program check

[marcpaige 10]

First a little context: I am SM of a small troop. I am an eagle scout. I am trained for my position and have my beads (go bears!) I attend roundtable and actively participate in the program. I stay informed on the latest requirment changes in both rank and merit badges for which I am counselor.

 

I ask that any scout in my troop who has been signed off for a requirement should be able to either teach that requirement to another scout or demonstrate or describe the skill with or without reference. The current SPL assigns patrols to demonstrate scoutcraft during the troop meeting at the PLC. The quality of the demos are sometimes poor, but the boys seem to regulate that by peer disapproval. I suggest areas that I see are in need of review to the SPL. I have lashing and knot tying equipment available at every meeting. The knot "board" came from roundtable and I have a temporary "king knot" for the boy who has the fastest time. Competition is fierce. ASMs have been asked to ensure that no "rubber stamping" of requirements occurs.

 

During SM conferences, I will ask questions from any topic that they should have mastered for that rank. I do not ask technical questions, rather, I setup scenarios that will require a scout to use his skills. Here is an example situation: you and your patrol are on a hike. You have the compass and a map of the area. You destination is point Y. You are at point X. How far will you travel? What kind of terrain will you encounter? etc.

 

I invent first aid situations. I ask for a towel rack. You get the idea.

 

The higher the rank, I expect higher retention of scoutcraft (since they are teaching it to other scouts and have many chances to practice.) Therefore, I ask these questions of all ranks, including star, life and eagle. By the way, my SMCs are fun. If a scout is not able to demonstrate enough of the skills for his rank, he does not pass. We then make another appointment at least a week away and he comes back ready to go. I rarely have a scout need more than 2 appointments to complete the conference.

 

I remember my scoutcraft from my youth. I used scoutcraft during military training in the air force. In fact, I knew more about outdoors survival that the instructors due to scouts. I hope to provide the boys of my troop with life long skills in the same fashion that my SM did for me.

 

I am reading Be Prepared by Rice Cochran. I just finished the chapter taking about the trail to eagle. He tells the story of a scout who has been rubber stamped in advancement. His younger brother incurs a fatal injury that, had the scout actually learned first aid, he could have saved his brother's life. Cochran tells him he was not responsible for his brother's death, rather the adults who let him slide were.

 

I will never be that adult.

 

Please let me know if there are other SMs out there who share this approach. - m

[Fat Old Guy 11]

" Cochran tells him he was not responsible for his brother's death, rather the adults who let him slide were."

 

Is there no responsibility on the part of the Scout to want to learn the right way? If your doctor cheats his way through medical school, whose fault is it when you die on the table?

 

Although I don't see any moral problem with your approach, I don't believe that it follows BSA's policies.

[marcpaige 10]

I'm not saying there is no responsiblity on the scout's part. I see that I have not provided enough context for the Cochran story. It really isn't relevent to the topic. The scout's responsiblity in Cochran's book and in my troop is clear: learn the material to the satisfaction of your teacher. Unfortunately, a scout, anyone for that matter, will follow the easier path when given a choice. There are those individuals who will buck the trend, but they are few and far between.

 

You have, to an extent, supported my views though with your medical example. Who is responsible for ensure that a cheating doctor cannot practice medicine? It would probably be impossible to prove fault with a medical board after the fact, but some of the blame lies there.

 

As to your last statement, in your view, in what way am I not following policy? I don't think that I am breaking any rules. I am not trying to be defensive. I truly want to know.

[scoutldr 732]

I think where most people will have issues is with the "retesting". That is not the purpose of a BOR or SMC. The ideal is to ensure that the requirement is not signed off until it is learned and demonstrated. Then reinforcement of the knowledge is obtained through teaching it to others. Remember, Scouting is "fun with a purpose". It's about the journey, not the destination. The Scout Oath and Law are how you live, not what you recite mindlessly at a Troop mtg.

[Bob White 20]

Sorry marc, but you are retesting, and that is a violation of the BSA Advancement Policies. The steps to Boy Scout advancement are

1) A Scout Learns

2) A Scout is Tested

3) A Scout is Reviewed

4) A Scout is Recognized

 

The testing takes place prior to the requirement being signed. The SM Conference and the Board of Review are the following step. But reviewing is not retesting. If you want to make sure the scout knows his stuff than pay attention to the learning and testing process. By the time he gets to the SM conference and BOR the only think you can check is 'did he do the requirement as stated in the Handbook' not can he do it ...again.

 

The way to keep his skills sharp are by creating opportunities for the skill to be used and practiced. You are given a variety of methods to do this through special activities, frequent outdoor events, games and competitions, as well as advanced skill opportunities in the form of merit badges.

 

You can find the purpose of the SM conference on page 120 of the Scoutmaster Handbook.

[frank10 12]

If you use your SMC to retest the scout you are wasting it. This is your chance to sit with the scout one on one and find out what is important to him. A chance to talk about how things are going so far, where he see's himself in the next 3, 6, 12 months (and more), a time to build a bond with him, a chance to let him know that you are always there for him not just for the troop as a whole.

 

If you need to know if he can tie a clove hitch, work it into game or an activity. But don't miss the best chance you will get to sit with a young man and get to know him.

 

As for failing a SMC, I don't see in the requirement that that is an option.

[Bob White 20]

You cannot fail a SM conference. The requirement does not say "pass" a SM conference, it says simply "participate in" a SM conference. So if the Scout participated then he meets the requirement.

[Sturgen 10]

Finally a refreshing voice that demands excellence instead of mediocrity, thank you marcpaige. Of course testing during trips, weekly meeting etc. is always good but often it takes some one on one time to find out what each individual knows, one change I would suggest would be instead of you testing the scout directly, have one of your JASMs or other older experienced scouts test right before or during the SMC, one of the best methods of learning is teaching after all.

In regards to wingnut, if you are using the SMC to build a bond with your scout you are wasting your time. It is the responsibility of the SM to build a bond from day one, through participating with the boys during meetings and trips, if you only set aside ten minutes every couple of months to bond that serves no purpose, you might as well let the kid go home.

 

[Bob White 20]

Marc,

Changing advancement requirements in violation of the BSA policies doesn't bother some people. I am hopeful it bothers you.

 

Bob White

[Eamonn 61]

I am with Bob White and Wingnut.

 

I have no idea what size the troop that you serve is Sturgen. When I was a Scoutmaster the troop was large and while I like to think that the Scouts knew that I respected them, liked them and cared for them and yes we spent many happy hours of what might be termed Quality Time. Be it stopping to view the beauty of creation from the top of a mountain or enjoying a mug of tea as the campfire faded away. Still this was not the time to do a BOR. Maybe there were other Scouts around, maybe that moment was just too important to interrupt?

Take a look at the 4 points that Bob White listed. If point one and two were done right would there be any need for this re-testing?

We have a program that works if we follow it. I am having a really hard time finding any reference to demands of excellence anywhere in Scouting.

I PROMISE TO DO MY BEST, is about as close as I can get.

Have you ever thought about going into breeding dogs or horses? They might share your views. The Boy Scouts Of America and the World Scout Association don't.

Eamonn

[mk9750 11]

marc,

 

Welcome to the forum! I hope you enjoy your stay here as much as I have!

 

I admire your intent to expect the best from you Scouts. As a few folks have said around here, sometimes it seems that not enough of us hold Scouts to lofty expectations.

 

I do wonder, however, why it is that if a Scoutmaster believes the only evidence he will accept for whether a Scout has mastered a skill is to test him at the SMC, why he doesn't just eliminate all other people from the advancement process and require that the SM sign off all requirements. This sure would take a lot of the confusion out of the process. I mean, I can imagine a Scout saying "Wow, I got Pete to sign off on my lashing. He's tough. But I wonder if Mr. marcpaige will be even tougher?" Why not just eliminate Pete from the equation and have the Scout go directly to you?

 

Not that I think your approach is poor. As a matter of fact, for the few (and they are few) requirements I feel qualified to sign off, I use the same method you do. Instead of reading the requirment from the book and saying "OK kid, show me your stuff", I usually develop a scenerio that asks a boy to demostrate or explain the requirement in a more life-like setting or situation. I think I have evidence that suggests this is a good way to work. Although I am consistently considered the toughest tester for requirements, whenever I do BORs, it seems that I am the only one whose initials are in any of the five or so boxes that I sign. All the boys seem to find me when it's time to do these requirements, even though there are plenty of other people, particlualry Scouts, who could sign them.

 

But back to your original question. Please, PLEASE continue to hold your Scouts to the highest standards. But I can't urge you enough to find a different way to do so. If the people you allow to test have lived up to your standards thus far, they will almost certainly live up to them when they test others. As long as they do, why use time that could be spent getting to REALLY know a Scout retesting him on skills he's proven to have mastered? And if you find that one of your testers have let you down, he is the person with whom you should work, not the candidate for a new rank.

 

Again, welcome.

 

Mark

[scoutingagain 20]

We will ask scouts to demonstrate a skill or answer questions related to requirements associated with the rank they are going for during a BOR, however we have never, never held a scout back on advancement based on his skill or knowledge performance during the BOR. We will suggest to the scout he review specific material if he doesn't seem to know an answer or demonstrate the skill. It's usually just one or two short questions or demonstrations, and takes up less than 10% of the BOR. I like the idea of using real life situations rather than answering specific requirement questions though.

 

On a few occaisions we have identified a pattern indicating a particular leadership scout and sometimes adult scouter does not seem to be adequately teaching a skill or testing the scouts and use the information from the BOR more as a QC check on those that do the instruction and do the testing and have gone back to help those providing instruction and testing.

 

However, even though the scouts know(we specifically tell them) they will not "fail" the BOR if they don't answer the skill/knowledge questions correctly, informally I know most scouts make an effort to review material before the BOR because they want to be able to demonstrate they know their stuff.

 

SA

 

 

[marcpaige 10]

Thank you all for your comments and suggestions. I understand the policy breach and will no longer retest in that setting. I will, however, find a way to maintain quality checks throughout the rest of the program. As I wrote before, the scouts do teach each other scoutcraft and have many opportunities to practice or demonstrate their skills either at troop meetings or on monthly campouts. Some specific responses follow:

 

to scoutldr: the scouts in my troop truly have fun. the knot board is an excellent example. the boys will vie for position in line to have a turn at being timed for the king knot. they cheer each other on and will most definitely point out an erroneously tied knot. since I provide scenarios rather than rot testing, they don't realize that it is skill testing.

 

to wingnut: I have a bond with all of my scouts from the first day the visit as a Webelos scout. I have chats with the boys at any opportunity. I see it my duty to understand what is going on. For instance, one boy who many of the adults in the troop had written off as trouble, was having difficulty dealing with divorce. He talked to me in his own time and fashion because I treated him with respect and understanding. Afterward, the discipline problems disappeared.

 

to eammon: recently, there was a headline about an eagle who have been accused of murder in a small town. The openning sentence read something akin to honor student, star athelete, etc. is accued of murder. The headline, in bold enlarged print, had another purpose; shock value. Why do you suppose that the writer chose that headline? In my opinion, he knew that the accolade "Eagle Scout" has the connotation of honor and excellence. Why is it that the US military academy applications have a single question about scouting, namely: Are you an Eagle scout? I don't demand excellence. I don't even ask for it. I trust the scouts, and anybody else for that matter, to demand excellence of themselves.

 

to mk9750: I trust my SAs to ensure quality when signing requirements and have no need to remove them from the process. However, I do think that one of the improvements I can implement is a more rigoruous review program with them. (Thank you for observance of the 5th scout law!)

 

to scoutingagain: your description of the BOR smacks slightly of retesting when you ask for a demonstration of skills. My understanding of the mechanics of the BOR is that the board should ask open-ended questions that give the scout an opprotunity to discuss his accomplishments that lead to this rank. also, a BOR may determine that a scout is not ready for rank. If the board is not unanimous, they must detail the issues and corrective actions in a written report. This report is then reviewed with the scout and scoutmaster. This is not a failure per se, but the scout would not advance until the next BOR. The only other condition for "failure" would be due to poor bookkeeping, especially when up for eagle.

 

to all: I reiterate that I will no longer be re-testing the scouts in conference. I will continue to "lead by example" by requiring excellence in my actions. I will implement a program of quality checks in my SAs and scout instructors holding them to the highest standard. Again, thank you for your comments and suggestions.

[Eamonn 61]

Marc

No I am not an Eagle Scout. I am a very proud Queens Scout.

While it might be hoped that each and every Lad who spends time in Scouting in any program and at any level will come out a little better for being there. I just fail to see that there is a Demand for excellence anywhere in any of the Scouting programs. Take a look at the Mission of Scouting - No mention of demanding excellence there. Take a look at the methods of Scouting - No mention there.

It could be said that "...I promise to do my best" is a personal affirmation to the pursuit of excellence but that is a very individual thing.

Yes I have seen the news headlines about the Lad who is an Eagle Scout and has been charged with murder. I have known Eagle Scouts and Queen Scouts who have committed serious crimes. It of course goes without saying that along with any crimes these individuals may have committed they have also failed to keep the Scout Law. It is also a fact that many of us fail to keep it each and every day. Much as I try I have a hard time helping other people at all times. Scouts and Scouting is not about turning young people into some master race. Anymore then my attendace at church is going to turn me into a angel!!

Just for the record I was replying to the remark that was made by Sturgen.

As far as setting a high standard when it comes to meeting the requirement for whatever is fine. If the requirement is to be able to do something the Scout needs to be able to do it. There is no beef about that. I agree whole heartedly that the requirements have to be met. This is done by making sure that the Scout does learn the skill or whatever. This does mean that the Patrol Leader or the person teaching knows the skill and is able to pass it on. Once this has been accomplished and the Scout has been tested and can tie the knot or whatever he can move on to be reviewed and then recognized.

But the bottom line is that we don't teach Scouts skills just to pass requirements, we teach them the skills so that they can use them and get more out of the program. Tying a bowline in the meeting hall isn't a lot of fun, using it on a rappelling tower or the side of a glacier brings the skill to life.

Eamonn

[scoutingagain 20]

marc,

 

I'll acknowledge what we do does smack slightly of "retesting". This situation arose when some members of the committee were under the impression that the BOR was supposed to be a "final exam". After many "discussions" we came up with this approach, really to assess the instructors/troop guides. It really is only one or two questions and the rest of the BOR is a general discussion with the scout and assessment of how he is doing with the troop. We have had some issues in the past with some senior scouts not doing their work in providing instruction, just signing requirements, and this was one way to assess how well the younger scouts were being instructed. The skill/knowledge question is not intended to intimidate the scout and we go out of our way not to do so.

 

I've enjoyed this thread and appreciate you initiating the discussion.

 

SA