure some uniformity across the country, we ask units not to add additional goals. So, for example, it would be inappropriate to add proficiency in Dutch Oven cooking to the expectations for First Class Scout, because that has been properly reserved for the Cooking MB level of skill and proficiency. Units may of course teach scouts at that level to cook with dutch ovens, and that is encouraged, but a boy can meet the expectations without doing so.

 

There is of course some room for adjustment to the norms for each troop and patrol. If a troop or patrol used dutch oven cooking at all or almost all suppers, then quite naturally a boy in that troop or patrol would become proficient in that and it may be a reasonable expectation for a First Class Scout in that program. In that case expecting dutch oven cooking may not be inappropriate, but expecting some other specific cooking technique would be.

 

Boards of Review

Occasionally a Board of Review will ask a question of a scout like "how did you go about learning what you needed to to fulfill the meal planning and cooking requirements for First Class?" We would expect the boy to answer that he worked hard over a good period of time to practice basic cooking techniques, to learn about basic nutrition and meal planning, to develop good techniques for thrifty shopping. Fulfilling the requirement should mean that he learned all of those things with effort and practice. That would demonstrate hard work, learning, and achievement. He may have done that in Scouting, or he may have done that by shopping and preparing meals for his family and then using those skills in Scouting.

 

If instead the boy responds that he didn't cook much along the way and instead was signed off for only the first or second meals that he prepared for his patrol, then that is a sign the troop is not using Advancement properly. Cooking just a meal or two is not sufficient to develop proficiency, and does not demonstrate hard work, learning, and achievement. A Board of Review in such a case might ask additional questions to determine the boy's understanding and level of proficiency.

 

In such a case, the Board of Review has two responsibilities. The first and most important responsibility is to the boy. By having a friendly and frank conversation, they should lead the boy toward an understanding of what effort and achievement are required to develop proficiency in basic cooking, and then give him a start on how to go about it. While the boy is not yet ready to advance, this is not a "failure". On the road to Eagle there are times to stop and check the map, and a BOR is an opportunity for the boy to check the map and get some direction. The second responsibility is to the program. The board members should communicate with the Scoutmaster and Committee on how the boy is coming along, so that the SM can consider how to help the boy and perhaps provide more cooking opportunities, and so that the committee can consider what resources might help the Scoutmaster in that role. Perhaps a committee member who is an accomplished cook can volunteer to help boys work hard and achieve proficiency in their cooking.

 

 

 

 

 

[Eagle92 110]

Bnelon,

 

If you review what I wrote, I stated "B-P suggested that if a scout can perform the skills he has a badge for, he should turn in the badge and redo it."

 

Again Baden-Powell said that if a scout could not do the skills, then he should return the badge until he could do them.

 

No troop tradition of that sort was needed in my troop growing up, as when we tested the scouts, we made darn sure that they had "mastered the skill" per the BSHBs of the time before sign off. Then to keep the scouts proficient, we had them teach the younger scouts.

 

So there was no need to turn in badges in my troop.

 

As for one and done being a historical precedent from way back, the argument could be said for 'mastering the skills" prior to signing off advancement is histrocical precedent since it was stated in the BSHBs. Mastery implies knowing a skill so well that it becomes second nature, and you can recall the skills 6 months, 8 months, or in some cases years after leaning them. Best example of the last was the old fogey who was a lifeguard instructor in his younger days doing a rescue with out equipment and using the techniques he learned and taught in his teens and early 20s.

 

Like the examples I gave you in a previous post, I would expect a Star, Life, or Eagle Scout to know his T-2-1 Skills. If I had a scout who got stung and was going into shock, I would expect the Star, Life, or Eagle Scout to know what to do and then do it. Or as a real world situation I know about, I would expect a First Class, Star, Life, or Eagle Scout to recognize when another scout has hypothermia and treat him, as the life they save was mine

 

I would expect that a First Class Scout or higher to know how to tie knots needed to rescue someone, secure a canoe or whatever.

 

I would expect that a First Class Scout or higher to know how to set up a tent and a patrol campsite, making sure there is proper distances from water sources and sanitation, patrol has duty roosters, etc etc.

 

And I would expect that a First Class Scout or higher to be able to teach any T-2-1 skill to new scouts.

 

Again not retesting, but expectations.

 

Going to paraphrase BP here as I can't remember the exact quote, but agree with it 110% AND from my education days know that there is research to back it up.

 

Have high expectations for your scouts and give them the responsibility to meet the expectations, and they will always do better than if you just have them try their best to do something. And yes some old school educators who don't believe in all the current theories of education today did research on the topic to prove that if you give students expectations and goals, they will do better than if they just do their own thing without guidance or expectations. Sorry remember the research as it has been years, but the science teacher in CA that they made a movie of was somehow involved in it.

 

So if you don't expect the scouts to know the skills once it is signed off in the book, maybe you need to increase your expectations as the scouts will live up to them.

[bnelon44 17]

I think the advice that a SM should make sure that the Scout has proficiency in the skill before signing him off on the requirement is sound advice and follows the current process.

 

The GTA could be clearer on this.

[Beavah 205]

Hooray! Well, it's a step anyways, bnelon44.

 

Now, two questions for yeh.

 

First, do yeh really think that when the requirement says "Explain the procedures for safe handling and storage of fresh meats" it's adding to the requirements to expect a lad to actually safely handle and store fresh meats during a campout? Yah, yah, we might all agree that the requirement wording is a bit silly in that regard, but da requirements are put together by small working groups who don't have any experience in policy writing, so it's probably unreasonable to expect 'em to write for people who want to read each requirement like an attorney looking for loopholes. Worse, if they had to write like that da requirements for each rank would take up 80 pages (with 350 pages of notes and case law).

 

I'd say it's unreasonable to expect that the requirements are written in legal policy language. They're written for middle schoolers, and they should be interpreted in common-sense fashion.

 

Second, we all know that good youth leadership means that the Scoutmaster is probably not signing off on requirements, eh? In fact, in a larger troop it would be hard for the Scoutmaster to get around to each of the patrols to observe the boys' proficiency, especially if they're using good Patrol Method.

 

So it's goin' to be the PL or APL signing off, eh? And as young fellows, they're susceptible to the mistakes that young fellows make in leadership. Moreso if they're in a same-age patrol, where their fellow patrol-mates are peers. So they aren't goin' to be perfect. Sometimes perhaps they play it loose because of peer pressure from a friend, or perhaps they themselves don't quite have a notion of what the SM expects is proficient or maybe even Billy's mom yells at him at the end of a campout for not signing off and he gives in because he doesn't know what to do. Or perhaps an ASM who has general permission to sign off doesn't know something himself. I had a scout last week tell me that the proper treatment for a bee sting is to rub butter on it. That's what an ASM who had never been a scout or taken a first aid class had taught him.

 

So now what do yeh do? The requirement is signed by someone authorized to do so. But the lad is not proficient because of a program failure.

 

I'd say that whoever finds out - SPL, SM, BOR - acknowledges the mistake, and works with the boy to become proficient, but that the rank is not awarded until he becomes proficient. In other words, it's the boy's skill that makes him First Class, not someone's pen.

 

That teaches the boy character, because often boys know when they aren't proficient and they should learn to speak up. It also teaches responsibility, eh? "Hey, when I'm a Patrol Leader I'm going to do a better job of making sure my guys know this stuff." It teaches other boys character. "Wow, I guess they really mean I have to learn this stuff and I can't just skate by." It helps the PL develop responsibility and leadership. "Yeah, Mr. SM, I guess I blew it with Bill's signoff. I just didn't know what to do about his mom. Next time I'll come get you, but in the mean time I'll take responsibility for working with Bill to really learn it."

 

Beavah

 

[bnelon44 17]

In the current process:

 

As to who signs off. The accountable person is the Scoutmaster. If he deligates the duty, then it is his responsibility to make sure the person he delegates to does a good job of examining the Scout.

 

Sure it could be the SPL or the PL, or it could be someone else.

 

The model I like is that the PL teaches the Scout the skill and when the Scout and the PL feel he is proficient enough, then the Scout goes to the SM (or designee) to get tested and signed off.

 

OK, so what happens when the BOR or SM discovered the Scout really isn't proficient. Well, if the Scout did what he was suppose to do, that is what the requirement in the book says he needs to do, and he was signed off. Then he has passed the requirement. What's done is done. However more practice is probably warrented outside the advancement process. Troops should be doing this anyway to reinforce the skills.

 

The SM should however change his process. Proficiency is a very subjective term (it is like "mastery" in that reguard.) The requirements however tend not to be subjective. What they say is what the scout needs to do to pass the requirement. That is technically all they need to do. The question is how well they have mastered the skill (e.g., demonstrate a bowline)(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[bnelon44 17]

Eagle92, where did B-P suggest that if a scout can't perform the skills he has a badge for, he should turn in the badge and redo it? Can you cite a reference? Was it ever put in practice as a process? I don't ever remember it being a BSA process.

 

Seems totally unworkable to me. So if a Scout can't splice a rope 4 years after earning the Pioneering MB at a EBOR, we should take the badge away from him and not pass him? Oh he is 18 years old? Oh well, too bad, so sad.... Phuwee!(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[Beavah 205]

Yah, you're pussyfooting around things a bit there, eh?

 

We were talkin' about food handling safety. The boy has the signoff from the PL, and "the requirement" is only to "explain."

 

Are yeh actually suggesting that the unit's response should only be to change the procedure, and not to work with the boy so that he actually is proficient in handling food for his patrol safely?

 

Advancement Method is useful because it gives the boy a clear incentive to work hard to learn how to really handle food safely. Without that external goal, some boys behave like boys and "blow off" warnings about the risk of food-borne illness, or get lazy because it's extra work. Then yeh have Adult Intervention instruction (or yeh have illness ).

 

Using Advancement Method well is a better way to go, because it works. The boy has to meet the standard of being able to handle food safely, and explain why it's important and how to do it. He's willing to work at becoming proficient in that skill and not making mistakes because he wants to be recognized, eh? Positive reinforcement rather than negative reinforcement. Then he's proud of gettin' good at it and keeps an eye out for younger fellows to teach 'em.

 

That's how Advancement Method really works. But in order for it to work, the SM or the BOR have to say "no, not yet". That gives the boy incentive to work hard. That also shows other boys that it's worth working hard because da award is "for real" and not a blow-off.

 

Beavah

 

[bnelon44 17]

Beavah,

 

We cross posted, I added " However more practice is probably warrented outside the advancement process. Troops should be doing this anyway to reinforce the skills."

 

We also need to remember we can't add to requirements, no matter how much we would like to. Never could (that has been consistant since the founding of the BSA.)

[Eagle92 110]

Bnelon,

 

Give me some time to find the quote. I got a lot of stuff to review. Looks like I may need to go to my BSA archive DVD and search on that.

 

Now in regards to the pioneering skills, the older scouts should be teaching the younger ones, so yes I would expect them to know it.

 

 

BBBBBUUUUUTTTTTTT National now has a policy prohibiting pioneering projects over 5 feet in height. So in some respects I blame national and their stupid rules on lack of proficiency in pioneering. Yep catapults and ballistas are fun. But ebven more fun is bulding pioneering towers and bosun's chairs.

 

Do... Not... Get... Me... Started!

[JMHawkins 15]

We also need to remember we can't add to requirements...

 

Don't add to the requirements! Slowly I turned, step by step, inch by inch...

[Beavah 205]

We also need to remember we can't add to requirements, no matter how much we would like to. Never could (that has been consistant since the founding of the BSA.)

 

Yah, back to that again are we? The one phrase in all the advancement guidance that is quoted more than any other, and that is quoted a hundred times more often than da actual Rules & Regulations that define the advancement program.

 

Well, let's take it through to it's conclusion, then.

 

In your interpretation, bnelon44, is it "adding to the requirements" to expect a First Class Scout to be able to properly handle the storage and preparation of fresh meats for his patrol's supper on a campout?

 

However more practice is probably warrented outside the advancement process. Troops should be doing this anyway to reinforce the skills.

 

Yah, that's another good example of not understanding the Advancement Method, eh? There is no "outside the advancement process" in Boy Scouting. Advancement is not meant to be a separate "process" which is distinct from the rest of what the troop does. It's meant to be integral.

 

A fundamental principle of advancement shall be that the boy's progress is a natural outcome of his activities in his unit - BSA Rules & Regulations

 

If you're thinking about skills learning and proficiency as "outside of the advancement process" then you're doin' it wrong.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[bnelon44 17]

Beavah,

 

Here is what I am trying to say again:

 

As far as 1st class requirement 4d: "Explain the procedures to follow in the safe handling and storage of fresh meats, dairy products, eggs, vegetables, and other perishable food products. Tell how to properly dispose of camp garbage, cans, plastic containers, and other rubbish."

 

If the Scout explains the above he has passed the requirement. There is no requirement that he actually show proficiency in the safe handling and storage of fresh meats. We would like him to show some proficiency in this area but it is outside the requirement and we cannot add to the requirement for him to show proficiency in this area before we pass him. Instead, it should be part of the troop program, and usually is when they camp, they do practice this skill.

 

On an aside: I teach IOLS and often we have the Scoutmasters cook their own foil dinners for lunch. It is pretty consistent that if I don't tell the Scoutmasters to wash before and after handling the meat, they don't do it.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)