fred8033

You know I finally realized what I'm stating is exactly what GTA is saying. GTA says: It is important thus, to remember that in the end, a badge recognizes what a young man is able to do and how he has grown. It is not so much a reward for what he has done. Every one of the rank requirements is an action and a reflection of capability that has been learned. You can debate if it sticks or not. That's a reflection of the troop program reinforcing the skills. But the point is the scout demonstrated, explained, participated, repeated or another action exactly as BSA wrote. Those are exactly a reflection of what the scout can do and how he's grown. The key is GTA also says no retesting and no adding requirements. You can dance all you want about the honor of learning, but there is an honesty and duty in presenting the BSA program as BSA wrote it. Testing a scout at a SMC after an authorized person observed the requirement fulfilled is wrong. Telling the scout to come back and do it again three months later is wrong as it's adding to the requirements. I agree youth have a high sense of right and wrong; fair and unfair; achievements and empty recognition. But then again, that's a matter of effective teaching. The difference is asking the scout to drink a cool aid that's not described in his scout handbook or the BSA advancement requirements. ... The title of this thread is "Is it Once and Done". GTA says explicitly no retesting and no adding requirements. So yes, it is once and done ... at least for advancement. But you can use patrol method, outdoor program, adult association, ... to reinforce the rank skills. Hopefully your troop program does that continually so as to produce a strong skilled scout. ... I think it all comes down to a fundamental attitude. I've sat in district committee meetings for years now where the district chair said how proud he was that our district advancement committee did such a great job defending the Eagle brand. Another responded another time that scouting is producing just too many Eagle scouts today and that it should be more special. Another responded recently to the new GTA saying it was yet another watering down of the Eagle rank and then complained that if they reject an Eagle candidate it will just be overturned by council or national. Thank God for our DEs and the other committee members. I always wonder if they know that not everyone has the same interpretation. That sometimes people just sit and smile and then move on. It comes down to is your primary purpose to support the scout or support the legend of scouting. If your supporting the scout (what we signed up for), why aren't debates like this decided in the favor of the scout. "ahhhh... but if we send him back he'll feel the inner integrity and honor of having truely earned it." What total hogwash, eh.

Beavah, I appreciate your creative interpretion of what I'm saying. It educational to have someone tell me what I mean. Yes Eagle Scout is a statement of character, leadership and skill. But it's achieved thru all eight methods of scouting. Not one. Ideals. Patrol method. Outdoors. Advancement. Assocation with adults. Personal growth. Leadership development. Uniform. They stand together to achieve that marketing puffery. From the previous chain, I have several issues with what was being discussed. ISSUE #1 The scout is accountable to the BSA published requirements. No more. No less. If the requirement says "Explain" and the scout can clearly explain what to do when lost, he should be signed off and that requirement is completed. If you think the explanation is insufficient, communicate that, ask him to go work with an experienced scout and come back when he's ready. But it is not acceptable to make him wait weeks to be tested. It's not acceptable to require him to be on N number of hiking trips to build enough proficiency. The requirement is as BSA published it --> Explain. It is made proficient and made a personal learned skill through the full use of all the scouting methods. Don't use advancement to do that when the requirements don't require it. IMHO, it's mean because it's telling a scout he's unprepared / failed / insufficient when he's completed the BSA published expectations. ISSUE #2 If it's signed off, it's signed off. We don't undo merit badges. We don't undo ranks. Why undo completed requirements? If an authorized person signs off on the rank requirement it's complete. If the scout didn't complete the requirement, correct the authorized person and find a way through the troop program to get the scout the learning he deserved. To get it to stick, the troop program should have opportunities to regularly reinforce those skills for the whole duration of the scout being in scouts. It's the same reason we say the oath and law before each meeting and not just as part of the tenderfoot rank requirements. ISSUE #3 It is not the job of the SM at the SMC to pass/fail scouts or send them away if he doesn't think they have mastered some set of skills. Each individual requirement is signed off by someone authorized. Once signed off, it's signed off. The example in the thread was the SMC that failed the scout for not knowing the parts of the scout badge when it had already been signed off by an authorized person. (This message has been edited by fred8033)

In situations like these, I'm open and up front with my sons. Reality impacts ideals. Tell them what BSA says and then explain to them the situation. If you can't or don't want to change troops, then help them make the decision to just get through it. Rarely can a member change the habits of the troop. Protesting or fighting it too much will just alienate everyone. And then help your son remember the experience and make the decision that when he someday becomes an adult scout leaders he'll do it by the book and not play these games.

People quote GTA sections that basically say "(b) In Boy Scouting, recognition is gained through leadership in the troop, attending and participating in its activities, living the ideals of Scouting, and proficiency in activities related to outdoor life, useful skills, (emphasis mine)and career exploration." p 75 G2A But that is not open authority to do what you want under the rule "unit expectations". BSA spells out specific requirements. "participate in activities" is 1 for T, 5 for 2nd class and 10 for first class. "leadership" is only supervising assistant cooks for first class. Similarly for skills ... explain hiking skills and what to do when lost does not require mastery that lasts a life time. It's explain. Yes, one time. Life long memory and proficiency comes by going on hiking trips. Demonstrate a taut line is just demonstrate a taut line. Your going to learn it for a lifetime by helping setup the rain flies for the coming years. ... trainerlady's post is a perfect example that I've seen before that I apparently failed to state clearly enough and that I think CalicoPenn was trying to give an example of. I've seen it locally with units that have senior scouts sign off on requirements but then don't trust that the skill was learned and later re-test the scout. It's selective reading and just wrong to pay attention to GTA / ACPP general statements on proficiency, but then ignoring the specifics. GTA 2.0.0.1 It Is a MethodNot an End in Itself - "Advancement is simply a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is one of several methods designed to help unit leadership carry out the aims and mission of the Boy Scouts of America." GTA 5.0.1.3 - "No council, committee, district, unit, or individual has the authority to add to or subtract from advancement requirements." For trainerlady's post, this is the appropriate GTA reference. GTA 4.2.3.5 Unit Leader (Scoutmaster) Conference - "Note that a Scout must participate or take part in one; it is not a test. Requirements do not say he must pass a conference." If it's demonstrate, it's demonstrate. There's nothing saying demonstrate and then come back two weeks later to prove you still remember it (re-testing). That's adding requirements. If you don't think the scout demonstrated the skill well enough, don't sign off in the 1st place. Show it to them and then tell them to go practice it with a patrol mate. Tell them that when they are ready, you will be there for them to demonstrate it. You don't have to lower your standards to do it the right way. If you don't think the MB counselor taught the MB, you correct the counselor, not the scout. Then, you also work it into the program to get the scout the knowledge / skill he deserved through the MB. Same with rank requirements. If someone authorized signed off, correct that person and look to find a way to get the scout the skill. Don't whiplash the scout and tell him he did something wrong. ... trailerlady - Though it might not be wise for the future of your son's experience in his troop to push it, per BSA GTA your son has completed the next requirement (participating in a SMC) and it is now his right to ask for a BOR and it is the required responsibility of the unit leaders get make it happen (GTA section 8.0.0.2). Your troop has blown it twice. First, if they don't believe your son completed the rank requirement as BSA wrote (knots, cooking or what ever), they should not have signed off. If the SM gives authority to an ASM or a senior scout to sign off, then it's signed off and done. Second, "failing" your son at a SMC is just wrong. You don't fail SMCs. If there is a concern that your son doesn't have the skill, there's plenty of opportunities in scouting to teach those skills. The wrong way though is to blind-side a scout telling them a requirement isn't done that's already been signed off. How can he plan his advancement? Who can he trust now? I'm just disgusted when I hear people defending what happened to your son. It's just wrong! It's interesting when reading both the GTA requirements and the SM handbook discussion, everything in a SMC is a personal discussion. SMC is not at all a skills test. ... Skills are only permanently ingrained through repetition over time. But T21 has few duration requirements and even those don't approach the number needed for mastery or long-term proficiency. The first class food requirement is a one time requirement. You don't get mastery / proficiency by doing it once. You get it by coordinating food for every three months for a few years. The example I always remember is the oath and law. I've seen scouts that know it very well for testing the tenderfoot requirement and then will forget it two days later. But if the troop says it at the start of each meeting for a few years, the scouts will remember it for a lifetime. Doing it once (at the level of proficiency required by the authorized person that signs off) fulfills the requirements for advancement. Doing it weekly makes the learning permanent.

"I get where that this "don't be mean", "he did his best" stuff is a product of da Cub Scout program, and some Cub Scouters and parents have a hard time with the transition to Boy Scouting, ..." There you go again. "product of da cub scout program" is a way to dismiss valid points by blowing hot air. "Yah, yah. Kids are entitled to awards and recognition by others." It's not their entitlement. It's an earned result of completing requirements as published by BSA. If you don't like the requirements, take it out on BSA. Don't take it out on the scout or other scouters. That's the mean part. "A boy who gets signed off on da taut line hitch should be able to set up the patrol's dining fly or rig a clothes line or whatnot when asked." Taut line is a fine example. If they can demonstrate it and explain the use, sign off on the requirement. It would be great if there's a rain fly to put up to use as demonstration of capability. But if not, we make do and support the scout. they should not be given the rank until they've had plenty of time to participate in the program, practice and master those skills. is just wrong. You might personally want that, but that's not the BSA rank requirement. "A boy who gets signed off as being able to plan, purchase, store, and cook a weekend's meals for his patrol should be able to do that, in whatever conditions are common for the region. So a PL should be able to call up a First Class scout and delegate the weekend's food to him, and the lad should be able to handle it, with nutritious and tasty results." There you go again. You've drank the marketing hype cool-aid. The requirements are "help plan" not to plan by himself. Nothing says tasty. Nothing says "whatever conditions". Though the program goal is what your describing, the advancement requirements are just one tool in the basket to teach those skills. "A Boy Scout badge recognizes what a scout is able to do." No. You're thinking of a Norman Rockwell painting and marketing brochures. The rank recognizes completion of requirements as published by BSA. No more. No less.

What's funny is that my main financial concern in the troop is not fraud. My main concern is getting people reimbursed and reimbursed quickly. The last thing I want is for the unit leader's spouse developing a grudge against scouting because he (or she) swallows several hundred of dollars of cost every year or floats big dollar amounts for a period of time. Though fraud does happen all the time and MUST be our main concern, the opposite problem is more common in scouts.

"Yah, I think we have to get over da notion that folks who want kids to learn are mean-spirited." Generic logic like that has been used for thousands of years to justify treating kids badly. The right logic to use is "what is the requirement" and "did the scout fulfill the requirement". It's mean spirited to demean a scout's (or scouter's) accomplishment just because it's not up to your personal standards. He's graded against the BSA standards, not yours. And it's not candy to give a scout his due. If you don't like the standards, talk to BSA. Don't knock the scout or his volunteer leaders. "True, but the quoted "proficiency in outdoor skills" appears in the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America which we all agreed to follow. I think "proficient" is da right term, eh? Not quite mastery, but definitely solid skills. " That's not in the current GTA, but it is in the previous ACPP under rules and regulations. And even there it's not the "shall" (i.e. the requirement) and is more a general statement than something that can be directly applied. But it does say right before it. "The rank requirements in these phases of the Scouting program, as set forth in the official publications, shall furnish the basis of the activities of the unit." So if the rank requirement says "demonstrate" or "discuss", it means "demonstrate" or "discuss" and not mastery or proficiency. The only requirement close to a proficiency requirement is in the swimmers test (75 yards in a strong manor, etc.) and even that I would not call "mastery" or "proficiency". I'd call that not drowning. The key is the previous sentence in the ACPP rules and regulations. "A fundamental principle of advancement shall be that the boys progress is a natural outcome of his activities in his unit." And the "BSA" rank requirements reflect that. Help with. Participate in. Complete a.... Demonstrate. Discuss. Identify. Advancement just means that at some point in time you knew how to tie a bowline. Mastery and life-long skills are established through program activities both before and after achieving rank and demonstrating the skills.

"Some lazy adult just pencil-whipped a requirement." ... "Pejorative." ... Yeah, I was thinking that too. The quoted "mastered" only appears in a magazine blowing air into scout achievements. I always fear when marketing hype is taken too seriously by some mean spirited adult that remembers his white-washed youth with fuzzy bifocals. Sorry, I was just too lazy to find a nicer way to say it. The word mastered never appears in the GTA. It only appears in the ACPP when talking about parents signing off on Bobcat requirements. What does appear in the GTA is the explicit discussion of no re-testing. Also, a discussion of "Once It Is Earned, Its Earned". That's about MB, but it's also written in other words about other requirements. If you want scouts to "master" skills, take them camping every month. Take them to district camporees that have competitive skills testing. Have patrol competitions. That's how they learn mastery. Advancement is a tool, not a certification.

SR540Beaver wrote their council dropped the price to $1500 and touring. That sounds great and approaching a reasonable cost. My son has seen DC and will probably see that area again in the near term future. With the national Jambo cost of $850, I'd hope they could knock the council cost down again a bit. Heck, ship the scouts by bus to the event. Stop and do some "free" tours such as Notre Dame or an air force base or such.

IMHO, the key is visibility, openness and simplicity. If you have that, then writing checks and debit cards are not that big of an issue. If you don't have it, then there's big issues no matter how you do it. Petty cash - I just don't like the idea. What's petty? $10? $25? $50? $200? $500? Also, how many people have petty cash? Den leaders? Cubmaster? Event coordinators? If it's $50 or $100 each, your getting into serious money. Finally, I can guarantee you won't get all your receipts and it will be a pain to balance the books. Most leaders I know don't mind floating small amounts for a week or two. The key is to get them reimbursed quickly and to make it easy for them. Debit card - Our troop has a scout account with the local scout office. It often has $300 or $500 in it to reserve camps, purchase advancements or other. I can guarantee you that we don't get clean receipts to balance the books on it. The local scout office also doesn't guarantee who can access it or provide reporting of transactions against it. I'd much rather the scoutmaster have a debit card for the troop. Then, I can see where the money was spent. If necessary, I can ask them to re-print the receipt for transaction #####. We don't have debit cards now, but it's been discussed. online - For online, we tied our troop bank account to a PayPal account. Easy to do online purchases then.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

To be honest, everything you've said sounds like a positive to me. If it wasn't for the $2250 price tag, I'd be supportive of sending my son(s).

Trust? Not that simple to answer. ********************************************** PHYSICALLY PROTECTING YOUTH ********************************************** yes - national yes - council yes - district yes - troop, pack yes - individual scouters ********************************************** MENTALLY AND EMOTIONALLY PROTECTING YOUTH ********************************************** yes - national yes - council yes - district yes - troop, pack mixed - individual scouters. Some scouters who are stars in their troop I'd want thrown out of mine. Enough said. ********************************************** MONEY ********************************************** no - national - FOS. Popcorn. Jamboree. Continuous fundraising no - national - scout store prices. uniform quality. yes - national - philmont, seabase, ntier y&n - council. yes - district yes - troop, pack yes - individual scouters ********************************************** PROGRAM AND ADVANCEMENT ********************************************** yes - national yes - council no - district - Two years ago more concerned with protecting the quality of the eagle award then supporting every scout. yes - district - For the last year or so yes - our troop and pack no - other troops Programs are too inconsistent accross units and I've seen just too many weird rules and practicies. mixed - individual scouters. Some seem more concerned about "scouting" than the "scout". ********************************************** District execs ********************************************** Yes - I trust them. Depend on them??? ... I've yet to see a bad one. Some are more effective. All are supportive and helpful. All are underpaid. All are under big pressure. All are pulled in multiple directions at once. All face conflicting priorities. All deal with emotional situations and alot of hard headed people who think they know the program than they do. They are in a thankless job. God bless 'em. (This message has been edited by fred8033)

Here's a completely different idea. (and I'm betting this has been suggested before...) Let scouters do the same thing scouts do. Move the recognition to a sash and to be used during COH or special ceremonies. I'd put my knots on it instead of just choosing the one or two of the most memorable ones. I'd put the Eagle pins I've been given on it. I'd put memorable temporary patches on the back. Heck, let adults put all their old positions on it too. Then you can have as many knots and special recognitions as you want. You could even add some. Maybe a small knot for each Univ of Scouting attended. A knot for each year you've attended four round tables. Just an idea to keep the uniform be functional and sharp and not tacky but let scouters have a chance to show off all their achievements. ... and not get stuck using devices (no pun intended)

Google sites (https://sites.google.com) is a good solution. When you eventually have a budget, I strongly recommend http://www.soarol.com.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Just like adults, I think kids need free time to relax and build friendships. I've seen kids drop from scouting because summer camp was just not much fun. I've seen two different troops do summer camp. One troop "published" their own troop schedule based on the camp schedule filling free time with troop elections, annual planning, service projects and other items. Time was filled most of the week from 7am to 9pm. They did a lot at summer camp, but I'm not sure how great of a time they had. The other troop used the camp schedule and that was it. They did sign up for troop activities during free time, but it was totally optional for the scouts and the scouts had several hours of free time each day. I much preferred only using the camp schedule with the free time. Some of my best memories are walking through camp and seeing the scouts play catch, chatting, heading to the beach, playing cards late at night or just hanging out.

"Call me sanctimonious but I would encourage you to take the time you spend judging fellow Scouters and put that time into serving your unit." Fair enough. Knots are definitely not a negative thing. Good and bad scouters come in all flavors ... with and without knots. It was a cheap shot. My apologies. (This message has been edited by fred8033)

Devices ... If they are those pin with a backing ..., I'll be going from watching out for russian generals to watching out for scouters wearing devices. Either they don't wash their clothes or they have too much time on their hands.

Sorry about that. The simple answer is that I've never seen an obviously qualified person waived from required BSA training. Perhaps the Red Cross would just give a doctor credit for Wilderness First Aid. Not sure. I've just seen no provision in BSA or our counsel for doing that. And, I've asked. I have seen credit given for a new required course when a person took the earlier course. A local SM became SM in 1990 and took training in the 1980s / 1990s. One of his courses was replaced with IOLS. So the counsel gave him credit for IOLS training as he took the other course already. That's the only type of exception I've seen.

Alot of BSA training is essentially checking off the boxes. Heck, I just did COR training this weekend after being the COR for five years so that I can get a "Y" on the unit training report. Specifically, I didn't learn a darn thing, but then again I could probably have taught the course. Generally though, it made me think a bit about the COR role and our CO in general. The usefulness in the training is rarely the skills or specifics that are taught. Those can easily be picked up. It's the scouting attitude and how to work with the kids that's important. It's the associations and connections. You mentioned you were an Eagle scout and an NCO. So you've got the skills. You also have the knowledge of the program from a youth and a military standpoint. But, an adult leader role is different than being a youth and very very different than the military. People often say it's hard for a Cub Scout den leader to transition to a Boy Scout leader. I think it's just as difficult for a military leader to transition to Boy Scouts. (i.e. letting go of control, being a friendly coach, rarely stepping in, letting mistakes happen, ...). As for IOLS, I did get some out of it. Medical issues. Epi-pens. Compass game. But that's about it. The rest of my learning was more general philosophy approach. So yeah, alot of BSA training is essentially checking off boxes. But you can still get alot out of it.

"The school where most of our boys attend lets us meet there and we do some service projects for them. So at least we do have some support. " Sounds like a good situation. Most CO's would expect a benefit of people coming to their place and/or meeting there. If you don't meet at the CO, then there is no real relationship to start. If you want to continue meeting at the school, I'd talk to the PTO or create a "friends of" group. Heck, I'd bet you could get a good relationship going between the PTO and the scouts. That would be pretty healthy.

Replacing trails end? They should. The whole program screams of needing a total revamp. The price/product value ratio is totally unacceptable. The $50 purchase is more like a $42 contribution with a $8 comparative value. Some of the items are worse. It's hard to pitch with a straight face other than to say it's really a donation with a thank you gift.

I've seen several charter orgs over the years. None are actively involved in their units. The best is good at offering space, storage and a smile. We do service projects for them once or twice a year. Another only lets us in the building if they have a janitor there to secure the building (not entirely unreasonable). Another bounced our meeting room time for an inside church mens group with higher priority. That unit got chartered through their school PTO, essentially no different than a "friends of" charter. Suggestion - Try your local VFW, AFL, Knights of Columbus, Kiwanis, Optimists and such. All those groups specialize with citizenship and very actively support scouts. If no one else, I'm sure a KofC would charter you and have some cool special service opportunities (special olympics, ...).

With scouter awards, if there is any flexibility, it should be with the "position" of registration. #1 The CC or membership chair is in control of registration process. Most den leaders and MC's never see a ScoutNET roster or even know who the registrar is. #2 Position assignments are often only fixed at "recharter" ... if even then. It's common for the Webelos Den leader to still be listed as a Tiger Den Leader four years later. #3 Our recharter is Feb/March. So it's typical that the Webelos den leader has been a Webelos den leader since June, but only gets updated to a WDL around mid-March. Nine months late for a knot that requires one year tenure. #4 The Cub Scouting years are the BSA "learning" years for most leaders and they are taught "Do your best". Odds are they've never even read the scouter knot requirements as they are trying to just keep up with learning the cub program. My own registration is a good example. Ten years ago I knew nothing of BSA paperwork and never heard of the accursed ScoutNET. I became the Webelos den leader at the same time the committee chair left. I didn't want to do both, but said I'd be glad to be CC when the webelos den graduated (18 months away). So the pack membership person changed my position to CC because she needed one for re-charter. She had enough den leaders on the membership list. Now, I cleanly fulfilled all WDL knot requirements including consistently being at roundtable, attending UofS, fully trained, advancement, transitioning, planning, .... Should I get the knot? I think so, but I am not sure if it would go through as I've yet to apply for it. As long as the person is registered with BSA, there should be flexibility in which title they are registered to earn the knot.

If an old friend that I've not seen for a year comes up and reminds me that I owe him five dollars, I'm going to greet him with a smile and give him his five dollars. If a scout returns after being gone for awhile and reminds me that he's completed his requirements, I'm going to greet him with a smile and give him his SMC/BOR. I'll probably also encourage participation and show concern for why he's been gone. Holding the scout back to fix participation is redundant as the next rank requires another six months of active / POR to advance. But this is BSA scouting and every troop and leader can pretty much do as they see best and handle the situation differently.

I had the same questions a few years ago and for the same reason. Explicitly, several of our very best den leaders did not qualify. So, I called our council (3rd largest in country) and talked with the director of training and advancement. Her comment was if they are close and they did the work, sign'em off. We discussed the specifics... - One den leader had two round tables and another leader had three but they were trained and doing a great job. She said to sign'em off. - Another den leader was registered as the assistant but pretty much had been a co-leader / leader for most of the tenure of the den. He was not just lurking in the background as a shadow of the DL. She said to sign'em off. I'm glad that was the answer. These people stepped up when no one else would. The last thing I want to do is get overly legalistic with volunteers. So my suggestions... #1 Talk with your council advancement director #2 Always register ADLs as DLs. And yes I do view adult recognition as very different than youth advancement. One is about youth setting their destiny by fulfilling specific requirements. The other is saying thank you to someone who could easily have done nothing instead. Adult recognition is not a competition. It's about being polite. (This message has been edited by fred8033)