Beavah

which the guide book identifies as being in bold type, are mere guidelines Yah, please remember that da former practice of using boldface for "policies" in the G2SS has been deprecated. It was actually never closely adhered to. Da current version of G2SS uses boldface only for emphasis. They did a reasonable job with da rewrite, which places much greater emphasis on directin' folks to resources rather than tryin' to pretend to be policy. That's what the book is for, as a guide and resource. Beavah

It's published by the BSA as our "guide" to those policies. That's why for my units, it's if in doubt, check G2SS. (It's updated pretty much every year, making it as curernt as you can get, Nah, Fred, it's published as a guide to safe scouting, not as a guide to scouting policies. It's meant to offer advice and guidance on safety issues in a variety of areas. Some of it is from da BSA, some of it is copied from other organizations, some even excerpts OSHA or NFPA language. Yeh don't claim that American Whitewater sets BSA policy, do yeh? Changes are made to da Guide each year, but that doesn't mean all of it is current. There's stuff in there that hasn't been changed in a decade or more and is way out of date. Yeh can't cede your responsibility to the BSA, eh? Even if yeh file a tour plan, YOU are still responsible. Even if yeh follow G2SS to the letter, YOU are still responsible. Not the BSA. It's perfectly possible to follow da G2SS to the letter and be legally negligent, especially if yeh ignored experienced guides and medical providers in the process of blindly followin' the book. Any competent attorney would roast yeh on a spit, and rightly so. And the BSA coverage is very sound, but it does have dollar limits that can be exceeded. The BSA does not own, operate, take responsibility for nor set policy for the units. It just publishes program materials. Ultimately, it's your call, your responsibility, your dollar and most importantly your kids on the line. Beavah

For example, age appropriate activities, let Cubs use power tools and lose a finger or hand and see if BSA provided insurance will cover you. That is a policy and violating the policy leaves you on your own. Yah, this is a good example, Hawkrod, because it's exactly wrong. The age-appropriate guidelines are just that : guidelines. They explicitly state that in some areas, kids younger than the stated ages may participate because they have the skills to do so. Ever seen the kids who grew up in a whitewater town? They're routinely paddlin' basic whitewater at cub scout ages. Second, insurance and G2SS are fundamentally unrelated. One does not affect the other. G2SS is an internal program document. Insurance is governed by a contract called a policy. Yeh can follow G2SS and still be legally negligent for lack of common sense, and insurance would cover. Yeh can fail to follow G2SS and be found blameless because yeh followed the common sense norms of your community or da standard practice of experienced people in that area. And yeh can fail to follow G2SS and be found negligent and BSA insurance would still cover. That's what it's there for, eh? Just like your auto insurance will still cover you if yeh don't follow the owner's manual, and even if you break the real law by running a red light. Same with BSA insurance. It still covers if yeh didn't follow da G2SS (owners manual) or even the law. Like the Wilderness MB group that burned down the forest during a fire ban. Fully covered in excess of $7M. SR540, I haven't seen da new release yet, but I believe they were talkin' about doing away with the whole bold face thing because it's so clearly ridiculous. It's a mishmash of everything from the "no driving at night" rule to permissive language (yeh "should" not carry firearms) to the YP excerpts that are better covered elsewhere. So, to recap: yeh should read the books. And then, as unit scouters, yeh are obligated and expected to ensure that each activity is supervised by a mature, conscientious adult who is experienced with da activity and workin' with kids. And yeh should listen to him or her. Da number of times I have seen CoS "trained" adults try to tell experienced climbing guides what to do, or SSD/SA "trained" adults try to tell an experienced lifeguard or boater what to do, or seen folks quote obscure G2SS passages like this one to folks who were experienced in both knives and kids.... that's what's truly negligent, people. Thinkin' that 20 minutes of online training or a half a page out of a document like G2SS means yeh know what you're doing. It's a program document in a kid's program. It ain't the Bible. Our job is to keep kids safe and help 'em grow, not memorize a book. Fact is, sheath knives used properly for da proper job are safer than folding-blade pocket knives. Beavah

So Beavah, when you're representing me because I let a Scout ride in the back of my pickup and he bounced out and cracked his skull open, you're going to argue Pirate Law? Yah, TwoCubDad, if da only thing that's keepin' yeh from sittin' a scout on your liftgate and barreling down a dirt road at 50 is the G2SS, then the problem is you, not the book. Yeh undoubtedly would find some other way to kill a kid that the G2SS hasn't thought of yet, like lawn surfing. A policy document is somethin' that is written to be a policy document, eh? All of the elements of the document have been written as policy and proposed to the national executive board as policy and voted on as policy. The Rules & Regulations are the BSA's policy document that we agreed to as members. The G2SS is a program document. Like all program documents it's designed to be helpful and useful to people offerin' program. Think of it like the "official" MB pamphlet, eh? It contains some things (da MB requirements) that are policy-like, other things which are common practice, other things which are advice. Because of da revision cycle, some things in MB pamphlets are out of date (Computers MB is particularly susceptible to this). Is da MBC bound to and limited by the MB pamphlet? Of course not. It's expected that a counselor who is experienced in that field will interpret, supplement, modify and make more rich that material based on his experience, and alter or enhance his approach based on the interests and experience of the boy he's counseling. No different with G2SS. It's a program document. It compiles stuff from a variety of sources on various aspects of safety that provide a cursory overview of those things to help units. A few are policy-like or abbreviated restatements of policy stuff, others are common practice or advice. But it's generic stuff, eh? That's all yeh can get with a nationwide document. It can't take into account local conditions or kids, and it's way too short to actually give yeh full information about any aspect of safety. That's why safety in da BSA depends on a conscientious, mature adult experienced in the field and knowledgeable about da kids and practices to supervise. And that's what we're all expected to do, eh? Just like good MB counselors, good teachers, good coaches, good docs, good lawyers. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... First, let me say that I agree with everyone else . Da Rules and Regulations of the BSA are clear, eh? All advancement is to be administered and interpreted so as to harmonize with the Aims of Scoutin'. So if the lad isn't showin' character, fitness, and citizenship in the way he performs any requirement, yeh should not sign off on that requirement. Instead, yeh should do the hard work we all volunteered for, and teach the boy character, fitness, and citizenship so that eventually he will be able to achieve what is required. So I'm just fine with yeh throwin' the flag, Basementdweller. It's what all of us promised to do. I think Calico's point is that the troop should have thrown the flag earlier, eh? Perhaps that way there wouldn't have been the same angst. Did he help with pitching the tent? No. No signoff. No need to get angry or get upset. The boy's at where he's at. The advantage of startin' there is that there's a lot of room for growth! Yeh counsel, but hold firm. Dad tryin' to pink book lawyer the requirements is somethin' that yeh just laugh at and say "no." "Sorry, George, but in the BSA, help really does mean help, eh? The point is to work hard and contribute to the team, and you know that as well as we do. Let's give your son some space and see if he's able to figure it out." I think what happens is that adults in particular try to be "nice guys" or avoid conflict and let kids skate by. If they thought for a minute, they'd really realize just how mean that is to the boy, eh? It says "I don't think you're even capable of doin' a simple camp chore, and you'll never be" just as loud as possible. What an awful thing to do to a kid. So there's no question in anyone's mind, BD. Yeh must not sign requirements in this way in your troop. And if someone did through a moment of weakness or a lack of gumption, yeh should fix that. In the mean time, holdin' the lad on "scout spirit" is a fine temporary fix. This is also a spot, in a true youth-run outfit, where includin' a couple boys on a BOR works a special magic. Dad can pick nits with adults, but a couple of peers telling Junior that he's not pulling his weight hits home in a way that's hard for Junior to ignore, in spite of dad. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

It does contain policies - not all of them, but some of them. It is an official BSA document. Why do both of you say otherwise? Yah, I'm not sure I did say otherwise, eh? It is a BSA program document. Just like da program helps, da Patrol Leader's Handbook, merit badge pamphlets, etc. The G2SS is a program document designed to help folks think about safety, the way those others help folks think about meeting plans or how to be a good patrol leader or what knots are good to know for climbing. Yah, it does contain a few things that are excerpts of policies. So do quite a few BSA program materials. It contains some that are excerpts of NCS policies for camps but which do not apply as policies to units or unit scouters. And it contains a lot of other stuff that's just helpful (or not) basics for folks considerin' that type of outing. But it's not a policy document. It never has been. It's not written as a policy document. It's not adopted by the national executive board as official policy for the BSA, and, since G2SS is unit focused, the BSA generally can't write policy for units since it doesn't own or operate 'em (Scoutreach excepted). So, by all means read and be familiar with G2SS, just like yeh should read and be familiar with the SM Handbook and all the other documents. They're there to help yeh. But da real requirement is that as an adult leading youth in the field, you be familiar and experienced with the activity and the youth, and exercise good judgment based on that experience. My personal experience on this issue is da same as others' and the BSA's, eh? Proper tool for the job. Fixed-blade "sheath" knives are totally appropriate for campin', depending on the task, and the lads should be taught to carry and use 'em. Overly large knives of that type (like "Rambo" knives) aren't usually an appropriate tool for most campouts, so leave 'em behind. Though there are times when I've been out hikin' in some areas that a machete would have been welcome . Beavah

Yah, I just don't get why it's so hard for people to wrap their brains around a simple concept. The Guide to Safe Scouting for Unit Activities is one piece of program literature. It ain't a policy document, nor is it a "primary" resource that supersedes others. In quite a few cases, ranging from Sea Scout boating operations to aspects of Venturing to council events conducted under NCS standards to Cub Scout camping under BALOO, other documents supersede G2SS. In some sections, G2SS is relatively strong; in other cases the section is old and outdated and doesn't describe good practice. And even da bold bits (which if I recall are being eliminated) are a mix of policy, information, and recommended practice. Simply put, if yeh are relying on a book... any book... to keep the lads safe then yeh aren't doing your job. What's da first rule of all BSA safety? A qualified adult, knowledgeable and experienced in the activity, shall supervise. If yeh aren't knowledgeable about knives or anything else, then yeh have to find someone who is and defer to their judgment, eh? Not quote a book. Beavah

Scout Salute! Day is done, gone the sun, from the lakes from the hills from the sky, all is well, safely, rest, God is nigh. Fading light, Dims the sight, And a star gems the sky Gleaming bright, From afar, Drawing, near, Falls the night. Thanks and praise, For our days, Neath the sun Neath the stars Neath the sky, As we go, This, we, know, God is nigh. Two!

Nah, not a red herring at all, especially if yeh remember you're hearing only one side. The SM and other scouters want to "keep collecting cash" in the eyes of the parents. No (adult) accounting. Seems to me like the boys aren't runnin' the treasury, but they are expected to pay their way. That can be a fine lesson, and in fact it's a traditional part of the program. Plus yeh have da parents complainin' about the trips the PLC has planned (too expensive, too far, etc.). None of us workin' with troops have ever heard that one, eh? Honestly, though, I was more respondin' to your notion that the "program side" shouldn't be involved in collectin' money or making expenditures or somesuch. Yeh might not have meant to make that kind of blanket statement, but that's what it sounded like. It's the committee's role to support such things, not to take over those responsibilities from the boys or the front-line scouters who are workin' with the boys. Just as it's properly the boys' role to select fundraisers and put 'em on the program, not the committee's. Yah, yeh should listen to your customers, fer sure. But sometimes the answer needs to be "no." Your duty, or rather the committee's duty, is to the program. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, thanks for sharin', eatmorefrogs. I keep our fellow scouts and scouters in Libya and the mideast in my prayers each night. Oh God, the Lord of hill and plain, O'er which our traffic runs amain, By mountain pass or valley low, Wherever Lord our brethren go, Protect them by Thy guarding hand From every peril on the land! May they all earn their freedom, and prove worthy of it by their character and service. Beavah

Dang. Walked right into that one, didn't I? How did I miss a cinematic allusion like that one?

Yah, nolesrule, it's just too hard to say from da little bit we're gettin' from Pack212, which is comin' from just one side of da argument, eh? I agree with yeh that money matters frequently cause conflict, but in my experience it doesn't really matter what the money matter is or who is doin' the "meddling." As a commish, I'm also not sure I buy your notion that the "program" side isn't involved in financial stuff or in handling receipts or payments. Nuthin' like that in any of the program materials. Quite the opposite, eh? Patrol or troop scribes are supposed to collect dues and fees in a traditional youth-led, patrol-method approach. Not the committee! It gives boys a sense of responsibility and teaches important lessons about planning and budgeting for outings and paying for resources that they use. Heck, what's the point of Personal Management MB if not to help the lads budget and plan to pay for things (like outings) that they want to participate in? Yah, in some units the adults take those responsibilities away from the boys and the program, and there can be decent practical reasons for that. But if the SM is running a more traditional boy-led program, yeh can see where the committee's action is a major (and inappropriate) grab of control away from the boys in a way that undermines da Methods of Scouting as the scouters see 'em. Again, it doesn't matter who's "right" or "wrong" in anybody's eyes. Da point is that the means were inappropriate, regardless of the validity of the ends. Yeh can't have a committee doin' this without buy-in from the scouters. The unintended negative consequences will always overwhelm whatever good they thought they were doin'. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I reckon that's da problem, OGE. Companies in da private sector, even research companies like pharmaceuticals, all want (short term) results, eh? Look at what that got the BSA in numbers fraud. Gotta have "results" for this year's evaluation. Look at what chasing the quarterly or yearly earnings numbers got GM. Look at what demanding short-term research results is doin' to drug companies like Pfizer. The Universities at least are willin' to invest in research for it's own sake, without expectin' rapid bottom-line results. Lots of it won't pay off, will hit dead ends. But they'll keep those folks anyway because it's good to be investigating and trying new things and teachin' young people to do the same. Just try to build or maintain a modern economy without universities out there producing nothing. Yeh end up with da Arab World. Fact is, in many states the only vibrant areas of their economy right now are their university corridors, with those darn universities that don't care about results. It's da anti-intellectual gibberish like that quote that's alienated me from da neo-con Republicans. We used to be a party that made investments; now we're the party of junk bondsmen, raiding any resource we can for short term gain and thinkin' ourselves wise. Beavah

Yah, that's where the CC went wrong, eh? He doesn't have the authority to do that on his own, and the committee as a whole shouldn't. They should work together like adults to build a consensus or at least an agreement to try somethin' new for six months or so. It might just be that da SM doesn't want to deal with floating a big amount on his credit card when right now he can just pay the cash, or he doesn't want to deal with all the paperwork accounting of who was there, who wasn't , who signed up but didn't show, who has enough in his scout account, who doesn't, who paid cash even though they had money in the account,, who didn't . The committee voted to add a huge additional burden of work to the SM because da parents don't want the work. What did they add for resources? The subtext also seems to be that the committee doesn't like the PLC's event planning, and wants more parent direction/input/veto. Like I said, when a committee does something TO their scouters rather than WITH their scouters, they always damage da goodwill and effectiveness of the program. Yeh either end up losing a SM, or losing a CC, or degeneratin' into adult squabbles and losing a troop. And committees that don't trust their PLC boys don't do the program any favors either. So right or wrong, they tried to dictate when they should have collaborated, and now the COR is doin' his job of refereeing the adult behavior to preserve the program by replacing the CC. The committee pushed things to a final decision by authority, and they got one. The CO owns and runs the program, not the parents. That's the way it should be, eh? Now a wise COR or UC will also sit down on da side with the SM and try to help him address some of the underlying tension in a more productive, collaborative way, eh? I think they need to address the concern, even if it's just to make clear what the expectations and philosophy are. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Ohm my goodness!

But the answer to that, Beavah, is not to strip public workers of their bargaining rights. I never claimed that it was. I thought my position on that was made pretty clear in all these multiple threads, eh? For da record, again, I consider the action against bargaining rights (and the way it was done in the end) to be contrary to the Oath and Law. You must be thinkin' of one of them other Beavers, eh? There are a lot of us! Yep, as packsaddle says, as honorable people we put up our houses and our livelihoods as collateral to pay our "government" obligation to these workers when our representatives spent da money on other things to make us happy. At da same time, one can fault the public sector unions for even negotiating for that level of benefit, eh? Not good citizenship to try to gouge your neighbor when yeh know your neighbor can't afford it. And perhaps they had some responsibility, too, to ensure that the pension benefits they bargained for were properly funded. But da real issue is systemic. Few citizens have the time or ability to track likely pension fund liquidity, and even those that do have a dickens of a time gettin' the necessary information. If the union didn't do it, it's hard to imagine average Joe voter exercising that level of oversight. The few alert and responsible voters don't have da voice or the votes to scare off all da vultures. That's why liberal government programs fail, eh? Any time yeh put that much money in a pot yeh attract bad actors. The People just don't have the time or wherewithal to monitor it, and the elected representatives have no incentive to be responsible (if they even have the knowledge to understand how to be responsible). Beavah

And that's why governmental liberalism fails, eh? Can yeh point to any democratic government anywhere that has ever responsibly managed a long term, large pot of money to ensure meeting its obligations? Nope. There's not a single state in da Union that has a solvent government-run pension fund. Whenever the government has a pot of money it attracts vultures da way manure attracts flies. Robbing social security to pay for guns and butter for your present voters is irresistible. Doesn't matter if you're a democrat like LBJ paying for Vietnam and expanded social programs with IOUs or you're a republican GWB paying for Iraq and expanded prescription drug coverage with IOUS. What are the incentives to be responsible? NONE. Yeh get rewarded for spending now in every way, and you're long gone when da chickens come home to roost. So it just mystifies me that people think da government will ever be responsible about such things. Heck, businesses often aren't and they at least have a stake in da stock price. Beavah

Not at all, Buff,, it's just a discussion. I have tough toes . I agree that loosely speakin' the topic seems more a committee thing than not, though it's hard to say, eh? How kids earn money and such becomes a program thing. My point is a different one, eh? At the point when the CC is trying to "force" anything on the SM and all the ASMs that none of 'em want, that's a recipe for disaster. Doesn't matter if the intentions are the best, doesn't matter who's "right". At the point when yeh start doing that you're showin' a lack of faith in and respect for the folks who are putting in the most time and energy to the program. There's only a few possible outcomes to that, eh? You're going to end up without a SM, or you're goin' to end up with a new committee chair, or you're goin' to end up without a troop. The end doesn't justify the means. And the proper means are that the committee discusses things as a group of responsible adults and works through to build consensus. The CC doesn't "force" anything on anybody. And in a dispute, the CC and the SM need to be on the same page and have each other's back. Now of course we're both just tryin' to read whole chapters into Pack212's half-sentences, so I reckon neither of us quite gets the real deal. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, rjscout, thanks for your work with the kids and your enthusiasm for da program. Much as scouting is a brotherhood, if yeh think yeh can use us for ammunition to use to argue with your wife, you're nuts. That, more than anything else, shows that this scoutin' thing has gotten a bit too big and yeh need to step back for the sake of your family. I tell all new parents to a troop that they have to leave some space for the troop to become their son's, before it becomes theirs. That is especially true for anyone who has been an active CM or webelos den leader, because it takes some time to get out of cub scout thinking mode, eh? Your son will have a better experience and you will be a better ASM in da long run if yeh take two steps back right now and let him find his place while you quietly observe, learn, and wait to find yours. What I'd suggest to yeh is that you take the year off, but encourage your wife to volunteer for the committee, so that she gets to see more of the program that affects her son, and maybe gains some appreciation for your interest in it. Perhaps take some training along the way, so that next year you'll be fully trained and can offer more to the program. Maybe take a bit of training with your wife. Yeh do scouting to build up and strengthen your family, mate. Don't ever let it do anything else, or you'll have broken the Oath and Law and won't be much of a scouter. Take it from this old furry critter, courtship is a lifelong endeavor yeh must never neglect, and yeh always, always listen to your wife on somethin' like this Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

there is a group of Scoutmasters that want to make sure they remain in control....they are not happy with the last CC forcing some changes upon he troop (such as being able to use Scout accounts instead of paying out of pocket, among other things) Yah, hmmm.... Why would a CC ever try to force something that the SM and all or most of the ASMs don't want? Sounds like bad behavior on the CC's part. Maybe a group of parents tryin' to end run the SM to change da program? In that case, the scouters did the right thing, eh? Went to the IH, got a new COR installed, and the COR is makin' necessary changes on the committee. Beavah

Yah, I'm still wonderin' if Jean Luc is an elite (Elite?) or not. OK, I hate to be thick about this. Maybe some examples will help. Elite, or not elite... that is the question. We'll start with OGE's. 1) The NPR guy, Schiller, who in a private meeting said 'Well, if I take off my NPR hat and just offer my personal opinion, I think the Tea Partiers are a bunch of racists, and we need more well-educated citizens'. Or somethin' like that. 2) Glen Beck, who in a public broadcast said 'President Obama is a racist who hates white people' or perhaps Rush Limbaugh who said on the air 'Barack Obama is president of the United States today because of stupid, ignorant people who think like you do.' Or somethin' like that. 3) The liberal-leaning NYT columnist Paul Krugman, who holds a Nobel Prize in economics and writes about economic issues. 4) The conservative-leaning Mitch McConnell, an attorney with no business or economic experience, who frequently speaks about economic issues. 5) Nancy Pelosi, talkin' about military matters and international affairs. 6) George H.W. Bush, decorated veteran and genuine international affairs expert, talkin' about military matters and international affairs. 7) Da IPCC, speaking on matters of climate change. 8) Charlie Sheen, speaking on matters of climate change (or anything). 9) Arne Duncan, speaking on matters of education. 10) Sarah Palin, speaking on matters of education. 11) The executives of Goldman Sachs and AIG, speaking on finance and banking reform. 12) Barney Frank speaking on finance and banking reform. Beavah

Yah, Pack212, your post is worded a bit funny, but I'll echo some of da others in responding to what I think are your questions. Is it proper for the COR to meet with someone who has volunteered to be CC and turn them down? Absolutely. That's what should happen, eh? Yeh don't get a post just because you volunteer. The BSA Application is just an application. It can be rejected. To my mind, a COR absolutely should meet with a candidate for CC and discuss the program and its philosophy, and if the person doesn't seem like the right fit should say no. I have always been under the impression that approval of the CC was the place of the IH, assuming they are active. The COR is always the voice and proxy of the IH. So da approval of the CC would ordinarily be done by the COR, just as for all other positions. Now, an IH may choose to get involved directly, but that's an internal CO matter for the IH and COR to work out. Most IHs are busy people and choose not to. What is the proper method of installing a new CC and does anyone have any BSA references other than the job description that says they are appointed by the CO? Da process recommended by the BSA is in the supplementary module on selecting unit leaders. The COR convenes a working nominating committee to propose candidates, they do so, then proiritize the candidates into first, second, third choices. Then they meet with the candidate(s) and make a recommendation to the COR for approval. Most frequently, the nominating committee for an existing unit is just da regular unit committee. Keep in mind that that is just the BSA's recommended procedure, eh? It is not binding on the CO at all, and many COs use different procedures, including religious calling, election by the troop committee, direct appointment, etc. Even with the recommended BSA procedure, the COR is free to reject the nominating committee's recommendation and ask them for another, or dissolve them and form a new nominating committee. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, da flip side SeattlePioneer is that new UC with a cubbing background that thinks a youth-run troop is Lord Of The Flies, and keeps telling da troop scouters that they need to stop all this PLC and patrol method stuff because that's not appropriate. And by the way, it would be better if all the boys got MBs at the same time so they felt good, because every boy did his best. . Been there, seen that, put da fellow out of his misery. The national metrics are all base on counts, eh? Assignments and visits. So I'm really curious how others handle the real issue - quality of service. UCEagle offers a really fine, hands-on model with an active DC with his fingers on da pulse. Any other thoughts? Beavah

Yah, OK SP, that's somethin' to work with. Yeh might also want to post this to da Catholic Scouting email group. I think there's a job description for COR on da National Catholic Committee on Scouting web site that yeh can use to seed a conversation with your pastor. Thing is, like Oak Tree says, it helps if yeh come with a solution as well as a problem, like some names in mind. The pastor can help with your #1 and 4, but probably isn't goin' to know who has scouting history or experience and will turn to you for that, just like he would turn to da choir director for who has experience with da organ. In most churches, contacts and opportunities don't go through the pastor, they are more or less informal through a network of core volunteers. So I'd think if yeh want to be promoted like the sports teams, yeh probably just need to find out from someone how those are promoted. Are there info nights? Fliers sent home with da school kids? Parish newsletter announcements? Yeh might ask da school or parish secretary. They always know everything. . I have to believe that if yeh just ask those folks to be included they'd welcome you, and provide free backpack mail and bulletin boards and time at da sports promo, but they don't know enough to do it for yeh. Then yeh find da person who seems most helpful, and yeh register 'em as an MC and make parish interfacing their job Beavah

So the answer is still improve the test? Expand it to include 123 X 674? Yah, but OGE, no child can be left behind, eh? If yeh improve the test, then all 3rd graders must be able to multiply 3-digit numbers or their school will be labeled as failing, their curriculum will be disrupted, their teachers will all be removed and their administration re-organized, and they may just be closed. E61 and others are right, eh? Da consequence of NCLB is that the resources get redirected to test-based remediation, because the incentive system only rewards passing the minimum requirements. Da goal is to get each and every child to pass the minimum requirements. There is no incentive (and substantial penalty) for helpin' a boy or girl who already achieves at the minimum level to improve proportionately. Lots of times yeh can tell what an organization really cares about if yeh ignore what they say but watch what they incentivize. Follow da money, watch where they actually spend their time. In da BSA (as a corporation) it's numbers metrics, not fitness, character or citizenship. In NCLB, it's get every kid to pass the test, not help each child advance in his/her understanding. Teaching to the test is da rational response to that incentive system, even though it inevitably sacrifices attention to higher achievement or depth of learning. Beavah