SM and CC seem full speed ahead to promote incompetent Scout

[jcousino]

7 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

We don't get more repetitive training than the oath and law.  This is a kid who has been in the troop three months.  He came to us from another troop.  During his BOR, it came out that he wasn't aware he earned Fingerprinting MB at summer camp and doesn't recall the classes.  I can recall the exact setting, location, and principles in attendance at my Fingerprinting MB in 1991.  How this kid can't recall his from Aug 2025 is beyond me.

He may be  right paperwork error ?

[HashTagScouts]

48 minutes ago, jcousino said:

Sorry, it led to that. The advancement rules for bor retesting are clear; they serve more for feedback on the process. That all the way up and including the E-board once it's signed off, it's done.

This is true- however, at least one adult sitting on the BOR should understand the program enough to be able to ask questions constructively to assess the Scout and competency on the requirements. That isn't to penalize that Scout, but is helpful to give constructive feedback to the SM if the Scout was lacking, so that hopefully there can be a course correction before the next rank.

For example, Tenderfoot knot requirements:

Demonstrate a practical use of the square knot.
Demonstrate a practical use of two half-hitches.
Demonstrate a practical use of the taut line hitch.

 

I'd have a small rope with me, and ask the Scout if they ever timed themselves to see how fast they could do all of them, one after the other- and then  proceed to do it myself with them timing me. "OK, I felt that was not my best- how about you give it a try and see how fast you can do it?"  It's pretty clear pretty quick if the kid can't even get through a square knot in less than a minute he hasn't truly gained "mastery".

[SSScout]

When I do my Bugling MB , I often ask the Scout   :"Do you think that met the requirement?" 

I have not done this, but I have often thought that I understand the idea of a BoR NOT being a testing time, but it COULD be a reminding time.  

" Hello Bill, good to see you up for Second Class.  I know the ropes and  knots will come in mighty handy, not only in camping, but in other places too.  What knot is the toughest for you?  Do YOU think you know them?  "

 

[jcousino]

agree 100%

[mrjohns2]

6 hours ago, HashTagScouts said:

"OK, I felt that was not my best- how about you give it a try and see how fast you can do it?"  It's pretty clear pretty quick if the kid can't even get through a square knot in less than a minute he hasn't truly gained "mastery".

Seems like re-testing to me. What if they can't do it? What do you say?

[Eagle94-A1]

7 hours ago, jcousino said:

The advancement rules for bor retesting are clear; they serve more for feedback on the process. That all the way up and including the E-board once it's signed off, it's done.

There are ways to find out if someone actually did requirements via discussion and not retesting. And remember, the  G2A states:

"The purpose of the review is to determine the quality of the candidate’s experience and decide whether the youth is qualified to advance. " (emphasis added). Page 29, 4.4.2.1.

"Still, if any member dissents, the decision cannot be for approval. In the case of such disagreement, ... As indicated below the Scout is only told what
improvements need to be made." P. 56

"If a board does not approve, the candidate must be so informed and told what can be done to improve...a follow-up letter must be promptly sent to a Scout of any rank who is turned down."

So  a Board of Review is suppose to make sure work was actually done, and can deny approval for advancement. But appeals will get approved. 

 

[qwazse]

Regarding length of a lower rank BOR, 15 minutes would be about right, so four a night doesn’t sound far fetched.

[HashTagScouts]

10 hours ago, mrjohns2 said:

Seems like re-testing to me. What if they can't do it? What do you say?

Especially for Scouts on the younger end, you don't want a BOR to crush their spirit, so making the knots a game just makes it light-hearted. Just encourage them to keep trying later on- "that's OK [Sam], I get my fingers twisted sometimes too. But I'll do this every know and then to challenge myself". Again, the intent of BOR is not re-test and search for reason to not pass them- every BOR I saw as means to evaluate how we were doing as a program for discussion to the SM. Hopefully the SM can work that feedback into discussion with the SPL and PLC- "I think it would be good if next month we find an activity to include in a troop meeting to practice knots".  

[Tron]

23 hours ago, Armymutt said:

They are handled at the district level.  I don't think anyone from the troop sits on them.  

God help him if he gets someone like my district advancement chair or the past previous.

23 hours ago, Armymutt said:

One of the questions that comes to mind is, does a Scout have to know the Law and Oath after achieving the rank of Scout?  It's no longer a requirement for advancement.  We all take it for granted that a Scout would know the two things we say at the beginning of every meeting, but is it a requirement?  I suspect they are not doing BORS correctly.  My wife is a committee member, soon to be the Advancement Chair.  She said they don't have a discussion with the Scout not present.  Another problem is, they try to cram all the BORs into one hour.  Last night we had 4 for Tenderfoot and 1 for Second Class.  

A board of review depends on the rank. For Scout - 1st Class my goal is 15min or less and focused on the scout experience and keying up on the best and worst experience of the scout on those rank journeys; I generally want myself and fellow board members to ask no more than 3 questions each. Star and Life I start asking multiple questions on the same topics, the boards start getting longer, 30-45min. I've sat on many EBORS over the year, they go long, too long, 2 hours or so, always a 6 person panel. 

23 hours ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

I can tell you it is extremely disheartening to other Scouts, especially special needs Scouts who are busting butt to meet requirements, to see someone who is unable to do basic skills, i.e. stuffing a sleeping bag, setting up a tent, etc,  wearing a Life Rank on their pocket. The folded troop's SM "don't understand the importance of camping." And whether the Scout is telling me just what he remembers the SM saying, or the SM actually abridging requirements,  but He says that SM told him all he needed to do foir XYZ MBs were one of the requirements. Family is pushing for Eagle and family is getting frustrated that we are showing requirements and giving workbooks.

As for the Eagle Board, there is not much they can do. National will grant it and say something along the lines of "you do not penalize the Scout for the mistakes of the adult." 

National will not just give it to him. In my time we have only failed one person and national had no mercy for them or the troop. 

19 hours ago, HashTagScouts said:

This is true- however, at least one adult sitting on the BOR should understand the program enough to be able to ask questions constructively to assess the Scout and competency on the requirements. That isn't to penalize that Scout, but is helpful to give constructive feedback to the SM if the Scout was lacking, so that hopefully there can be a course correction before the next rank.

For example, Tenderfoot knot requirements:

Demonstrate a practical use of the square knot.
Demonstrate a practical use of two half-hitches.
Demonstrate a practical use of the taut line hitch.

 

I'd have a small rope with me, and ask the Scout if they ever timed themselves to see how fast they could do all of them, one after the other- and then  proceed to do it myself with them timing me. "OK, I felt that was not my best- how about you give it a try and see how fast you can do it?"  It's pretty clear pretty quick if the kid can't even get through a square knot in less than a minute he hasn't truly gained "mastery".

This is not the point of the BOR, especially not at the earlier ranks. These earlier ranks are gauging the scout experience, the health of the unit, blindspots to take back to the scoutmaster corps. 

4 hours ago, qwazse said:

Regarding length of a lower rank BOR, 15 minutes would be about right, so four a night doesn’t sound far fetched.

Correct. 

[Eagle94-A1]

33 minutes ago, Tron said:

National will not just give it to him. In my time we have only failed one person and national had no mercy for them or the troop. 

Trust me, National did indeed give it to him and stated "you do not penalize the Scout for the mistakes of adults" in their letter giving him Eagle. And the entire process was followed to the letter at the time, i.e. denial at EBOR, letting stating reasons for it and how to remedy the situation, appeal to council advancement committee which endorsed the district's  denial, and appeal to national. The entire  district advancement committee resigned en masse over the issue writing in the letter that ( paraphrasing) if national wants to overrule the local board of review that reviewed the candidate, then they should start conducting them instead.

The DE was furious with national's decision. Not only did it cause the committee, which he spent over 9 months recruiting for, to resign, he new the Scout, his family, and the unit the family ran, and agreed with the local EBOR decision. And the Scout had plenty of time to actually earn it: he was 13 or 14 when he got it. Not knowing who he was, I ran into him wearing his MB sash and Eagle patch and medal ( don't ask why, I don't know) to Den Chief training. I tried to strike up a conversation with him, using the MBs he wore to ask a few questions. Complete silence and "deer in the headlights" look as I asked him some questions, especially since I was new to the area, and some of the MBs he wore I counseled. After he left, the DE told me who he was, and I stated, "I understand why they (local EBOR) said he didn't earn it."  

Edited Thursday at 03:41 PM by Eagle94-A1

[HashTagScouts]

1 hour ago, Tron said:

This is not the point of the BOR, especially not at the earlier ranks. These earlier ranks are gauging the scout experience, the health of the unit, blindspots to take back to the scoutmaster corps. 

When programming is working as it should, this is one element that is correct to evaluate the health of the unit and make SM aware of blind spots. If younger youth are getting pencil-whipped through requirements. and older youth who should be teaching are not, the unit is not healthy.

[Armymutt]

On 10/16/2025 at 12:49 PM, HashTagScouts said:

When programming is working as it should, this is one element that is correct to evaluate the health of the unit and make SM aware of blind spots. If younger youth are getting pencil-whipped through requirements. and older youth who should be teaching are not, the unit is not healthy.

The problem we have is a transient environment.  I'd say about 50 % of our troop is military.  We are also a very active troop, so we attract a lot of kids from other troops.  That's great, except they come with varied backgrounds.  For example, we just received what one might consider a really great gift in Scouting - two 17 y/o Eagles who are "Scouting nerds".  They are smart, have a strong interest in the program, and have the experience and capabilities we need.  While they don't want to be patrol leaders, they are the perfect pair to demonstrate what right looks like to our Scouts.  The other side of the coin is the kid who's been in Scouting for over a year, is a Second Class and doesn't know the Scout Law or Oath.  Having the older Scouts teach briefs well, but when they don't have the skills, knowledge, or motivation, it's a recipe for disaster.  We just had our first campout as new patrols.  The storming phase of team development was very evident.  It didn't help that one PL was more likely to be found playing football with the rest of the older Scouts than he was leading his patrol.  The other PL arrived with a fever and spent the weekend in his tent - way to go parents.  The third one "didn't feel like coming" because he wanted to play video games all weekend.  His patrol also contains the SPL and ASPL and they still were all over the place.  Maybe in 6 months, we'll have some well tuned patrols.  It will help when the rest of the older boys age out in January.  

[HashTagScouts]

17 minutes ago, Armymutt said:

The problem we have is a transient environment.  I'd say about 50 % of our troop is military.  We are also a very active troop, so we attract a lot of kids from other troops.  That's great, except they come with varied backgrounds.  For example, we just received what one might consider a really great gift in Scouting - two 17 y/o Eagles who are "Scouting nerds".  They are smart, have a strong interest in the program, and have the experience and capabilities we need.  While they don't want to be patrol leaders, they are the perfect pair to demonstrate what right looks like to our Scouts.  The other side of the coin is the kid who's been in Scouting for over a year, is a Second Class and doesn't know the Scout Law or Oath.  Having the older Scouts teach briefs well, but when they don't have the skills, knowledge, or motivation, it's a recipe for disaster.  We just had our first campout as new patrols.  The storming phase of team development was very evident.  It didn't help that one PL was more likely to be found playing football with the rest of the older Scouts than he was leading his patrol.  The other PL arrived with a fever and spent the weekend in his tent - way to go parents.  The third one "didn't feel like coming" because he wanted to play video games all weekend.  His patrol also contains the SPL and ASPL and they still were all over the place.  Maybe in 6 months, we'll have some well tuned patrols.  It will help when the rest of the older boys age out in January.  

Based on your previous posts, you've got ground work to go, as though you are building a brand new troop. Understandable you aren't at the ideal operations yet. Hopefully, the SM is at least using the SM conferences to instill some expectations for these youth as they move towards their next rank. Based on the one experience you've described, probably not what is going on, and that presents challenges of a whole different nature. 

[Tron]

20 hours ago, Armymutt said:

The problem we have is a transient environment.  I'd say about 50 % of our troop is military.  We are also a very active troop, so we attract a lot of kids from other troops.  That's great, except they come with varied backgrounds.  For example, we just received what one might consider a really great gift in Scouting - two 17 y/o Eagles who are "Scouting nerds".  They are smart, have a strong interest in the program, and have the experience and capabilities we need.  While they don't want to be patrol leaders, they are the perfect pair to demonstrate what right looks like to our Scouts.  The other side of the coin is the kid who's been in Scouting for over a year, is a Second Class and doesn't know the Scout Law or Oath.  Having the older Scouts teach briefs well, but when they don't have the skills, knowledge, or motivation, it's a recipe for disaster.  We just had our first campout as new patrols.  The storming phase of team development was very evident.  It didn't help that one PL was more likely to be found playing football with the rest of the older Scouts than he was leading his patrol.  The other PL arrived with a fever and spent the weekend in his tent - way to go parents.  The third one "didn't feel like coming" because he wanted to play video games all weekend.  His patrol also contains the SPL and ASPL and they still were all over the place.  Maybe in 6 months, we'll have some well tuned patrols.  It will help when the rest of the older boys age out in January.  

Does the troop have written expectations of positions of responsibility? Are there APL's that can step in for the sick and uninterested?