Guide to Advancement - What Needs to Change?

[bnelon44 17]

Eagle92

 

I don't like the current version of the handbook for the reasons you have stated. I hope the next handbook will be better in that reguard.

 

Thanks for the link, cool stuff!

(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[Beavah 205]

He also suggested, if I understand correctly, that the BOR should be able to retest and flunk a Scout

 

Yah, sigh.

 

BNelon44, yeh continue to get stuck in da trees, and nothing any of us seem to say is helping yeh see the forest.

 

I'm not advocating that a BOR retest or flunk a scout.

 

What I'm saying is that the approach to Advancment which makes yeh use words like "test" and "flunk" is wrong. It's not scouting. The moment in your mind that you thought "this means flunking" you demonstrated that yeh don't understand what scouting advancement really is. The same is true of your other (rather odd) interpretations of what I wrote. In every case yeh seem stuck on da notion that what anyone proposes must fit into your legalistic approach. What we're saying is that such an approach is not scouting. It has never been scouting. That's because raising children doesn't fit into a legalistic approach, eh? As a parent, yeh don't sit down and write out pages of requirements, and then roll over when the kid starts arguing that doing the dishes did not explicitly state that the dishes had to be completely clean and put away.

 

Perhaps, though, a picture is worth wastin' more words. If I get a few minutes later today I'll try writing up an example. .

 

B

 

[fred8033 1592]

bnelon44 wrote: "Personally I like making sure the Scout actually accomplishes the requirement on his own prior to signing him off." ... It would be a great addition. What happens to merit badge fairs such as at the Jamboree or at summer camps. It would be interesting.

 

bnelon44 wrote: "I also like the idea of waiting a short period of time between the learning of a skill and the examination for the skill (say a week or two). " ... Yet another great addition. A major issue is teaching and testing at the same time. There is a difference between demonstrate and mimic. If the GTA suggested a clean separation between learning and testing, it would help.

 

...

 

 

The GTA addition I'd like to see is a discussion on expected proficiency (i.e. introductory, competence, mastery, skilled, expert, etc). I'm not saying what proficiency. I'm just saying it should be clarified. I'm fairly clear on proficiency as the requirements seem pretty explicit. But apparently, many others debate it. I've generally see merit badges and rank advancement as slightly higher than introductory proficiency and that the written requirements are the real guide to the proficiency level.

 

For example, the requirements for computers don't make you a computer engineer, programmer or administrator. Generally it's slightly higher than "oh yeah, that's what a computer looks like." It's a high level introduction.

 

Cycling is simple but adds some endurance / experience levels.

 

Fingerprinting, golf, fishing, pottery and many others are clearly an introduction.

 

On the flip side, scuba requires open water diver certification. I doubt if that's mastery, but it's clearly some level of competence.

 

But then you get to first aid. I see it as more than an introduction, but less than mastery. It's pretty much the requirements as written but there's a big debate on what's expected.

 

...

 

IMHO, the trouble is not the GTA or a lack of BSA guidance. There's plenty out there. The issue is that scouters don't like what they hear and read and want to play by a different set of rules. Suggesting changes is moot until everyone is on the same page.

 

Didn't someone once say you can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time?

 

 

[bnelon44 17]

Fred,

 

I think some people have a problem with the whole idea of there being any rules at all.

 

Anyway, on proficiency, which I don't think is in the GTA now, how would you all define it?(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[Beavah 205]

I think some people have a problem with the whole idea of there being any rules at all.

 

Not that there shouldn't be rules, but that it's not about the rules. It's about the kids. The issue is whether yeh feel that "da rules" or "da requirements" are more important than doing what is right for all the boys to teach 'em character and skills. And if da rules are more important than the boys, then there's no reason to change 'em now, is there?

 

Or, to paraphrase a favorite friend of mine who once commented on this particular sort of argument, is the sabbath made for man, or is man made for the sabbath?

 

Saying that the sabbath (the rule) is made to serve man (the boys) and must be interpreted that way isn't da same as sayin' no rules, except in the eyes of da sort of bigwig folks who derive their personal self-worth and authority from "da rules". But they often want to crucify yeh for it.

 

Anyway, on proficiency, which I don't think is in the GTA now, how would you all define it?

 

I'm not sure I would. I'd let our unit scouters decide what constitutes proficiency in each skill for their program. Otherwise you'd end up with a 500 page document tryin' to define proficiency in hundreds of skills.

 

But if yeh wanted a general definition, something like "the boy should be able to perform the skill properly and safely, without any help or prompting and as close as possible to the actual conditions when use of the skill would be called for. A proficient scout successfully demonstrates the skill on multiple occasions separated by some period of time and changes of context, rather than simple mimicking or repeating a task just learned."

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[bnelon44 17]

Beavah said, "But if yeh wanted a general definition, something like "the boy should be able to perform the skill properly and safely, without any help or prompting and as close as possible to the actual conditions when use of the skill would be called for. "

 

Beavah, your describing the last step in the EDGE learning method which is currently in the Boy Scout Handbook and is what the BSA is currently teaching Scouts and adults to use when teaching skills to Scouts. There is even a Life requirement to utilize it to teach a skill to a younger Scout. I don't know if Teaching EDGE is in the GTA.

 

Beavah said, "A proficient scout successfully demonstrates the skill on multiple occasions separated by some period of time and changes of context, rather than simple mimicking or repeating a task just learned."

 

This is a deffinate add to current requirements. For many requirements you have just added considerable duration to achieving rank. For example that they, say, have to cook for their patrol multiple times, not just once, on multiple campouts. Same for building a camp gadget, using a map and compass on a hike (now your saying multiple hikes), etc., etc. This will delay advancement for all Scouts, especially those in larger patrols. Do you really think this will go over well in the field?

 

Not to mention how long merit badges will take to complete.

 

Have you actually done all this with your troop? If so, my guess is that you didn't exactly do what I just described.

 

(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[fred8033 1592]

Beavah wrote: "What I'm saying is that the approach to Advancment which makes yeh use words like "test" and "flunk" is wrong. It's not scouting. "

 

Now here's something where I do agree with Beavah. Now we might need the term "test" to create a concrete program structure and to communicate how the program works relative to advancement. But when it comes to working with the scout one-on-one, the term "testing" should not be there. It's working with the scout and helping him grow as a person. It's mentorship. It's not grade school. When the authorized leader (mentor) thinks the person has completed the requirement, it's signed off. Effectively a test. But not explicitly an old fashioned school test and it should never be thought of that way.

 

...

 

Proficiency - Beavah suggested something like "the boy should be able to perform the skill properly and safely, without any help or prompting and as close as possible to the actual conditions when use of the skill would be called for."

 

That's good and all, but how about the most debated merit badge, First Aid. 75% of the requirements are explain, identify or describe. How do you apply your rule of performing the skill to requirements of describe, explain, identify or describe? Should the scouts be expected to demonstrate in mock-up environments the verval requirements? Or should all requirements be changed to reflect demonstrate. Or is it their explaination needs to be good enough that you think they could translate it into action.

 

But I do like your definition. The trouble I have though is that I don't think it reflects the BSA intention or explicit statements in most of the requirements, advancement and the specifics documented in the GTA. Until BSA changes their approach, I'd have a hard time using that proficiency definition. Especially the ... "without any help or prompting". I expect most scouts want another scout to help them pitch a tent. Most scouts I know get help buying food for camp outs and cooking dinner. Or putting food in the refrigerator until you leave for camp.

 

I like your definition, but BSA would need to change a huge amount to make the advancement program internally consistent. And though I like the definition, I fear where some scouters would take it.

[bnelon44 17]

Beavah wrote: "What I'm saying is that the approach to Advancment which makes yeh use words like "test" and "flunk" is wrong. It's not scouting. "

 

Originally the BSA and B-P called it an examination or a test. Here is a quote from the Aids to Scoutmastership:

 

But the object of the Badge System in Scouting is also to give the

Scoutmaster an instrument by which he can stimulate keenness on the part

of every and any boy to take up hobbies that can be helpful in forming his

character or developing his skill.

 

It is an instrument which-if applied with understanding and sympathyis

designed to give hope and ambition even to the dullest and most backward,

who would otherwise be quickly outdistanced and so rendered

hopeless in the race of life. It is for this reason that the standard of proficiency

is purposely left undefined. Our standard for Badge earning is not

the attainment of a certain level of quality of knowledge or skill, but the

AMOUNT OF EFFORT THE BOY HAS PUT INTO ACQUIRE SUCH

KNOWLEDGE OR SKILLThis brings the most hopeless case on to a footing

of equal possibility with his more brilliant or better-off brother.

 

An understanding Scoutmaster who has made a study of his boys psychology

can thus give to the boy an encouraging handicap, such as will

give the dull boy a fair start alongside his better-brained brother. And the

backward boy, in whom the inferiority complex has been born through

many failures, can have his first win or two made easy for him so that he

is led to intensify his efforts. If he is a trier, no matter how clumsy, his

examiner can accord him his Badge, and this generally inspires the boy to

go on trying till he wins further Badges and becomes normally capable.

The examination for Badges is not competitive, but just a test for the

individual. The Scoutmaster and the examiner must therefore work in

close harmony, judging each individual case on its merits, and discriminating

where to be generous and where to tighten up.

 

Some are inclined to insist that their Scouts should be first-rate before

they can get a Badge. That is very right, in theory; you get a few boys pretty

proficient in this way- but our object is to get all the boys interested. The

Scoutmaster who puts his boys at an easy fence to begin with will find

them jumping with confidence and keenness, whereas if he gives them an

upstanding stone wall to begin, it makes them shy of leaping at all.

At the same time, we do not recommend the other extreme, namely,

that of almost giving away the Badges on very slight knowledge of the

subjects. It is a matter where examiners should use their sense and discretion,

keeping the main aim in view.

 

http://www.thedump.scoutscan.com/a2sm.pdf

 

Is this the opposite of what Beavah is advocating?(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[bnelon44 17]

Beavah wrote: "What I'm saying is that the approach to Advancment which makes yeh use words like "test" and "flunk" is wrong. It's not scouting. "

 

In Scouting for Boys, B-P called it a test. Here is a quote:

 

"Before becoming a Scout you must pass the Tenderfoot Test" -- Scouting for Boys Campfire Yarn No. 3

 

http://www.thedump.scoutscan.com/s4b.html

 

Green Bar Bill also called it an examination, see:

http://books.google.com/books?id=0GvRa3prw9kC&lpg=PA23&dq=green%20bar%20bill%20examination&pg=PA23#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

 

So I don't know where the idea came from that it isn't Scouting to call it an examination or a test????(This message has been edited by bnelon44)(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[Twocubdad 665]

"This is a deffinate add to current requirements. For many requirements you have just added considerable duration to achieving rank. For example that they, say, have to cook for their patrol multiple times, not just once, on multiple campouts. Same for building a camp gadget, using a map and compass on a hike (now your saying multiple hikes), etc., etc. This will delay advancement for all Scouts, especially those in larger patrols. Do you really think this will go over well in the field?"

 

ABSOLUTELY! And this First Class cooking requirement is precisely the issue which has caused our troop to rethink our approach to advancement and to dump First-Year/First-Class.

 

Yes, you absolutely need to cook for your patrol multiple time before passing the requirement. Our catch phrase is to don't pass the requirement the first try, you pass on your best try. We now have a one ASM who handles all the cooking requirements. BEFORE attempting the FC cooking requirements, a Scout meets with him to talk about his menu, shopping list, budget, nutrition, etc.. Part of that conversation is talking about what the Scout has previously cooked well. Maybe he wants to repeat some of those dishes, maybe he wants to build on that and try something new. Maybe he ruined something before and wants to try it again. It's all good, but none of that conversation is possible IF THE SCOUT HASN'T TRIED COOKING BEFORE!

 

This is just the opposite of one-and-done, which we have tried and abandonded. Before, especially with the race to Fy/FC, new Scouts started tackling FC cooking requirements on their second or third campout. When did they have the opportunity to learn anything? They technically met the requirement -- burned pancakes, raw hamburger, soggy Ramin noddles and all -- and if they were luck, wouldn't have to cook again for years. (If you play your cards right, there is always some sucker working on First Class who can cook for you.)

 

This is yet another example of how unit Scouters take an element of the advancement program and use it to help out Scouts really learn a life skill, earn the sense of accomplishment of really completing something, and taking another step or two toward being mature, self-reliant adults. That doesn't happen if you pass them on the requirement after one weekend and three ruined meals.

 

Are we adding to the First Class requirement? I DON'T CARE. For those of you who are upset my Scout may be somehow damaged by the added burden of actually learning how to cook, PM me. I'll send you my COR's email and you can let him know you want to volunteer to be Scoutmaster of out troop.

 

But once again, my overall point in this thread is this sort of approach to advancement should be allowed by the Advancement Guide. Individual units should be given this flexibility. Frankly, we don't do this with every requirement. We're tough on cooking and first aid. We don't get too wound up over lashings. And that should be our call. If your troop figures there's a McDonald's on every corner, or that the key to long-term success in Scouting is moving boys through the early ranks quickly and keeping same-aged boys on par, I'M OKAY WITH THAT. That's your call.

 

But why does Advancement policy favor one approach and not the other?(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[bnelon44 17]

Twocubdad

 

If you allow adding to the reqirements, with an organization of 3 million, there is literally no end. You guys care about cooking. I interviewed a troop that thought engineering was the cat's pajamas. They wanted every Scout in their troop to get the engineering MB or no Eagle.

 

You can't have universal requirements working that way and we have had universal requirements since day 1.

[fred8033 1592]

twocubdad - Glad to see someone's helping keep the Eagle scout percentages down. I'm impressed with your expertise and your confidence that enables you to proclaim that you do not care if your violating BSA's rules. My only fear is that you pass that big-boss, screw-em, don't care attitude down to your scouts. Good luck. I hope you find that scoutmaster replacement your asking for.

 

...

 

bnelon44 - Great quote to guide us. This time from Baden-Powell. Really impressive. I really like what BP said essentially about expertise / proficiency. IMHO, that's dead on with what I've learned about BSA's program and scout psychology. Really cool.

[Eaglemom2b 10]

Quote "Our standard for Badge earning is not the attainment of a certain level of quality of knowledge or skill, but the AMOUNT OF EFFORT THE BOY HAS PUT INTO ACQUIRE SUCH KNOWLEDGE OR SKILL This brings the most hopeless case on to a footing

of equal possibility with his more brilliant or better-off brother. "

 

This has been an interesting conversation to read. I am amazed by the passion expressed in the various posts. Here's my .02.

 

Even without an expressed proficiency level the part of the quote in all caps is problematic. Boys know how to work the system, especially in this day of IEPs, 504 plans and no child left behind. The 'brilliant or better off brother' is watching the other boys get off a little bit easier and what are they doing? Complaining to their parents, the MBCs and other scouters about the unfairness of it all. This is why so much has been dumbed down (and not just in scouting); why should one boy be required to demonstrate a skill level so much higher than another boy's because of a perceived difference in ability? I am not talking about boys with true deficincies, they should be granted special allowances, and I believe there are rules that already address boys with special needs.

 

Let's take the Cooking MB since it was referred to earlier.

Scout #1 is an able bodied boy, and would qualify as a better off brother under BPs definition. He is to cook a meal for his patrol. He tosses some noodles in a pot throws in some spaghetti sauce and calls it good; little planning little effort. He meets the qualifications set forth in the reqs. But what is his effort level? It doesn't require much skill from a brilliant, better off brother to make spaghetti.

 

Scout #2, also a brilliant, better off brother, chooses to make a three course meal in dutch ovens. His recipes take some time and effort. He produces a nice stew, some corn bread and a dessert. He also meets the qualifications set forth in the reqs. His effort is much greater than that of Scout #1 but both are viewed on equal terms as set forth by the BSA.

 

Scout #3, is the less fortunate boy. He has no cooking ability and is a little awkward; in current society he qualifies for special ed and shows some impairment. There is no way he could cook at the level of Scout #2; even the spaghetti dinner from Scout #1 would be initially challenging for this scout. He attempts the spaghetti dinner anyway and presents it (albeit a little overcooked) to his patrol as if he made dinner for the president. Where is his effort level? Certainly well above that of scout #1. He also satisfies the reqs.

 

What about Scout #4? He is also one of the better off brothers. He has attended the campouts where the three previous scouts have shown their cooking ability and he knows what has passed the reqs. What will he choose to do? Most scouts, in my experience, will follow in the footsteps of scout #1 and make the simplest, least effortful meal he can manage that will fit the requirement. In all honesty, the other boys in the Troop will probably encourage him to keep it simple, do the least amount of work necessary.

 

 

The spirit of 'ability and effort' has gone by the wayside in favor of equality, special accomodations and ease. It is easier to allow boys to meet the minimum reqs. instead of challenging them to rise to the occassion, learn something more difficult, put in some effort and earn the privilege of saying "I did this".

[dkurtenbach 348]

Make no mistake -- Baden-Powell's "level of effort" standard ("Do Your Best") was long ago abandoned by BSA for the Boy Scouting program. The predecessor to the current Guide to Advancement, "Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures," was very explicit on this point:

 

"Educators and counselors agree that the best way to build confidence is through measurement. Self confidence is developed by measuring up to a challenge or a standard. Peer confidence develops when the same measuring system is used for everyone when all must meet the same challenge to receive equal recognition. Confidence in leaders comes about when there is consistency in measuring when leaders use a single standard of fairness."

 

The current Guide to Advancement has toned this down somewhat, but retained the concept: "Both adult and youth leaders approve Boy Scout and Varsity Scout advancement. This permits greater

emphasis on standards and more consistency in measurement, but it also places another level of importance on teaching and testing."

 

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA(This message has been edited by dkurtenbach)(This message has been edited by dkurtenbach)

[Twocubdad 665]

In the 18 months or so we've been doing things this way, we have yet to have a Scout fail to meet the pass the cooking requirement. If you guys will get your heads out of your "no added requirements", you'd realize that the way we handle the cooking requirement almost guarantees success by allowing the Scout to learn the skill before being tested.

 

Do you really think a youth is well-served by being sign off on a breakfast of undercooked bacon and burned pancakes with runny batter oozing out of the center? Those boys sure didn't gain any self-confidence or earn the respect of their patrol. If they learned anything, it was being patrol cook is a lousey job. But darn-tootin' he SERVED as patrol cook.

 

On the other hand, the Scouts in our troop take pride in their meal preparation because they do it well. We used to have issues with patrols planning PopTarts for breakfast. I'm much more likely to have a Scout walk into my camp with a piece of cheesecake he made for his patrol, or a new dish he found in an old cookbook. We've had about 8 boys earn Cooking MB in the past two years, where I can only remember one doing so in the previous six. One of my older boys was bragging to me Wednesday night that he's making planning to make gaspacho for his family over Independence Day -- something he learned to make for his patrol.

 

Kids smell BS a mile away. If you game the requirements, they will too. If you sign of on cold hot dogs and scorched Dinty-Moore, that's the standard you've set.

 

Do you really think it's a bad thing to ask Scouts to wait to complete a requirement until they're able to do the requirement reasonably well? Do your really think the intent of the First Class cooking requirement is to "serve as your patrol's cook" means to fill the position regardless of your ability to do so and without concern for the quality of the food you serve?