fred8033

Justifying doing what you want ... That's what this whole discussion is about. And I must admit what scares me the most is when I read "It is ultimately the spirit of the regulations that counts, not the letter.". NO!!!! NO!!!! NO!!!! That reasoning justifies anything. The intent/spirit can guide us to interpret and clarify requirements, but scouts are answerable to the letter of the requirements. Clarify with the spirit of the requirement all you want, fine. But the scout is answerable to the written requirement. That earlier justification is used to do what you want. BSA wrote their requirements to try to get people on the same page and to protect the scouts from the great justifiers. And what's funny is that BSA has written multiple clarifying documents but people also brush those aside as having come from the misdirected, disconnected BSA advancement team. Really! I'm just amazed at all this malarkey. The excellent example is Beavah's quote that the scout "has gotten a lot of practice". Your intent is to make the scout go thru circles to get the cooking requirements done. That's not the BSA requirement. You want more. Fine. Let BSA know. Continue to write novels on it. Fine. But don't explicitly contradict the requirement because of your spiritual interpretation. The requirement is Tenderfoot = 1 as assistant. 2nd class cook one meal. first class - server as patrol cook. Don't even need to cook for that one. You can just coordinate assistants. Now if you want to apply the spirit or intent to make sure they did something as patrol cook. To check that the meals turned out okay. Fine. High standards are good. Doing an evaluation is good. Having the test as a natural part of the program is great. Focus on doing things instead of advancement is absolutely great. But implying they won't be tested until they've done it many times is just wrong. Now if you want to say advancement is a natural outcome, fine. But then there's no separate test. The tester sees the work performed and can sign off on the requirement. If the scout was the cook and he did a suitable job cooking, it's signed off. Don't need to do it many times until there's a confidence of his proficiency. ... And Beavah - Thy name is the great verbose justifier, eh. You continual provide a rhetorical song and dance to justify implementing a different advancement program and essentially going rogue to do it. Your latest post is a great example. It's using reasoning that's been replaced and is not part of the program any more. So much of it is still good and true. But key parts aren't there anymore. And you earlier march right into all this with '"the requirements" are meant to be the Test'. So so true. But then you ignore the requirement is also the criteria for passing the test. So if the scout proficiently cooks the meal, he passes! That's the requirement dude. I'd much rather use the phrase you can't add requirements than suggest people just ignore the explicit requirements to hold scouts accountable to some intangible vision that is not consistent across the units and contradicting the explicit requirements. BSA has written all the requirements, magazines, news clarifications, etc. to protect the scouts from the great justifiers like yourself who pave the advancement road with good intentions to a place I just don't want to go. ... Beavah writes about food safety handling ... "Yeh can't pass the requirement with what's available in the Handbook." Rhetorical nonsense. The answers are there throughout the very long cooking section and the key parts are on the page 326. You should just admit your doing a different program than BSA when you assert the book does not document the information necessary to complete the requirement. Would I like the book to have more useful info or a different format? Sure. But it has what scouts need to complete the requirement. On a side note, I actually just read the new Boy Scout Handbook cooking section. I had really liked the last handbook. But the new one is way better than I thought. It was my perception that was wrong. The content and guts are there. ... Beavah writes ... "I bet if yeh asked him how long a raw egg can be left out in da field without refrigeration he'd get that wrong too since "the literature" doesn't actually help him." BSA does not document it for a reason. #1 The answer is worse than what we should teach. #2 Most adults don't even know the answer. I had to look this one up too. If out of the shell, use immediately or throw. Bacteria starts growing quickly. If in the shell, you have days at room temperature. Some say seven days. some say four days. Personally, I want eggs to be refrigerated. Essentially, the answer is different than what we should teach as safe food handling. ... Beavah - If I can move anywhere toward your non-BSA position, it's this. Too many authorized signers don't test requirements such as the cooking requirements. As ""the requirements" are meant to be the test", I think too few scoutmasters view some of the requirements as too difficult to test when they should all be testable. And the test is a common sense every day reading of the words in the requirement test. Knots are clearly testable because you have to demonstrate a knot. Now if you can't demonstrate the knot or you muddle your way thru, you need to work on it. Similar for cooking. I think to sign off on the cooking requirement, you need to see the scout doing the requirement and doing it to some common sense, simple reading of the requirements words, standard. ... I also agree that the scout transferring into troop 2 would be shocked. Mainly because the troop two scouting program is not the one documented in his handbook.

IMHO, you will not see many new scouts directly from parades. BUT BUT BUT ... IMHO ... they are extremely important to visibility and perception of scouting in the communitty. People who attend parades are exactly the population you'd see putting their kids in scouts. I wish every unit would own a parade and then get as many scouts from all the local units to appear in the parade. It's like that old Fred McMurray image of scouting. I think people crave for their sons to be in something resembling the innocence of the past.

IMHO, pack program quality is fully a reflection (i.e. symptom) of the volunteers. Great volunteers can quickly create a great pack program. Same as bad or no volunteers can quickly crash a good program. That's the problem with cub scouts. So when you talk about "growing and evolving" the pack program, the only thing you can really do is grow and develop the volunteer base. From there, everything takes care of itself.

Trouble with "splitting off a competing unit" is that people forget you will see the old troop and scouters for years to come. They are in your community, scouting district, local schools, etc. Assuming you go to district camporees and monthly round tables, you'll see them there too.

BSA leaves many of these specifics to troop discretion. Generally though.... If appointed, the person who appoints you can can remove you. No real reason needed. Who appointed you? To have a right to the PL position you need to be elected by the scouts and for a specific time duration. Then to be removed, you really need to be removed for a significant reason such as not being there or bad behavior. But if your elected, present and making an effort, I can't see any troop removing you. I'm just not used to appointed patrol leaders. (This message has been edited by fred8033)

Second guessing this again. I didn't want to suggest yeh or neh. But during our last COH, we were burnt by a council staffer promoting the 2013 Jamboree. He asked for five minutes and took 20+. He was by far the longest piece of the COH by a factor of four. It delayed the proceedings. And it was not a fun presentation. People listened out of politeness, but it was not why we were there. We were not happy with him. And, I think promoting Jamboree was one of his Woodbadge tickets. We blew it by not reinforcing the time limit and not pulling him out when his time was up. Same thing happened six months earlier in the pack with a FOS presenter. Presenter asked for five minutes. Took 15+ minutes. Our fault for being lazy. It saved us effort because we didn't need to do the presentation. Woodbadge beading is the same. The beading itself is fast. But the promotion can drone on. Your event is at risk unless you know the speaker will respect your time. Or unless your willing to end his presentation when time is up. I've come to doubt inviting anyone to do any presentation. It's out of your control. Especially at a COH. Ideally, I think we'll be all our own announcements for jamboree, FOS, camps, etc.

Best has already been posted by AK-Eagle. Years ago the first time I took Wilderness first aid training I was shocked at how many people were required to evacuate an injured person. I wish I could quote the Red Cross number to carry a victim a few miles out. It was huge. Plus it's difficult. Stretchers take six people to carry. That's often wider than the hiking path and makes it dangerous both for the victim and the rescuers. Unless your a fireman, a marine or an Olympian, anything over a very short distance needs a stretcher. 500 yards (over a quarter mile) is a long distance and major work. You need a stretcher and enough capable (strength, endurance, etc) people to carry it. Unless the victim is in imminent danger, go for help. Now if it was just a bad blister, fine. Help him hobble out. Find him a strong stick to use as a crutch or support him. Fire department would be upset to perform a bad blister rescue.

I'll let someone else decide on together or separate. The only comment I'll have is that many Woodbadge ceremonies take way way too long and way way too boring. IMHO, one to three minutes of ceremony are fine for woodbadge beading. THE REST IS WOODBADGE PROMOTION. The last beading I saw took between 15 to 20 minutes... Really. And given that I've sat thru at least 10+ beadings... And that I've completed woodbadge... And that most every scouter I know gets Woodbadge.... I must confess that if I know one is one the agenda at roundtable or elsewhere, I might find a convenient reason to be out of the room. I love woodbadge, but the beadings are a killing. The only thing that can approach the agony of a long winded beading ceremony is a sixty minute long winded Eagle COH. (said with a big of sarcasm) Now if you put the two together....(This message has been edited by fred8033)

I'm really confused on this whole thing. And generally, I believe Obamacare just means many more changes will need to be legislated. -------------------- I don't mind calling it Obamacare. That's not necessarily negative. He did push for it. The abbreviation ACA is entirely forgettable. If Obamacare succeeds, it will be a crowning compliment. Heck, I've already seen posters reading "Obamacares". -------------------- More audits??? .... 26 year old children on parents helath insurance .... I'm already audited yearly to see if my spouse is eligible under another employeer and to get proof that my kids are my kids. NOW, will my health insurance company want proof that my son is not working for a company offering health insurance or eligible under another channel? Not sure if they will even have that right. But apparently they have the right to ask about my spouse. -------------------- 8% income limit .... I look forward to learning more about this. With a $50,000 income, the premiums need to be lower than $333 per month. If above that, you won't get a tax penalty. $333 is not much. If your single and healthy, you can find plans cheaper than $333. But if you have a family or special conditions, try to find a cheaper plan. Or find a plan with reasonable deductibles. So.... ---- Does the law refer to gross or AGI income? Big difference! ---- What type of insurance qualifies as insurance? Insurance with a $15k deductible can push many families into bankruptcy. ---- Is deductible factored into the insurance cost? Large deductible means I effectively a higher monthly insurance premium. ---------------------- At time of tax filing or continually thru the year? ... So I could get insurance for one month and then cancel? I'd be legit avoiding the tax penalty? ... JUST FOUND ANSWER ... Looks like you can have a small gap ... three months ... with other restrictions and allowances. ---------------------- So exactly who will be penalized if they don't change their ways? ... I'm betting most will either be waived by the 8% limit or already have health insurance. So who is really affected by the mandate? ---------------------- I work as an independent software contractor. Over the last five years, the cheapest I've paid for insurance is $1200 per month. The most is around $1800. I would have to make $180k to be subject to the 8% penalty ... unless I buy cheaper insurance that doesn't cover much or has a huge deductible. Considering that I've got family members with special conditions, I can't afford a $10k deductible in addition to the $1200 premium. SO ... Depending on what happens, a family of four earning $100k would not be penalized if they did not purchase insurance. Does it mean that a family of four earning $100k could sign up under medicaid? ---------------------- Medicaid - One thing Obamacare does do is move the goal posts for evaluating the solvency and future of Medicaid. It won't be the same system as before and I can easily see now arguing for tax increase or other to support Medicaid. But I'm not that familiar with all the intricate Medicaid funding issues. ---------------------- non-citizens - What's interesting is that this is a tax penalty? So this hits US citizens the most. I'd like to understand more about the foreign workers both legal and illegal. I'd prefer it to be a withholding that's then refunded. That way your not trying to collect something after the fact whether you can even find the person. ---------------------- tax withholdings - By 2016, the penalty is $695 per adult up to larger of 2.5% of family income or $2085. That's a huge amount. One reason our tax system works is that employeers withhold the funds. People continually get in trouble if they have to pay the tax in after-the-fact. That's one reason so many small business people get in trouble. Will the penalty be with-held or after-the-fact? ... Will we need to show employeers health insurance status so they know what withholding rate to use? ---------------------- I'm mostly happy the law was left in place. I see good in the child age increase and pre-existing condition changes. But the only thing the law guarantees is that more change is coming. This is not an end state. I don't believe the system will work smoothly and I think it's only a next step in a transition in how this country does health care.

Beavah et al. - I'm continually amazed at the contempt you show for BSA and BSA advancement. Ya stand up and want to be a BSA leader but continually show contempt for the program and those who administer the program. ... "just isn't any vision anymore" ... "just aren't all that savvy themselves" ... "Add that to some poor staff input and editing for other reasons" ... "fundamentally poor policy making and materials development" ... "It's an example of national folks bein' out of touch with da units" ... and more and more and more. The issue is not that the vision or generalities or specifics are not there. The issue is that you don't like the vision. You don't like the program, but ya want to wear the uniform, eh. Ya want to create something different but ya don't want to call it something different. And then ya depend on truisms. Obviously it's about the scouts. Obviously the program depends on good talented people. Obviously.... ... Scout Oath and Law. Trustworthy. Loyal. Helpful. Friendly. Courtieous. Kind. Obedient. Cheerful. Thirfty. Brave. Clean. Reverent. So ya know what BSA documents, communicates and promotes. When you directly do things that contradict the BSA advancement program you are not being trustworthy, loyal, helpful, kind and definitely explicitly in-your-face not obedient. No wonder you also complain when you see EBOR decisions being overridden by national. ... Going rogue? No one and no unit are perfect. IMHO, that's not what defines going rogue. It's the approach. It's how you fix things. Do you try to learn all you can about BSA advancement and materials? Do you look for creative solutions within those boundaries? Or do you do what you want? Do you justify your choices by slighting the organization you serve. Your troop two is going rogue. It knows what BSA expects and has chosen to ignore it. That's going rogue. Now if they want to exist that way, fine. But don't get offended when I point out they are going rogue. Don't get offended when I won't hold them up in such esteem. ... As for this troop one or two scenario - I lean toward troop one because they have better outcomes for kids. And it reflects what I care about. I want the scouts to get out there and start doing things as soon as possible instead of shadowing older scouts. As a result, troop one tends to be more active, more confident and independent and stronger friendships and more adventures and have better scouting experiences. That's not to say I think poorly of troop two boys. They are fine. But they don't really know how to lead and how to trust those that they lead. They learn too much about over control and how to be Dilbert managers. - Now I'm not saying I'll go into Dilbert's team and start telling them their boss is doing it all wrong. They already know the good and bad. But if they ask, I'll share what I've been taught and read. I'll share consistent with BSA. But I can't share that which I have not been taught or read or have been authorized to promote. I always cringe when I hear the wise old scouter communicating things that contradict BSA. No wonder there's such confusion. No wonder there's so many advancement details.

Beavah ... Your example does reflect different troop styles though it's strongly biased toward troop two. I'm sure most scouters can re-write this instead to bias favor toward troop one. And yes, I do strongly prefer the style of troop one. Mainly because I see patrols as a group of scouts that enjoy each others company and that want to get out and do things. But, you raise a large set of topics. - Following the rules - Patrols - New scout patrols or mixed age patrols - Mentoring - by troop guide or patrol leader - Awards - How to get them from the scout shop - FCFY - "Curriculumn" or natural result of troop program - Testing - When, where and how? - ... or ... Authorized - What does that really mean? - BOR - How do they work? Who can sit on them? What are their goals? ============================ Following the rules At least someone was polite enough in the other thread to just admit that he didn't care if he was violating some policy. His troop was going to do what they thought was best. Troop two reflects this. Youth and ASMs on BORs. Retesting at BORs. etc. This discussion has been rehashed over and over again. The only thing I can say any further is that we are BSA leaders committed to the BSA program. That program is pretty well documented with many specifics. Read page four "Mandated Procedures and Recommended Practices" for a bit more explicitity. (real word?) http://www.scouting.org/filestore/advancement_news/512-075_Feb.pdf'>http://www.scouting.org/filestore/advancement_news/512-075_Feb.pdf ============================ Patrols - New scout patrols or mixed age patrols There is no strict rule I've found for this. But I have a strong preference based on what I've seen. I strongly prefer scouts joining together, staying together, and, if THEY WANT, letting them switch patrols as they choose. This gets down to what is the primary purpose of a patrol? Is it learning? Or is it doing? Scouts are in the troop for at most seven years and they should learn their basic outdoor and leadership skills in the first year. The rest of the time is doing things. And they should be doing things with their patrol. Risks Mixed age patrols also have risk - Abuse. Scouts should tent with scouts in the same patrol. So with mixed age patrols, I could easily see needing to have 17 year old scouts share a tent with a 10 or 11 year old more often. I am just not comfortable with that period. Though it's not against any "rule", I like to have scouts within a year or two of age sharing a tent. - No buddy system. Scouts should have a buddy with them and do things with their patrols. But if the patrol is mixed age, everyone is breaking off to go out on their own. It's easy to get a scout stuck by himself. One of my favorite things to see at summer camp is when I see an entire patrol march off to go do the same activity together. That's how it's supposed to work. - Ditching. Even the scouts with a strong sense of responsibility will want to spend their time with their friends. So patrol members regularly disappear to go find their friends. Distracting to other patrols. Not being there for their own patrol. Here's a few good articles on this. - Page 20, http://digital.scouting.org/scoutingmagazine/mayjun2012/resources/index.htm - http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/PatrolLeader.aspx I'd really like to see some current BSA or other professional credible articles supporting mixed age patrols. ============================ Mentoring - by troop guide or patrol leader I guess this gets back to the primary purpose of a patrol. Learning or doing. From the scoutmaster handbook.... - Patrol leader - "He takes responsibility for the patrols activities and represents the patrol as a member of the patrol leaders council" - Troop guide - "The troop guide is both a leader and a mentor to the members of a newScout patrol" As for advancement, the explicit role is to "encourage" (from scoutmaster handbook). Nothing describes the patrol leader as coordinating or teaching other patrol member skills. Here's the explicit BSA stated patrol leader roles. - http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/PatrolLeader/s7.aspx ============================ Awards - How to get them from the scout shop Yeah. I've wanted to hand out the patches immediately. I think it's a great idea. BUT ... that won't work in my council. You can't purchase them without an advancement form. I'd love to have an advancement kit with spare awards ready to be handed out. It's a great way to run things whether you are in troop one or two. Now I've only tried it at the scout shop. I should see if I can go to ScoutStuff.org and purchase them without an advancement form. Hmmm.... ============================ FCFY - "Curriculum" or natural result of troop program You indicated troop one had a FCFY curriculum. I'd like to learn more about that. We've never viewed it as that. We've viewed it as doing enough activities, being there for the scout and encouraging the scout. It should be such that if the scout wants to advance, with the existing troop program, the scout should be able to make FCFY with a reasonable level of challenge. If you need a curriculum, open the Boy Scout Handbook. If you need learning materials, open the Boy Scout Handbook. It has about 50 pages on first aid and 30 pages on cooking including details on food safety. Read page four of this BSA advancement team commentary. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/advancement_news/512-075_Feb.pdf ============================ Testing - When, where and how? Partial or full. ... or ... Authorized - What does that really mean? This is the heart of the issue. So a scout wants to advance, you need to test him. That's part of the process and needs to happen. And you need to make the testing meaningful. I'm okay with either how troop one does it (ASM based testing) or troop two (patrol leader observing the skill). But if you "authorize" the patrol leader to sign off, you better trust him! Boy led, eh. The only other option I see it is if your troop re-defines the patrol leader check-mark as just indicating that the learning was done. THEN, reserve all testing for part of the BOR. Then, you need to walk through each and every rank requirement to test it as it's never been tested. What I don't see as okay is the troop two example. You don't really trust the authorized signer as having really tested the scout. So you do hit-and-miss testing at the BOR. You have some-done-some-not-checked at the BOR. That's just sloppy. ============================ BOR - How do they work? Who can sit on them? What are their goals? And all that testing questions lead directly to the re-hashed discussion of the BOR purposes. Who can sit on them? What is the purpose? I can re-hash it. You can re-hash it. I like to refer to how BSA documents it. - Official source, http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/33088.pdf, see section eight. - Great BSA commentary, - Great BSA FAQ, http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/AdvancementandAwards/RankAdvanceFAQ.aspx ============================ What is scouting? How is scouting supposed to work? It all comes down to you want something different. And sometimes people want something different just to be different. Troop one (as written) isn't perfect. But troop two is a troop gone rogue. Taking what they want from the BSA program and then do their own thing. And... they'll be probably the first to complain when they get overridden.

Eagledad wrote some great comments. - Change "scouting for food" from a two day drop and run event to a "knock on the door, meet and greet" event. Great for marketing and great for our scouts to learn to present themselves. - District derbies - Yeah, our district derby is held at a church. Not visible at all to the community. Not everyone has one, but it would be great to do them at "public" venus such as malls. - How about a few more shared activities? Pack leaders get burnt out and bad packs just don't have enough good events. - I must admit the "five and a half" years of Cub Scouts is getting to be long. Kindergarten thru Feb of 5th grade. Too much repeat. Gets very flat by the end of the program. It's often not that Webelos are excited for Boy Scouts. Its more than they can't wait to be done with Cub Scouts. - There's also a quality issue. Way too often scouting falls short on the promises of adventure and fun. Way too often scouting falls flat on big promises for great events. That's why baseball and sports leagues work so well. Most people know the rules and how the games are played. Expectations are managed. Everyone knows what to expect at most levels to play. Plus go to a tournament and odds are you'll get a trophy. In a way, I think this is how scouting will recover. Focus on what everyone expects. Getting outside. Camping. Hiking. Outdoor skills. Focus less on the advancement program. Focus more on what people innately understand about scouting.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Favorite parts of my 1st grizzly bear training - #1 Bears will run away from noise. Consider wearing bear bells. - #2 Watch for droppings. You're around grizzly bears if you see droppings with bear bells in them.

bnelson44: - Yeah, it's interesting. I haven't heard you suggest any changes to advancement either or represent anything that lowers quality. I believe everyone on this discussion believes in holding scouts to high expectations, learn skills, grow as a person and develop a strong moral character. What I've heard though is scouters justifying practices that don't match ALL the specifics in the BSA publications (rules and reg, GTA, advancement team publications, etc). To be blunt and probably overstating it, going rogue. Justifying breaking BSA intent by dissing the advancement program, accusing others of lower standards and creating this mythical one-and-done accusation. Essentially, it's about power. Who sets the requirements? BSA or the unit scouters. IMHO, there's another power struggle that I care more about. A struggle for power between the scouts and the leaders. Are scouts empowered to control their own advancement by performing and earning advancement as BSA documents ... or ... do unit leaders get to pick and choose who advances by creating a moving target of hoops that scouts need to jump thru and that are not documented by BSA.

Twocubdad - Agreed. We would probably not be a good match for each other's troop. And just to clarify, we have had multiple eagle scouts recently. But they've all been 17 years old and pretty much continually active since they joined in 2005. We might have another one next year too. He'll be our youngest at 16, but he's an extremely busy and driven kid. I must admit I'm okay if a scout gets all he can out of scouts when he's 14 or 15 and moves on. I've yet to see it, but all the more power to the scout. It's about growth. If he needs to move to get new experiences, fine. That's his path to choose.

Beavah - Twist as you want and wrongly attribute low expectations. It's the screams of justifying a bad position. I guess every one wants to claim to be in the good guy group. But repeated comments from this discussion quickly show who's trying to work within the system and who's trying to constantly point out problems to justify going rogue. Creative compliance - Trying to understand the rules (general and specific) and working within them to then deliver a high quality program. - Working within the program to help the scouts develop skills and confidence. Creative avoidance - Slighting the value of FCFY - Mocking the experience of the BSA team as disconnected. - Bully others by attributing silly results to them such as not teaching their scouts how properly handle meat and eggs - Pulling in ethereal quotes that just don't have squat to do with the discussion. - Using general statements to avoid complying with specific statements. - Focusing on the good times from way back in their past only to the remember that those times were being slighted too. (i.e. pre-1989 requirements reference is funny because it's the same people criticizing the 1970s scouting urbanization that according to them did such damage. It's pretty much the same requirements. Sounds more like there's no way to please this group. Same thing with youth on BORs. Added in the 1970s but the 1970s screwed up the program. huh.) .... As for your last dogma quote ... It's really good but doesn't have anything to do with our discussion. No one's talking about teaching dogma. We are talking about when scouts earn advancement. If anything, your dogma quote directly applies to what I've seen in our local school district. To participate in celebrate graduation, every graduate had to empty all pockets, shoes, etc. It was capped with the school's football coach accusing my son of having gang symbols on him. Luckily the vice principal recognized the eagle scout crest on my son's wallet. .... twocubdad - "and that I actively counsel my Scouts to slow down" Wow. We really do come different positions. I've promised myself that I'll avoid giving that advice if I can. It stifles dreams and is nothing but de-motivating. How about instead encouraging the scout and challenging them to meet their goals and live their dreams! And no, you don't need to skate by on quality or proficiency to support the scout meeting his dreams.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

twocubdad - I don't see any requirement for FCFY. It's an initiative, but I don't remember reading in GTA or any other guiding document that FCFY is any type of "requirement". Heck the term itself does not lend to a requirement statement. It's just a term around which to discuss and evaluate unit quality. ... Glad that we can agree on creative compliance versus creative avoidance. But who's in which camp? It you need to say one requirement trumps another, I'd call that avoidance because your saying to meet one requirement you need to throw out another. Your saying BSA is not publishing an internally consistent program. IMHO, compliance is looking for interpretations of all the parts such that you can work within the boundaries of all the requirements. Compliance looks at the sum of everything produced and finding a solution that complies with it all.

Beavah - Dude ... Ummm ... Thanks for the clarification on "novice". Not sure if I feel less offended by your clarifying "notice" with a document that uses the terms unconscious and incompetent. Not sure if I'd sign off for you on any requirement to be courteous. Or even knowledgeable on what I know and don't know. This is less about who is competent and more about compliance versus avoidance. But I'm willing to accept that non-compliance is defacto incompetence. Anyway, um, good try, um, thanks. .... Beavah wrote: - "But da real issue here is that the core rules and practices of the BSA are in the Rules and Regulations, eh?" No. That's like ignoring a 55mph speed limit because the general principle is to drive at a safe speed and your a professional race car driver. And since you can ignore the speed limit, you get a waiver automatically on all the other pesky little rules. Essentially, your justifying ignoring some rules because you choose mutually exclusive interpretations. Meanwhile, conveniently ignoring interpretations that work together. ... Because I'm always curious.... Charter and bylaws and rules and regulations .... Article X - Section 1 General principles - Clause 1 - ... "natural outcome" ... "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." Okay. Good stuff. Fine. Article X - Section 1 - Clause 1-b "(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, and career exploration." This is a core issue that BSA could clarify. Is it a fluffy general statement? Is it a requirement? How do you apply this to specific requirements? I can see two interpretations. --- #1 Proficient - It's the troops job to gear up individual requirements until the scout is "proficient" in the topic. Proficiency has multiple definitions. Most applicable would be "skillfulness in the command of fundamentals deriving from practice and familiarity". --- #2 Proficient - The requirement as stated is the level of proficiency BSA expects. Until resolved, I can see debating this point. But the debate is bounded by all the other BSA guidance as described in the many other BSA statements, newsletters, guides, rules, policies and procedures. As long as you work within those boundaries, you have discretion. That discretion essentially comes down to having high standards. But there is more that leans me closer to the second interpretation. Article X - Section 1 - Clause 5 - "Basis for Advancement. The Boy Scout requirements for ranks shall be the basis for the Scouts advancement. There shall be four steps in Boy Scout advancement procedure: learning, testing, reviewing, and recognition." Many of the Boy Scout requirements call out specific quantities that seem to indicate the expectation. Five activities. Ten activities. One hour. Many of the quantities are there, but not enumerated. Cook a meal means one. Cook breakfast, lunch, dinner means three. One of each. Many of the requirements don't lend to apply "proficient". "Spend at least one night on a patrol or troop camp out." - How do you proficiently spend a night? No crying or asking to call home? The statement itself is the proficiency level expected. Same with "Show improvement" and "Earn an amount..." and "visit and discuss with...". Where you have discretion and should apply high standards is with "repeat from memory" ... "identify" ... "show" ... "explain". Even then, is it proficiency or just looking for quality? If you hesitate on the scout oath and law, then go back and practice. If you miss a plan, go figure out what you missed and come back. ... I guess it comes down to opinion. IMHO, it's an unworthy cheap interpretation to justify ignoring specifics because there's a contradicting statement, especially when there's a way to avoid the contradicting interpretations. ... but as you said ... I'm just a novice.(This message has been edited by fred8033)

Everyone also agrees on high standards which then leads to recognition when it is for real accomplishment.

bnelon44 wrote: "For a number of years now, I have looked at having a unit strive to have their Scouts achieve 1st Class in 1 year as motivation to get them to have a better troop program, not crank out 1st Class Scouts. Troops with good programs tend to produce 1st Class Scouts in less than 1 year. " Exactly. No one could ever force scouts to advance. But to keep kids in scouting, troops need good troop programs. When is it good? Generally when an involved scout can reasonably achieve FCFY. If it's a big challenge for an involved scout to get FCFY, then the troop needs to step it up. And yes scouts like success and recognition. But to have success and recognition, troops need good programs.

Beavah - "I appreciate how novices in an area like scouting advancement prefer to cling to the introductory lessons and guidebooks as though they are dogma." Really? Novices? Such insults Beavah are below you. But people do tend to get grumpy and jaded with so many many many many years of experience behind them. Ya keep getting confused in what we're saying. Novices like me hold tight to the BSA GTA and other BSA guidance because of the abuses we've seen by so many grumpy old scouters who remember the prestige of rank right along with marching ten miles to school in the snow every day. We deal with curmodgeons who give prestige to rank and forget it's just a tool to help the scout grow. We talk of requirements because of misguided scouters who go rogue with their own program forgetting that working with scouts requires empathy and compassion. We talk of requirements because it keeps the focus on helping the scout succeed instead of guarding advancement for fear of an undeserving scout. Yet what confuses me is when bnelson44 and I focus on basic scouting experiences and BSA guided advancement scouting, we are accused at being "novices". I guess because they hold our approach in contempt the same as they hold BSA's program in contempt. Well, to be honest, it sort of makes me proud to be associated with BSA's program. Thank you. I'm confused most by your advocating something such as twocubdad where the scout has to learn, take responsibility, perform, then announce he wants to be recognized only to be told that he now has to do it all over again. It's a very forced advancement approach. It's hardly a "natural outgrowth of the work in the patrol". But then again bnelson44 and I have been judged novices by your wise many many decades of experience. ... Okay. Now that I've vented ... I should probably apologize. It just gets my feathers ruffled when people keep dissing BSA but want to represent it as leaders and when they knowingly proclaim disregard for that which BSA has written pretty clearly. It reminds me of a company I worked for that was trying to get ISO 9001 and SEI CMM Level 4 cert. Guides, instructions, forms, procedures ande checklists were put in place. Regular internal audits done for many years. Certification auditors were brought in each year. What I noticed is that people generally fell into two camps. - Creative compliance - This camp recognized the goals and values of ISO and SEI. They then worked creatively to achieve their own objectives while at the same time keeping true to ISO and SEI. They found ways to be efficient and effective ... OR ... they provided feed back and got the company approach to change. - Creative avoidance - I want to call this the eye rolling camp. They wanted to do their own thing and be left alone. They learned enough about ISO and SEI to find the holes where they could be audited compliant with the least impact. They defeated the basic concepts and values of ISO / SEI. The big kick is that they spent way more energy dissing and underming mandatory initiatives than looking for a way to get value out of it. It's never been about "one-and-done". It's about "creative compliance" or "creative avoidance". It's about trying to find value out of mandatory initiatives or just going rogue, dissing the program and giving lip service to that which you signed your name to follow.

dkurtenbach - Thanks. I didn't look at the 2008 ACPP. I was looking at the next one which I think was 2009 or 2010. I think was released briefly and then pulled off the shelves pending the GTA release.

Twocubdad wrote: "Yes, you absolutely need to cook for your patrol multiple time before passing the requirement. " ... "Are we adding to the First Class requirement? I DON'T CARE." Yeah. We had a similar problem with pop tart meals for a bit. We used a bit of creativity and the normal scouting processes to solve it. We just didn't feel arrogant enough to re-write BSA advancement to solve normal issues. Heck, scouts were the ones who recognized the issue. Scouts choose to have their SPL review meal plans at the troop meetings. Scouts also choose a list of items that would not be reimbursed by the troop. Our SM just coached the scouts thru how to make change happen. ... Beavah wrote: "...." I just don't agree with Beavah's interpretation of advancement or his group's "until I happy" advancement approach or how he interprets B-P writings. My confidence is boosted in that Beavah, twocubdad and others feel it is repeatedly necessary to denounce the BSA publications written specifically to guide advancement. IMHO, that says a lot. ... dkurtenbach wrote: ... I applaud your quoting key sources to guide our discussion. Could you provide the BSA source for the quote that "Educators and counselors agree that ...". It's not in the current BSA GTA or the previous BSA ACPP. The source I can find for that is a non-BSA, 3rd party guide to BORs. But admittedly, I like that BOR guide originally credited to Ray Klaus. I've updated it for use in our troop. I'm just wondering if BSA ever published your quote. Anyway ... I don't necessarily see BSA advancement or the 3rd party quote "educators and counselors agree that ..." as a rejection of the bnelson44 Baden-Powell quote from "Aids to Scoutmastership". I apply the same line that starts that GTA section. "The Boy Scout advancement program is subtle." or the often mis-used quote that appears in multiple places in the GTA. "Remember, it is more about the journey. 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." People incorrectly add requirements because of the part "it is not so much a reward for what he has done." I interpret this as you don't earn the camping merit badge automatically because you have camped. You don't complete the cooking rank requirement because you helped cook a few meals. Or my favorite, you don't earn the canoeing merit badge because you completed a canoe trip. Now if they did cover each requirement and an authorized person observed them completing the requirement. Fine. I'm all for it. A local troop here does do that. I don't know if it's good or bad as I haven't seen the internals of their troop. The key is it's not an automatic you camped so you get the camping merit badge. Intentionally or unintentionally, you had to meet the BSA requirements. By applying the requirements, it's about what the scout can do. By games, outings and repeated focus, the scout retains the skill. Most importantly, BSA does say advancement is subtle and about the journey. That's why I think the bnelson44 Baden-Powell quote directly applies. It's also why it's BSA that repeatedly ... repeatedly ... says you can't add requirements. So I believe as in the Baden-Powell quote, there does need to be some effort involved, intentional or unintentional effort. GTA it is more about the journey." I don't believe it needs to be explicit advancement focused effort such as in twocubdad's program. If I had to choose one quote that I would like to use to reflect my advancement view, it's the Baden-Powell credited quote. Advancement is like a suntan. Something you get naturally whilst having fun in the outdoors. Now if you want to not credit burnt pancakes or cold hot dogs or an unplanned meal. Fine. High expectations are good. I can see arguing that burning pancakes is not cooking. But to structure the program directly in-the-face contradicting BSA requirements.... well that's just not acting in good faith and is shameful.

twocubdad - Glad to see someone's helping keep the Eagle scout percentages down. I'm impressed with your expertise and your confidence that enables you to proclaim that you do not care if your violating BSA's rules. My only fear is that you pass that big-boss, screw-em, don't care attitude down to your scouts. Good luck. I hope you find that scoutmaster replacement your asking for. ... bnelon44 - Great quote to guide us. This time from Baden-Powell. Really impressive. I really like what BP said essentially about expertise / proficiency. IMHO, that's dead on with what I've learned about BSA's program and scout psychology. Really cool.

Beavah wrote: "What I'm saying is that the approach to Advancment which makes yeh use words like "test" and "flunk" is wrong. It's not scouting. " Now here's something where I do agree with Beavah. Now we might need the term "test" to create a concrete program structure and to communicate how the program works relative to advancement. But when it comes to working with the scout one-on-one, the term "testing" should not be there. It's working with the scout and helping him grow as a person. It's mentorship. It's not grade school. When the authorized leader (mentor) thinks the person has completed the requirement, it's signed off. Effectively a test. But not explicitly an old fashioned school test and it should never be thought of that way. ... Proficiency - Beavah suggested something like "the boy should be able to perform the skill properly and safely, without any help or prompting and as close as possible to the actual conditions when use of the skill would be called for." That's good and all, but how about the most debated merit badge, First Aid. 75% of the requirements are explain, identify or describe. How do you apply your rule of performing the skill to requirements of describe, explain, identify or describe? Should the scouts be expected to demonstrate in mock-up environments the verval requirements? Or should all requirements be changed to reflect demonstrate. Or is it their explaination needs to be good enough that you think they could translate it into action. But I do like your definition. The trouble I have though is that I don't think it reflects the BSA intention or explicit statements in most of the requirements, advancement and the specifics documented in the GTA. Until BSA changes their approach, I'd have a hard time using that proficiency definition. Especially the ... "without any help or prompting". I expect most scouts want another scout to help them pitch a tent. Most scouts I know get help buying food for camp outs and cooking dinner. Or putting food in the refrigerator until you leave for camp. I like your definition, but BSA would need to change a huge amount to make the advancement program internally consistent. And though I like the definition, I fear where some scouters would take it.