Guide to Advancement - What Needs to Change?

[Venividi 35]

bnelon,

 

If you want to have minimum standards for the boys in your unit, you are free to do so. The guide to advancement has paragraphs, sections, and phrases that support that. If you want to have meaningful standards, your unit can have them also, as supported by the section from the GTA that you quoted about advancement being a means to an end, not an end to itself.

 

Yes, the GTA is self-contradictory. Which you choose is dependent on what you are trying to achieve, and which you think is more valuable.

 

My wish for changes to the GTA is that the document would be re-writen to make the rest of the document consistent with the section you quoted in your post on 6/15/2012: 4:32:43 PM. But I don't think it will really matter, because those that are looking for rules to make advancement as easy as possible will find them, those that have the bigger picture in perspective will do what is in the best interest of their boys, even if it means focusing on program and ignoring BSA redefinition of words that make the words meaningless.

 

I understand that to some people "character" means following BSA's definitions of words for advancement. But to others, "character" means doing what is in the best long term interest of the boys in their charge.(This message has been edited by venividi)

[dkurtenbach 348]

What I think we have in the Guide to Advancement is a case of the Advancement folks at National trying to give the Advancement method too much credit for the character development that is the product of Scouting. So we get lots of long passages about how Advancement does this and that for boys and what Advancement is supposedly really all about. Unfortunately, the Guide to Advancement doesn't match up with the actual requirements.

 

But really, much of the fog laid down by those passages is really just intended to avoid answering one question: Why are the rank requirements so easy?

 

I think the answer is that "one-and-done, no retest" is a pragmatic response to our current culture, which has a fixation on self-esteem and therefore demands frequent awards for even the slightest accomplishment (for example, participation trophies and laudatory end-of-season speeches by coaches about every player). If awards aren't coming regularly and frequently, then the parents conclude that their child isn't getting anything from the progam, and they move on to something else. It isn't good enough to focus on fun activities where a boy learns from doing things and completes requirements at his own pace -- too random, too little accountability.

 

And so we have a program where even pre-Tenderfoot Scouts can earn merit badges, where we have clinics and colleges and universities geared to awarding badges, where we push to get to First Class within the first year, where summer camp is about sitting in classes listening to lectures, and where requirements only call for telling, explaining, or describing, or just doing something once or just a few times with no fear of ever having to do it again. We have a program that loves young Eagles, loves lots and lots of Eagles, loves Scouts that earn dozens and dozens of merit badges (even though only 21 actually count for Eagle), and creates a new award on nearly a weekly basis.

 

But . . .

 

While the Advancement system in Scouting has been corrupted for the sake of membership numbers, that does not mean that things like real skills and outdoorsmanship have fallen out of Scouting. On the contrary, outdoor adventure, and BSA's marketing of outdoor adventure, have never been more prominent. Exhibit A -- the Summit, BSA's new high adventure base in West Virginia.

 

We just have to realize that skills and adventure are not directly linked to Advancement. Advancement is not the path to mastery of first aid or camping skills, and rank level or completion of a merit badge is not a measure of skill. At best,

the Advancement requirements merely introduce Scouts to skills. Skill development is not a product of Advancement, but of outdoor adventure -- the unit program. That is what gives the Scout real challenges and builds confidence and self-reliance.

 

So what I thinks need changing in the Guide to Advancement is for it to cease being a self-congratulatory, self-delusional pamphlet. Rather, stick to explaining the boundaries and procedures of the existing advancement requirements rather than wallowing in supposed purposes, meanings, and outcomes that don't actually appear in those requirements.

 

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

 

(This message has been edited by dkurtenbach)

[bnelon44 17]

Ever since the BOR process was introduced by Green Bar Bill, hasn't advancement been once signed off, the Scout was done with the rank requirement as far as advancement was concerned? Was there ever a time when a badge was taken away from a Scout or a Scout once given or a rank taken away once signed off? Was there a time when a Scout was asked to retest to retain a rank?

[Beavah 205]

Yah, bnelon44, I'm not sure why yeh keep goin' back to da 1930s.

 

I wish yeh would answer my questions a ways back. Do you really see the notion that a boy is not expected to "retain" a skill after two months as being consistent with all those paragraphs about the goals of advancement?

 

B

 

[bnelon44 17]

Beavah

 

Yes, I think the way advancement is setup now is consistant. What your unit does with the skills he learned after getting signed off is what retains the knowledge. Advancement is just one of 8 methods of Boy Scouting. It isn't the end all and be all and those who only do advancement and ignore the other 8 methods shouldn't be surprised if the outcome isn't quite what they expect.

 

But what do you want? Do you want to be able to take away a rank from someone who earned it because they can't repeat a skill learned 4 years prior, or just have them repeat the skill test again. In which case shouldn't each rank have the requirement of being retested in all the skills of the previous ranks? An examination for Life Scout then could take 3-4 hours. But then Eagle would be more like going to school than Scouting, wouldn't it? Would an outdoorsman Scout sit still for such a thing? Is that really what we are after?

[Beavah 205]

Yes, I think the way advancement is setup now is consistant.

 

Well, no, da question was whether yeh felt your interpretation of advancement (meaning that a lad could not be expected to remember his proficient skills two months later) was consistent.

 

But yah, hmmm... apparently yeh do. That's our fundamental disconnect, eh?

 

I'd venture to say that most boys and parents and scouters would say that in a program that makes great claims about how "Everything done to advance is designed to educate" would be appalled that a First Class Scout can't recognize the signs and symptoms of a heart attack two months later. That would mean he wasn't educated. Worse, that would mean that the life lesson he was taught is that it's not important to work hard and learn well.

 

I think most ordinary folks would find that inconsistent with our goals.

 

As it happens, I know a lad who was a First Class Scout. About nine months after he earned the rank and without any "refresher", he had occasion to see a man sweating inappropriately, feeling nauseous, looking pale. He administered aspirin, called for help despite the man's objections, and guided emergency crews to the location. Without question, that boy saved his father's life. Dad is doin' well after a quadruple bypass.

 

Thank goodness the troop in question believed in really educating, eh? Had it been a troop that believed that expecting a lad to remember the signs and symptoms of a heart attack after two months was inappropriate "adding to the requirements", the boy's father would be dead.

 

But what do you want? Do you want to be able to take away a rank from someone who earned it

 

What I want is for a First Class Scout to be able to recognize da signs and symptoms of a heart attack so that he can save his dad's life. I also want a Second Class Scout to be able to perform a water rescue safely, because each month of Boy's Life shows lads who have had occasion to do that more than two months after they earned their rank. I'd like a Tenderfoot to actually know what to do when lost, so that boys like that young fellow a few years ago in Utah would get found in a few hours rather than 4 days.

 

The point is not "takin' away a rank". That shows you're focused on the token and not on da goals, and that's poor use of Advancement Method. The point is that a boy who can't recognize and respond to his dad's heart attack after two months never earned the rank in the first place. He was cheated out of the real scouting program by his troop, and all he has to show for it is a meaningless cloth patch. Da cloth patch is supposed to be a token of his real-world skill, not a substitute for it.

 

If yeh don't understand that, then you'll never use Advancement Method properly. I want da G2A to make that clear, because novice leaders often get pressured by parents who don't understand the Method, and they can easily start to focus on "da requirements" instead of the goals. By doin' so, they cheat their boys of the promise of the scouting program.

 

B

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Eagle92 110]

While I have not found the the term MASTERY OF (fill in the blank) SKILL(S) in the current BSHB for other skills, mastering First Aid skills IS specifically mentioned in the current BSHB.

 

And while we cannot take away a badge once awarded, it is our duty as leaders to make sure he DOES know those skills he was suppose to know, as the GTA states the badge represents "WHAT HE IS CAPABLE OF DOING AND NOT WHAT HE HAS DONE" (caps for emphasis).

 

In the situation Beavah described, if the scout could not remember the skill, his dad would have died. Think about if this was on a scouting function? Scouts depend upon one another, and if the scouts don't know the skills they are suppose to know, they fail, and their failure can kill someone.

 

If scouts don't know skills, we as leaders need to work with the PLC to get a program going that allows those skills to be retaught and mastered.

 

[Twocubdad 665]

Excellent post, dkurt -- and Beav too.

 

My entire point in this thread has been that we've allowed advancement to become the weak link in the program. I find it ironic that the current advancement policies seem to be designed to keep even marginally-interested boys in the program and advancing, but I believe it has the opposite effect.

 

We all understand how high adventure and leadership opportunities are tied to retention of older Scouts. Hopefully we can set one or both of those hooks. But then we've create advancement policies which turn Eagle into a three or four program. For the boy who are focused on advancement, they earn make Eagle and then what? I don't understand the membership math. Is a boy who makes Eagle and drops at 14 better than one who ages out at 18 as a Life Scout? Are we really satisfied with a Scout who is active until 14, then limps along with marginal attendance until finishing his Eagle just before he's 18? As long as he paid his $15 every year, I suppose so. But what did he gain from the program?

 

As a Scoutmaster I'm trying to help my Scouts get the most out of the program for as long as they can -- experiential learning, I believe they called it. The primary tools I have to do that are the outdoors program and leadership. Advancement should be the third leg of that stool but the current advancement policy has take that tool away. You want to fix advancement, fix that.

[bnelon44 17]

Beavah,

You are pointing out that the Scout should not have been passed on a skill because he did not learn it. That should of happened in the testing phase (see below.) Which the SM has full control over. Retention after being tested isn't part of the program (never has been that I know of.) Once tested the Scout is done with advancement for that but as Eagle92 points out the unit owes it to the Scouts to put in their troop program activities that will reinforce the skill.

 

My question to all of you is how would you change the current advancement system, if anything? Here is the current process, what would you change?

 

A Scout Learns (preferably from another Scout but the SM is in charge of this)

 

A Scout is Tested (sometimes by another Scout but the SM is in charge of this. If the Scout is passing the testing phase prematurely, that is the SM process to correct)

 

A Scout is Reviewed (this is currently suppose to be the quality control the committee has, they don't override the SM decision on the testing phase. But if they see an issue with the process they feed it back to the SM so he can correct his process. If a requirement was skipped they don't advance the scout and alert the SM. Same if there is a very serious Scout Spirit issue.)

 

A Scout is Recognized (this is normally done with recognition at the next troop meeting and then recognition at a quarterly court of honor)

 

This is essentially the same system Green Bar Bill introduced in 1936

 

Also, what is confusing about the GTA that should be corrected? What are the contraditions in the guide that need ot be corrected?

 

Keep in mind, as others have pointed out previously, a lot of the training of the Scout happens outside the advancement process and should be part of the troop program.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[bnelon44 17]

Twocubdad

 

I think Eagle was always about a 3-4 year program. If you look at the history of the award. It is arguably harder to get now than at any time in its history. The first Eagle Scout earned it in less than 2 years.

 

You can find the history here:

http://www.nesa.org/PDF/58-435.pdf

 

The National Outdoor Achievement Award honors those Scouts who are good in the outdoors and was meant to give them a goal to achieve similar to the Ranger Award in Venturing

 

One thing that could happen is we could make it so you can't earn any merit badges unless you are 1st Class (it use to be that way.) Surveys though indicate that the move would be very unpopular in the field.

 

Those who are signed up to the Advancement Newsletter, by the way, get notification of the surveys the National Advancement Team puts out.

 

You can get to the Advancement News from the Boy Scout page at National's site (it is on the left):

http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/Home/BoyScouts

 

Eagle92 said, "If scouts don't know skills, we as leaders need to work with the PLC to get a program going that allows those skills to be retaught and mastered. "

 

That is very true.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[dkurtenbach 348]

I think that BSA's membership and Advancement ideal would be for Boy Scouts to earn Eagle rank by age 14 or 15, at which point they can turn their full attention to the Venturing crew they have transitioned into, and earning Bronze, Gold, Ranger/Quest/Trust, and Silver. A 17.9 year old Eagle Scout in a troop means a lost opportunity -- a youth that is unlikely to become a Venturer at that point, meaning that (a) BSA will be unable to count 3 more youth membership years (since Venturers can continue to age 21), and (b) 3 or 4 prestigious awards going unclaimed.

 

I don't mean that to sound cynical. Simply put, the longer a youth is active in a BSA program, the more BSA can influence that youth's character, citizenship, and fitness. An active Boy Scout in an action-packed troop program can experience pretty much everything Boy Scouting has to offer in four years -- including holding multiple positions of responsibility, attending two or more high adventure bases, and spending lots of time training younger Scouts. What often happens is the Life Scout lull, where the Scout spends a lot of time pursuing non-Scout high school interests, then becomes more active in Scouting again when it is time to "finish" Eagle rank. It should be no surprise that BSA might want to recapture that "lull" time by getting the Scout engaged in a different BSA program, particularly one that will carry him beyond his 18th birthday.

 

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

 

 

[Twocubdad 665]

I don't give a rat's rear about the history. If advancement has always been a 3-4 year program, then it's always been broken. I've got Scouts in the program TODAY I'm trying to work with. Why would you have a program for 11-18-year-olds but design a key element of it that is useful for 3-4 years?

 

I've read the Advancement Newsletter. It's garbage. It is nothing more than a propaganda tool for the one-and-one, everyone-gets-a-badge crowd. Those are the people who have gutted the advancement program. They have absolutely lost touch with how advancement should fit into the overall program of Scouting. You want to improve the advancement program? Put every one of them on a bus.

 

If you want me to read the newsletter, give Beavah a guest column! Seriously! Why does this particular point of view get official status? When does this get voted on? By whom? Aren't theses decisions supposed to be made by volunteers? Who are they? How are they selected? Do other points of view get representation or is his another self appointed committee chosen to maintain the status quo?

 

[bnelon44 17]

Twocubdad

 

"Those are the people who have gutted the advancement program" So you do care about history

 

Sorry couldn't resist.

 

If there was any gutting done, I would like to know what it was and when? The only thing anyone could point to was something back in 1910 in England called a Court of Honor which was the same as the US Examination Board. Still the testing phase and once tested, the Scout was done. What was done was done. You didn't take the rank away if they forgot how to tie a knot.

 

If you make Eagle a strictly 5 year or longer program then a boy who joins at age 14 is out of luck ever hoping to get Eagle. I'm not positive on this, but that is likely why it is made so you can get it in 3-4 years or so.

 

As to how do people get on national committees I think there have been threads in the forum on how people are chosen, and it would get this thread off topic pretty quickly.

 

dkurtenbach

I have been an adult leader in a troop for 18 years and I have never been pressured by anyone to move our older Scouts into a Venturing Crew.(This message has been edited by bnelon44)

[dkurtenbach 348]

It is unlikely that the troop would ever be pressured to move Scouts into a Venturing crew. If I recall correctly, some attempts at that were made very early on after Venturing was created, and they were not welcomed by Boy Scout leaders. Boy Scouting, after all, takes a lad all the way to adulthood at age 18, so (from the Boy Scouting perspective) there is no need for a follow-on program; rather, the need is to continue improving troop programs so that more older boys will age out instead of leaving Scouting.

 

I'm merely suggesting that perhaps BSA has a different perspective. Rather than the Boy Scouting view ("our program -- including advancement -- can keep a boy busy and active for seven years"), perhaps BSA understands that it has a 3-4 year Boy Scout advancement progression that boys meander through with lots of breaks and detours, taking twice as long as necessary. That's a lot of lost time in which a youth could otherwise be busy and active and productive in a Scouting program, and in which BSA could be working on character development. So, BSA can't make the Boy Scout requirements tougher (Scouts, parents, and many leaders would revolt), it can't add additional ranks into the progression (Scouts, parents, and many leaders would revolt), and it can't lower age-out to 15 or 16 (Scouts, parents, and many leaders would revolt). So the only other option is to have additional programs to keep older youth interested in Scouting.

 

Dan Kurtenbach

Fairfax, VA

[Eagle92 110]

Actually if I read correctly, and KUDU please pipe in as you are more knowledgeable in this area of Scouting history, 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.

 

As for BSA scouts and returning badges, I know growing up that once you earned the badge, it was EXPECTED (emphasis)that you had mastered the skills required per the BSHB of the time, and that you could do them whenever asked or needed. It was also expected that the scouts taught the skills to the younger scouts. In fact in reflecting upon my 11 years as a youth and adult in my old troop, I can think of less than 10 times that adults did teaching. 4 times was a MB class that some older scouts wanted, 3 times was when we had a special event scheduled for the meeting (specifically the SWAT team visiting), and 2 times was a MD coming in to teach First Aid.

 

As for testing, I know the standard I was given, and in turn passed on to the guys I trained, was that I don't sign off anything until I know that if things hit the fan, the scout could do it without any problems. Whether it was first aid skills, pioneering skills, etc, you did not sign off until they had mastered the skills, and you could trust them to take care of you in the wilderness.

 

As for getting Eagle at a young age, I know way to many young Eagles who leave as soon as they get it. Heck there is one troop I know of that doesn't have many 16 and 17 year olds because they are so focused on the scouts getting Eagle at 14 and 15 that they do not provide a program for the older ones. They just drop.

 

And do I need to tell my "Tale of Two Eagles?" as Inigo Montoya said, "Let em explain, no there is too much. Let me sum up." Eagle 1 was pushed by dad, an Eagle and Exploring Silver recipient, and got Eagle at 13 and then dropped out. Eagle 2 was his cousin, and also pushed by his uncle to get Eagle ASAP. Eagle 2 was on track to get it at 14, but was side tracked by Brownsea 22, OA, Jambo, and a 64 mile canoeing expedition in the Canadian wilderness. I did get Eagle at 18 years, 1 month, and 6 days of age. No regrets getting it as I was having FUN! Also was a Sea Scout, OA officer, and a leader on both the unit and district levels by the time Eagle 1 got back involved in Scouting with his son. Eagle 1 has now learned about all the fun stuff he missed out on quitting at 13 through his son. He is not pushing son to get Eagle at 14.