fred8033

I'd be okay with with the council having the funds if there was a web page that I could use to review the account status (balance, debits, credits, corrections, WITH DESCRIPTIVE INFO --> WHO WHAT WHEN WHY WHERE. Give a sign-on to unit authorized people. At 11pm when I have a question, I could connect and review the status. Until that occurs, I doubt we'll use a council accounts.

Council accounts? Yes. Managed by council. Not the scout shop. Receive statements? No. Never. I question if they really have good accounting controls. Withdraws without notifying unit? Yes. I don't think there's any double check as who can use the account at the scout shop or other. IMHO, it's a black hole. Have you ever had a problem with a council unit account? Not really. Other than being surprised that there is no money and not being able to learn what happened. I'd like to be able to have a cash reserve of $500 or $1000 at the council office, but I just don't trust the financial controls.

7220 Paradise Rd, Las Vegas, NV 89119 ... Las Vegas Scout shop. My wife and I were there two months ago. Nicest staff and scout store I've seen. Spent four nights and five nights in Vegas. Only souvenirs I bought were from the scout shop. My wife was frustrated. It would have been $40 cheaper if we did not rent a car during our trip. Then I sheepishly admitted I wanted to hit the scout store. Love the council patch. It's red with the big diamond Vegas sign that you see when you enter the city.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

When scouts join the troop we have a chat with the parents. - We let them know that attendance is not mandatory. We recognize that scouts have competing priorities and scouts will need to make priority decisions. - We also discuss that scouts do depend on each other. So missing a meetings and activities affects other scouts and the troop as a whole. - We do ASK that parents don't use scouts as a punishment. Scouting is trying to teach lessons and be a positive influence on their sons. Why would you deny a positive influence on their lives as a punishment. - Finally, we point out that, as with all things in life, you get out what you put in. If your not at scout meetings and events, your not going to benefit from the scouting program and you won't build the scouting friendships. ... I'm sort of uncomfortable being on the same side of the topic as Beavah on this one. ... It seems like at every meeting we have one or two scouts that sit in the corner and do homework. They particpate in the meeting portions where they are needed, but then focus on homework during the skills, games or other segments. But our meeting location has quiet nooks in the meeting room that loans itself to that.

Explaining the ideas and goals and child/parent separation is fine. I do it all the time. Asking parents not to exercise the right is a grey area. I wouldn't do it. But in all cases, it should be clearly communicated that parents have the right to observe. And then if a parent requests it, the parent must be allowed to observe. ... KC9DDI wrote: "If a parent demands to attend a ceremony, camp next to their child, whatever - we have to allow that. " I differ with the "next to their child". Parents don't have that right. They have the right to observe. IMHO, that means OA/unit leaders can insist on some amount of separation to allow the program work it's goals. Maybe that means observing OA ceremonies 25 or 50 feet behind the OA member observers. Or parents camp out the other side of the camp site. Or parents hang in the background during the teaching of skills. But ... if parents can't be satisfied as separated observers and the OA/unit leaders can't live with the parent interaction, then the parents and the child need to move on. To be honest, this has never come up in our realm. Most parents and leaders seem to get it.

I haven't read all the many posts in this discussion as the conclusion is obvious in my opinion. G2SS explicitly documents the answer. The "no secret organizations" and "All aspects of the Scouting program are open to observation by parents and leaders" are direct quotes from the G2SS in a chapter titled "Youth Protection and Adult Leadership". You can't get any more basic then that. ................. Summer camp versus OA - The difference is where. Most parents learn about the separation while on their first few camp outs with the troop. And it's a good idea to have the discussion with parents about giving their kids space. But if a parent asks, they have the right to observe. Yes, try to minimize their visibility and impact on the OA activities and ceremonies, but parents have the right. BSA explicitly documents that under "youth protection".

Eagle707 ... well said. I completely agree with your "program focus" comments. Eagle is promoted so heavily and put on such a pedestal by everyone, it's only natural that earning it has become such a focus. And also a focus by those saying there are too many of them.

Tampa Turtle ... I just read your "no more automatic POR check-offs speech" comment. I'm good with having high expectations. It's how it's accomplished that I contemplate. What Chippewa29 wrote above is an interesting practice but "might" be inconsistent with the BSA "Guide To Advancement". The removing from office part is a dead on correct. If the scout is not doing his job, the SPL should put a scout in there who's willing to do the job. BUT ... "If they get below a 2.5 (out of 5) average score for the month, they won't get credit toward advancement" contradicts the BSA GTA. GTA says that's when unit leaders (youth and adult) work with the scout to understand expectations and correct perceptions. GTA section 4.2.3.4.5 says "Often this questioning approach can lead a young man to the decision to measure up. He will tell the leaders how much of the service time should be recorded. [paragraph] ... If it becomes clear nothing will improve his performance, then it is acceptable to remove the Scout from his position." ... The key is that if a scout hasn't met expectations, the SM (or another leader) should work with the scout to understand the issue and to ask the scout how much time to credit. I find it interesting that BSA calls out in large print in GTA section 4.2.3.4.5 "Only in rare casesif evershould troop leaders inform a Scout that time, once served, will not count." So if the cases are "rare cases - if ever", then it's okay. If it's the common analysis procedure and result, then I question the practice. IMHO (not BSA based), I don't care for the numerical job grading analysis because it's too focused on advancement requirements and not letting a scout slip by without earning his advancement. I'd rather see the process by focused on responsibility and troop needs. Let advancement fall where it may based on running a healthy troop. IMHO (also not BSA based), POR scorecards are like using 15+ forms to camp. "Forms" and "procedures" are not leadership. They are ISO 9000 management and tend to be adult driven.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

It's a different world today. Society has changed drastically in the last several decades. Students in college (in millions) 1970 8.5 1980 12.0 1990 13.8 2000 15.3 2009 20.4 (140% increase) Manufacturing jobs (in millions) 1987 17.5 2000 17.3 2010 11.7 (33% decrease) Incentives? Padding the college and job resumes. Higher pay grade when entering the military. I think the higher Eagle numbers reflects a change in society more than a change in scouting. But I was not in the program 20 or 30 years ago so it is hard to compare. What I can see is that youth are busier than ever making it hard to get time in scouting. Parents are more driven to see their kids achieve in all areas. For scouting, internet and advancement opportunities abound. So I suspect a youth earning Eagle today works just as hard if not harder than those who earned it 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

IMHO, Cub Scouts and Venturing have a similar problem. Leader turn-over, focus and training. Boy Scouts is unique in that leaders get invested and then stay long enough to develop knowledge and skill and to make it work. Then the investment is such that they often stay another ten years just because they enjoy it. Venturing pushes more of the leadership to the members. Members who are busy with school, new relationships, trying new things and just getting started with life. Members that do or should leave when they are 21. The program also does not produce enough "invested" advisors. Boy Scouts does it by having a parent be an ASM for five years. Troop leaders have enough fun they often stick around after their kids leave. But with Venturing, crews usually have one or two advisors. No other adults with knowledge, skill or commitment to pick up the ship (no pun intended) when the advisor leaves. Inconsistent leaderhip produces an inconsistent program and inconsistent results. Members move on. Programs die. ... I don't know the fix except that perhaps troops and crews would benefit from each other if tied better together.

Does anyone really think that YPT will stop a predator from signing up? YPT is about removing opportunity. If you remove opportunity, predators will go elsewhere. The key is to create an environment that has built in defenses. In our troop, we teach new parents / leaders to help create a climate that it just doesn't happen. It's not about accusing anyone. It's about the environment. For example, if an adult is going to hang back to wait for a scout, hang back with 'em. If a leader is going to go check on the scouts, put your cards down and walk with 'em. Don't make a big deal of it. Just be a friendly shadow for the other adult. Will 2-deep make a difference if both adults are predators? I'm not sure I've ever heard of such a case. I've always heard about the lone predator. I'm not sure if being a serial predator loans itself to partnering up. Predators groom victims developing trust and it takes time. Yes there are crime partners for theft, rape and other things. But those crimes are hard to hide. I wonder of the 50 or so coaches in my baseball league, how many are predators? Probably none. Now if the coach starts inviting the team over for sleep overs or brushes a kid's hair or ...., then I'd have a concern.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

This is the link I've seen for years. http://meritbadge.org/wiki/index.php/Image:Boyscout-troop.gif ASPL and SPL both supervise leaders. SPL --> PLs and TG. ASPL --> other youth leaders. Troop guides are mainly used for new scout patrols, but can also be used to mentor new scouts or mentor skills. There's no rule you need to fill all the positions. If you don't need them or can't find a way to productively use them, don't staff them. With that said, our troop does staff most if not all positions.

The new "Eagle Scout Service Project workbook", pub 512-927 2011 printing says on page 22: "At the time of publication of this workbook, changes were being made to the Guide to Safe Scouting that will affect how service projects are conducted. The changes limit the use of hazardous power tools, machinery, and equipment, and also such activities as working at heights or on ladders, and driving motor vehicles." On page 14 it says "*Power tools considered hazardous, like circular saws, must be operated by adults who are experienced in their use. See the Guide to Safe Scouting." Another case where BSA updates one document and the other is "pending". At least the updated document took note of the pending change.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Never really cared for leadership corps, senior patrol, honor patrol or what ever you want to call it. Sure it works for some troops. Never cared for it myself. Never cared for adults shadowing youth positions ... except maybe the quartermaster, maybe. SPL should choose a good ASPL. ASPL should have clear responsibilities that includes overseeing the chaplain aides, librarians, scribes, etc. SPL works with ASPL to see that things are occuring. ASPL works with those positions to make sure things are happening. Get the adults out of the picture as much as possible.

Tampa Turtle wrote: "I see TOO MUCH use of the meritbadge.org worksheets. Boys think they look stuff up, fill them out, and they get the MB." Absolutely. Those worksheets are okay for notes or organization, but when it says discuss I insist on discuss. It's about the interaction of two people. I don't really care if the scout wrote anything down as most requirements are not "write an essay". I always feel bad for the scout who fills the worksheets in detail. Good for him as it's impressive, but it usually isn't required. Instead, he needs to jump thru a different hoop such as discuss or explain.

Not your place to decide if he's Eagle worthy or not. Let the Eagle advancement be his journey, not yours. Be consistent. Support his advancement to the same amount you'd support any other scout. Look for opportunities to be a positive influence on his character, his life and his skills. That's about all you can do.

"with prejudice" just means they can't sue for the same incidence. They settled so the incident can't be re-opened in court. "without prejudice" means they could go to court again for the same incident.

Beavah wrote: "...meet the expectations in order to be recognized." Old Grey Eagle wrote: "I thought it was defining the expectations is what prompted this thread in the first place, ... " No, this is what originally started the previous thread and this thread. "Is it once and done?" came from when the scout was tested, passed and then later, the scoutmaster judge the scout to not have the skill, usually at the SMC. Beavah says it's an scout honor thing and that to preserve the scout honor we don't let the scout advance until he can fulfill the requirement, independent of whether he did or did not fulfill it at a previous time. Others like me indicate that if tested previously and passed, he's done with that requirement. You can't hold him up at the SMC/BOR because he can't pass the test then. Instead focus on program to teach him and corrections to make the sign-offs better quality. That's the whole debate. In my opinion, it's one test and done with a requirement. IMHO, completed requirements are truely completed and not "unofficial" until the BOR. Of course, it's up to the troop to make the testing process meaningful and to have a quality program to re-inforce new skills.

Beavah wrote: "There are all kinds of ways to use da BSA materials creatively and well." I guess it all comes down to creative interpretation. Hopefully, scoutmasters are up front about when requirements are complete (i.e. when reviewed by the scoutmaster right before the SMC). I've just seen too many troops brag about giving scouts authority to sign off on T21 requirements and later talk about scoutmasters reviewing the skills. Or even scoutmasters and ASMs signing off on skills to only later bounce a scout back for skills reasons. It's an interesting tap dance that people do.

Eagle92 wrote: "As for the bio before a BOR, I do hope you are joking right?" No. It's real. Requiring a resume is their standard. They are a very well respected troop in our area with very experienced leaders. I don't think it's that bad of an idea ... except it's not part of the BSA program. ... Eagle92 wrote: "Now this is where I think the misunderstanding between us comes in at. You state It also means passing the test (singular, no retest). That's explicit in the program. Once a requirement is complete it's complete." I agree that's where the issue is. I'm okay with what you said after this quote. It's important to have a quality teaching and testing program. The problem I have is the original thread had scoutmasters talk about having scouts showing the skills during their SMC and then bouncing the scouts back until they could demonstrate the skill ... because the badge is about what the scout can do and the scout should be able to show the skills. So even if the scout passed the earlier skills test and was signed off, scoutmasters felt the duty to make sure the scout learned his skills. And not to award the badge until they knew the skill. If scoutmasters really want that quality check ability, then they should explicitly say "only the scoutmaster can perform skills tests and all skills tests will be performed at the start of the SMC. I don't like the idea, but I think they have that right. But if you give the requirement sign-off authority to ASMs, senior scouts or others ... or test skills earlier ..., then the requirement is done when signed off. There's no double jeopardy on requirements. Separating the learning from the testing? Good idea. Our troop does it by having the scouts teach each other skills and then going to an ASM to test / sign off. We might even let the troop guide, ASPL or SPL sign off, but we haven't done that recently. We just like a separation between who teaches and who tests. If they don't pass, the failure is explained / demonstrated and the scouts are sent to work on it with another scout again. ... As for BOR's, there's not much a BOR should be able to surprise a scout with. Maybe a meaningful philosophical question. But advancement wise, if the paperwork is signed off, it's signed off. I have seen BORs end because there is no signature at some of the requirements. Everyone always wonders how that happened. Easy to fix though and then to reconstitute the BOR when ready. ... The key is that if the requirement is signed off, it's over and done. It's a great idea make sure the troop did a good job teaching and testing and to keep practicing the skills in the troop program. But, the scout requirement for advancement is done.

Why does everyone assume you have no experience, no training or your a hovering cub scout parent if you assert a different position? I guess it's natural. My natural reaction to different scouting opinions is that I'm dealing with a cumodgeon using fuzzy bifocals to remember their youth and creatively interpreting BSA published documents to justify recreating their 1960s experience. But that's my bias. No offense intended. ... Eagle92: You asked about my scouting history? Sort of funny you ask. There's a local troop that requires scouts to show up with an updated printed scouting resume before they will start a BOR. That's their "standard". It's not really a bad idea and there's plenty of good to justify it ... except it's not in the BSA program. But it's their troop and they can do what they want and still call it scouting because it's their standard. ... My scouting resume... No scouting as a youth though I tried to join it several times. Mom was sick and Dad traveled. I had many other youth activities and was busy with school. Lettered five times in high school. BA and MS degrees. Started scouting with my 1st son in Sept 2000. Cubs scouts: Registered as CC and COR from 2002 to current. Served as WDL in 2003-2005. Boy Scouts: Registered as MC Mar 2005-2009 and CC 2009-current though I was essentially a CC for years earlier as our CC lost his wife. I'm trained for all pack and troop positions and my first boy scout class was SM/ASM specific leadership in Apr/May 2005. As for training, MyScouting.org lists me as having 85 training courses. That's light as I never used my BSA ID or even signed in for several years until I learned the word ScoutNet. MyScouting.org does list WB, Trainers Edge, IOLS, OWLS, BALOO, WFA, archery instructor and others. First YP was back in 2002. Been attending roundtable consistently since 2002. District committee staff for three years. This was my first year teaching at Univ of Scouting. I have four sons. My oldest son now has 150+ nights camping with the troop, 15+ nights with jamoboree, multiple high adventures and probably another 120+ nights over three years as camp staff. I only know this because I was reviewing his records as he prepared his Eagle Scout paperwork. My second son has similar history but he's 13 years old. Our scoutmaster's on his 21st year in the troop and 14th year as scoutmaster. We effectively have two ASMs. One was the former SM and has been in scouting for sixty years. Now he runs the high adventure. The other supports the troop guide and likes to teach skills. I joke with our troop leaders that as they work with the scouts, I work with the adults. It's the same stuff just different size. Accountability. Behavior. Attitude. Focus. I also teach skills such as putting your hands in your pockets and playing cribbage, hearts, .... Most importantly, my job is to keep adults away from the scouts. I've been told I'm pretty good at that though a bit too obvious at times. ... Yep, I've watched "Follow Me Boys" many times. Good movie though a bit mechanical. My sons enjoyed it. I always wondered how the unemployed drunk father could afford all that ice cream and what a waste that it melted. And I remember the Whitey scene. Wasn't he with a bunch of other scouts who had been in scouts longer than him? Many were probably also equal rank and they were clueless. That's life. In emergencies and on demand, people often can't perform. Under pressure performance is learned thru repetition. i.e. program. ... You mentioned that scouts allowed to camp in the past. ... with permission of scoutmaster and parents. Sort of an important check and balance, eh? Perhaps the reason it's been removed is because scouts were never really automatically ready to camp on their own if they were first class. Perhaps they were only ready after being in the program for years and years. ... Eagle92, I'm okay with the document quotes you list. So if the requirement is "demonstrate a taut line", then I'm fully fine with "must pass, to the satisfaction of the recognized local scout authorities." and troops maintaining healthy standards. But it means your troop having a good standard for "demonstrate a taut line". Not and setting up dining flies on two camp outs. Not and creating your own rope. Not and properly coiling and storing a rope. Not and blindfolded and behind your back. It means demonstrate a taut line. If there's hesitation or not a clean knot, then they need to develop their skill. The standard is about what's required and not about what's not mentioned. It also means passing the test (singular, no retest). That's explicit in the program. Once a requirement is complete it's complete. Heck, how many times have I heard people say "once an Eagle, always an Eagle." Sounds like selective emphasis. ... It's interesting that you quoted the 1965 2nd class hiking requirements. I really think that is what's going on. People are remembering the past different than it really existed. It's a different era and we need to present the scouting program as BSA documents it. Fifty years ago, scouts skinny dipped. Adults had a whiskey or beer for around their camp fire. And yes even physical intimidation at times. But that was 50 years ago. ... The 1965 requirement you quoted was "2(a) Take three hikes, each on a different day, of not less than 5 miles each with your troop, your patrol, an adult, or another Scout ( all emphasis mine) who is at least Second class (b)Before each hike submit a hike plan for approval...." Nothing mentions mastery except getting a hike plan approved. It's just three hikes. And that requirement doesn't exist anymore. It's interesting we're discussing "mastery" for the lower ranks and the high ranks emphasize merit badges. Merit badges are just "introductions" to the topics. Interesting. ... I agree that we need to teach scouts skills they can use anytime. That's what the whole scouting program is for. All parts of it. Advancement is just one part. Eagle92 wrote: - "BUT what is a SM suppose to do if a Scout cannot do the skills that he is suppose to be abel to do?" Teach him! Don't penalize him! If the COH was the day before, would you take away the rank? Or if he passed a BOR the day before but had yet to get the badge and then you saw the missing skill, would you undo the paperwork? If he participated in a SMC (not a pass/fail event) and then saw the missing skill, would you bounce him back? If he passed the skills test, the requirement is done. Focus on teaching the skill and correcting your troop. Don't penalize the scout.

A lot of this is a fight for control. We say Boy Scouts is boy led. Simiarly we say scouts advance at their own pace and control their own advancement. In that respect, we have explicit rank requirements that are written and published so the scout will know what he needs to do to advance and does not depend on a scoutmaster telling them when their ready per some undocumented whim only in the scoutmaster's head. - If it's pass a swim test, it's pass a swim test. Don't like the results. Talk to the person who gave the test. - If it's take a five mile hike with a map and compass, it's done when the hike is done. There's no "when you are comfortable with the boy hiking and navigating on his own without any adults or older scouts." That's not in the documented requirements and there's much more to safe hiking then a map, compass and a few basic rules. We as adult leaders guide the whole troop program so that after the scout's tenure in scouting he has the lifelong capabilities and skills. ... Beavah wrote: "A boy is able to do when he is able to do without us. Anything else is just a distinguished presentation of cow pies. " Scouts are accountable to specific BSA documented requirements; not vague altruistic fluff. Your description does not resemble the requirements. Your mentioned requirements are also not real rank requirements. ... Beavah wrote: "If you are willing to hand your kid the keys to the car the first time he successfully backs out the drive without taking out the mailbox, well, then it's once-and-done. . For da rest of us, I reckon we expect some reasonable degree of proficiency. " Your analogy is sloppy. Advancement is more like "drivers ed" and "behind the wheel" with an instructor and THEN getting your permit. With the permit, there's an expectation to get many hours behind the wheel with an experienced driver. The experienced driver doesn't grab the wheel and doesn't have his own break pedal. He's just there to provide advice if needed and keep things safe. That experienced driver is the whole scouting program. Of course the driving analogy breaks down because driving (at least in our state) has three tests: Passing behind the wheel. Passing the written test. Passing a final driving test. Scouting explicitly only has one test. ... The original intensity of the "one and done" debate also started because people were asserting even if the scout was signed off on a requirement requirement, advancement could be delayed if the scout could not demonstrate a requirement later during a SMC or BOR ... because rank advancement is about what a scout can do and not what he's done. I'm all for boy led. I'm all for youth taught skills. I'm all for good troop programs. I'm all for high expectations. But I'm vehemently against undoing completed requirements. ... "Oh but if you can't display it on demand it wasn't really learned in the first place." ... That's the biggest smelliest cow pie. Watch out for those who's mouth it falls out of.

For scouts signing off on T21, I mentioned it because I've seen 1st hand and also got from this thread SMs who will delay advancement for skills that were tested and signed off by an authorized person (ASM, senior scout, troop guide). It always raises the question of what did the original sign off mean and how will the scout know if he'll advance other than at the whim of a SM.

Eagle92 - I appreciate the history. I've only seen two revisions of the BSHB and two of the ACPP/GTA. Interesting how words change and interesting how BSA is inconsistent with wording across documents that exist at the same time. Which printed words should be treated as authoritative? ... I agree that it's program program program. That's where our focus should be. That's all eight methods used together to develop our scouts. ... The swim test is an excellent debate example. I'm really surprised by the responses though. The BSA rank swim requirement is very clear and includes an explicit proficiency expectation. In addition, swim tests are administered by authorized individuals who have received special aquadics training. If a scout passed the swimmers test, I'd have a really hard time explaining to him why I wouldn't sign off on that rank requirement. SM...: "Sorry Timmy, your not ready to receive your first class rank yet. I just don't think your a good swimmer yet." Scout: "But Mr. Scoutmaster my handbook says pass a BSA swim test and I did." SM...: "Yes, but I'd like to see you become a stronger swimmer. You need to keep working on it." Scout: "But it says pass a swim test." SM...: "You see Timmy those BSA rank requirements are more like guidelines. Remember that Pirates of the Caribean movie. Remember parlay?" Scout: "So how will I know when I can advance?" SM...: "Just keep trying. I'll let you know when your ready." ... Now you can debate proficiency. What's a strong stroke? Powerful or just adequate. Was he winded? How heavy of breathing is okay? Was it a pool or a lake? Was the water 75 degrees or 40 degrees? Smooth water, choppy or waves? Clear water or dog days of summer? Were carp and perch nibling at his leg hair? The problem is what criteria are you waiting for and how are your justifying it. ... (Side discussion) ... If you do feel strongly enough to not pass the scout on the swimming rank requirement, you MUST change his swim tag. The scout parents entrusted his safety to you and you just decided he's not up to the swimming test proficiency. Now, you've drawn a line at advancement because of a safety claim. Sure he can practice swimming at camp, but he can do it in the non-swimmer / learners area. You don't want him in the swimmers section that has deep water, further out and the life guards have an expectation he is a proficient swimmer. You don't want him checking out a canoe or sail boat where if he gets in trouble it is harder to get to him in time. And also, I'd hope you immediately take it up with the camp director and the council scout executive so it doesn't happen to other scouts. We're talking safety right? Someone drowning in a forward direction? What does it say to the scouts if you think aquadics staff arn't doing their job and you don't do anything about it. This isn't Penn State right? ... I'd hope this is something we can all agree on. If someone inappropriately passes a scout on a requirement, you need to talk to that person who passed the scout so it doesn't keep happening to other scouts. You also should look for a way to correct the mistake. That's our big debate. Do you unpass the scout or not recognize the test or expect more than is printed or treat the 1st test as a learning/practice/screening waiting for a final test at a later date or something else. My preference is to see the learning happens, preferably through the normal troop program; not to undo signed off requirements. ... IMHO, the rubber hits the road with activities, not advancement. When you have responsibility, you need to make sure scouts are prepared, capable and safe. It doesn't matter what rank they are or what merit badges they've earned. Canoe trip? It doesn't matter if the scout earned the swimming merit badge two years ago. I'm going to make sure they took a swim test within the last year, preferably in the last three months. If I'm not sure they are a good swimmer, we'll do it again. That's my right as the person taking responsibility for their safety. Hiking trip? I don't care if your tenderfoot or Eagle scout. We'll review what to do if lost. We'll review first aid and make sure people have a first aid kit with them. If I'm not sure they are physically capable, we'll do practice hikes. I don't care what troop advancement program you have, you can't trust rank as a certification or trust they are ready now because they were once judged proficient. ... (another side discussion) I like scouts signing off on T21 with one exception. If you give scouts the authority and they sign off, it's signed off. Done and gone. But, that's yet another twist on this discussion.

If I remember right, the bandage in the video was okay, but not 100% up to par. Now if the scout had done a bandage that was up to expectations, should he have been signed off? Yes. I'm okay with tough expectations. IMHO, that's a matter of good coaching and a good program. Also, I've rarely a seen a scout protest if when asked to try again or to fix what they've done. ... Scouters keep quoting the GTA where it says a badge recognizes what a scout can do, not what they've done. But then reject the idea that if they can "do" the BSA requirement that that's enough. Instead they want more experience or calendar time or teaching other scouts or something else not written in the rank requirement. That's very much a reward for what they've done and based on expectations not written in the BSA requirements. ... Eagle92 wrote: "You do not sign it off after they just learn it. You let them use the skill some and practice. you give them time for them to get comfortable with the skill before signing off." ... and he wrote ... "Then once it is signed off, THEN they need to keep using it and teach others." Fine as long it doesn't become an extended part of the requirement. Example: "Sorry, you only learned the skill yesterday. We require a month and a camp out between learning and signing off on the requirement." The worst is bouncing a scout back for a requirement that's already been signed off. ... desertrat77: I agree with the part where you wrote. "Somewhere along the line, I think the indoor folks got tired of being upstaged by the outdoors folks. So the reduced focus on outdoors and adventure was reflected in scout advancement requirements, and woodbadge as well. No more embarrassment for the folks not so good at sharpening an axe, who hated sleeping in the outdoors, or smelling like campfire smoke...." I agree. It's like advancement has become a religious certification to some unwritten metaphysical concept of the ideal scouters overtaking all the other methods of scouting. Some scouters have imbued a legendary status on the ranks when reality is that a rank just indicates a scout met the requirements published in the book when tested. ... Since we can't agree what the requirements are even when they are explicitly written, why don't we just ditch the whole advancement program and just say tenderfoot is 5 nights camping in a tent. Second class is ten nights camping. First class is twenty five. Star is fifty. Life is seventy five. Eagle is a hundred nights camping in a tent. That would raise the standard. My 17 year old son has over 150 nights with his troop, 15+ with his jambo troop and at least another 100+ as camp staff over the last three years. My 13 year old son has around fifty nights with his troop. But wait, that's recognizing scouts for what they've done instead of what they can do. And BSA advancement requirements haven't included time spans or past performance except when called out. Be head cook for one meal. Five activities with your troop. 4 months as a star scout.