Beavah

And the choice could be to let the child live instead of the mother. Yah, right. Sorry, Ed. In an ectopic pregnancy, the child will not survive. The only choice is whether or not to save the mother. Packsaddle, in law we make distinctions based upon intent, and this is a good illustration. Killing someone where the intent is to protect oneself or the life of another we do not punish. Killing someone accidentally but while doing something wrong/foolish/harmful we call manslaughter and punish, but not as severely as intentional killing or (worst) premeditated killing. In the ectopic pregnancy, or in a decision to remove a cancerous uterus while a woman is pregnant, the intent is to protect the life of the mother. Causing harm to the child is an unintended consequence of a good and just act. We don't punish that under the law. It is very much like Kahuna's EMT tale. For an abortion, the intent to kill is premeditated. If we accept that the child is worth protecting as a human life, then the physician has committed murder for hire. And the woman has paid a hitman with the intent of having someone killed. In the case of the woman, there may be various psychological extenuating circumstances which may or may not apply. A young woman distraught over having conceived a child while in high school might be viewed differently under the law than a woman who has an abortion in order to keep her figure for an upcoming trip to the Bahamas. How we deal with birth control drugs that prevent implantation is a trickier question, eh? They act post-conception. The Catholic/Christian Orthodox position here is the most logically consistent. But in American society, my guess is that we again look at intent. The intent of birth control drugs is to make the woman's body unlikely to get pregnant, not to cause harm to a specific child.

Hi Hikoholic. A Scout Salute to you for stayin' involved in your troop and comin' back to help 'em on a regular basis. In addition to the other great ideas, I'd suggest you look around at what other things in your area attract a lot of sixth/seventh graders, or attract kids who have an individual sports/outdoors interest more than "organized" sports. There can be a lot of benefits to cross-marketing, eh? Think: *Poster/fliers at the local outdoor shop, local bike shops, local climbing gym, etc. *Presentation to local "kids" martial arts school (and let them present to your boys). *I honestly think at least a third of da boys in our district are band members, judgin' by ECOHs. Find a way to invite band kids to a fun event and give them the speil. YMCA swim classes are another good cross-market. *Rec. soccer leagues. *Where do all the rollerbladers/skateboarders hang out in your area? They're often great recruits. *A lot of scouts are kind of techie. What events around appeal to that sort of kid? Model rocket contests? School Science Olympiad? Chess club? Computer club? Find ways to reach these kids & share markets. *Do you live in a small town? Does the newspaper occasionally publish youth awards (honor rolls, youth service awards, etc.)? When one gets announced, send the boy a congratulations note from your troop, along with a flier with pics of the cool stuff you do and contact information. Very soft-sell, the emphasis should be on congratulations from other guys who do hard/cool/service things. You get the picture. Think about what things you and your friends were involved in when you were in scouts, and what your current scouts are interested in, and look for kids there. And don't give up. Remember that it usually takes at least three independent (and different!) "contacts" before someone nibbles and gets hooked. Good luck with it!

Yah, I'll add: Weight: *Cut off/remove unnecessary parts (ex. half of toothbrush handle). *Take only what you will need - repackage or squeeze out extra toothpaste, minimal or no soap, just enough sunscreen/bug repellent to get by, minimize excess fuel, etc. *No food with water content - dehydrate. *Plastic pop bottles instead of Nalgene. *Tent fly only instead of full tent if in no-bug area. *Clothing layers, but no "changes" of clothing other than socks, 1 pair shorts/undies. Rinse/wash on trip if needed. *Iodine, not filter. *Repackage all food. *Substitute something multi-purpose for two or more items *Sleep in your layers and bring a lighter weight sleeping bag. Bulk: * Fill up everything. Put food in pots, put items inside cup. * Use compression sacks for sleeping bag, clothing layers. * "Stuff" rather than "fold/roll", and keep things small. Marbles fill a bucket better than baseballs; small & soft items fill a pack better than large and hard ones. * Pack tent, poles & fly separately. Stuff them around things.

I certainly saw that the scouts who dropped out were below 2nd Class as the letter indicated was typical. Yah, I'm sure this is true, but it's a red herring, eh? Lookin' at the stats I posted above for our boys' troop, most of the drops were below 2nd class, but that's not the reason for the drops. It's just that most of the reasons for the drops (conflicts with sports, don't like camping, conflicts with meeting night & behavior) are discovered very early on in a boy's time in a troop, before they get through much advancement. The other reasons are randomly distributed, with some low rank and some higher rank boys. So the end result is that the majority of the drops are below 2nd class, but that has nothing to do with the causes.

Thanks, OGE and FScouter. I think it's pretty clear that OGE agrees with me and many of us, and that even FScouter does some direct retesting, though only about ideals and values, not about skills. Let's look at some questions from your lists: How do you fulfill your duty to country? To God? What does 'loyal' mean to you? How do you honor the 12th point of the Scout Law? What does it mean to a Tenderfoot Scout to "Be Prepared"? What does it mean for a Scout to be "Kind"? What does it mean to say, "A Scout is Trustworthy"? (this retested a Tenderfoot requirement at 2nd class BOR!) What is the Scout Slogan? What does it mean for a 1st Class Scout? (This retest a TF requirement at a 1st Class BOR!) What does it mean to say, "A Scout is Courteous"? How does a Scout fulfill his "Duty to Country"? What does it mean for a Star Scout to "Be Prepared" on a daily basis? What is our "Duty to God"? What does it mean to say "A Scout is Loyal"? All of these are the equivalent of #1 on my list - they directly retest Tenderfoot Requirement #7. If you were on a hike and got lost, what would you do? What is the "Buddy System" that we use in Scouting? When do we use it? If you were in charge of planning and preparing a dinner for your next campout, what would you select? All of these are like #2 on my list: they directly retest a "tell" requirement. How would you avoid poison oak (poison ivy, sumac)? What is in your personal first aid kit? What have you learned about handling woods tools (axes, saws, etc.)? One of the requirements for Tenderfoot is to participate in a program regarding drug, alcohol and tobacco abuse. Tell us about the program in which you participated. How many Troop outings have you attended in the last three months? What is your current (most recent) leadership position within the Troop? How long have you held that position? The above questions are the equivalent of my #6 or #7 - asking a boy directly how he performed a "demonstrate" requirement. Please give us an example of how you obey the Scout Law at home (school, church)? What "good turn" have you done today? Please give us an example of how you obey the Scout Law at home (school, church)? Have you ever done more than one "good turn" in a day? Ask for details. How do you help out at home, church, school? How frequently do you attend religious services? Does your whole family attend? These are the equivalent of my #8... making a boy tell how he has done a demonstrate requirement. Off to the retesting jail with both of you!

I'll try to duplicate OneHour's informative data for our last three years: 12 (34%) Aged out (all our Eagles stay around until age 18+). 7 (21%) Conflicts with sports (6)/other activities (1) 4 (11%) Not interested in camping/outdoors 2 ( 6%) Parents pulled to work on school/grades 2 ( 6%) Medical reasons 2 ( 6%) Family moves 2 ( 6%) Looking for faster advancement/advancement mill 2 ( 6%) Divorce issues 1 ( 3%) Conflicts with troop meeting night 1 ( 3%) Behavior issue

1. Is your troop boy led? I'd say "yes,", eh? But it depends what you mean. The boys determine the calendar, events, and budget. The boys do most of the plans for campouts and meetings, but with some adult oversight or "checks." Da boys do most of the up-front leadership, but not all. I'd say they do about 50% of da "behavior management." Boys and adults share instruction roles as well, but under the boys' direction usually ("Mr. Jones, can you teach XXX at the next meeting?"). Ya need the right adults for this, eh? It tends to be much more last minute/on-the-fly than normal in the adult world. 2. Do you make good use of the patrol method? Yah, I'd say "OK" use. Boys camp by patrol, separated from each other. They cook by patrol. They hike by patrol. T-2-1 instruction is by patrol. There are some things where they act more as a "whole troop" or they reconfigure by ability groups. This usually happens for a technical outing or skills instruction like canoein'. 3. How many boys are in your troop? Rechartered with 48. Will be up to about 60 after crossovers are done. 4. What has your troop meeting program been the last few months? Mostly outdoors, though plans for snowshoein' and ice fishin' took a big hit this year because of the durn southern weather someone imported to da north, eh? Some outdoor cookin'. Some orienteerin'. Some first aid. A fair number of patrol contests. Mostly, they plan meetings as fun prep/training/instruction prior to a weekend outing. Meetings are conducted in patrols, with the PL/APL leading instruction and activities most of the time. 5. Do you think our expectations are too high of the boys and we need to find the balance of boy led and adult supervised? I think you have to adjust your expectations to the skills and ability of da boys, eh? Same with the adults, eh? Ya can't expect an adult who has never backpacked to lead a backpacking trip; same with da boys. The amount of adult support we provide has to change according to the needs of the boys we have. Youth Leader Training gets adjusted a lot from year to year to meet the needs of specific groups of kids comin' through.

For example, the number of boys age 5-17 declined by 0.03% from 2002 to 2003, but the BSA's membership declined by 3.16% in the same time period, so very little of that decline is due to fewer boys available. Yah, yah. But you have to remember that while the age 5-17 numbers nationally haven't declined appreciably overall, the demographic has shifted (and continues to shift) significantly. There are fewer suburban/rural/caucasian kids. There are more low-income immigrant children. There is a baby boom echo now moving through high school, so numbers in elementary schools in a lot of places are tapering off, affecting the BSA's biggest program, Cubs. So while overall numbers of available youth are nominally steady, the available youth in the BSA's traditional demographic has been declining. And competition has been increasing. And if we're honest, we all recognize that the BSA's reported numbers have been inflated through a variety of not-particularly-honorable means for a number of years, even when not out-and-out lying. As pressure builds to deal with that, there will be "unusual shrinkage." But that has more to do with decades of abuse and neglect than with membership policies.

Yah, Ed, I know... I deliberately selected the questions because I thought someone somewhere would call each "retesting." It's curious to me that you think 1, 2, 7 & 8 are "grey area." One and two ask the boy to exactly repeat what is necessary for the signoff in the first place... the same as 3, 4, and 5. Seven and eight both ask for a verbal description of a requirement that had to be demonstrated... the same as 6. How are you defining "grey area?" My guess is that most of us have a notion of what's appropriate for a BOR that has nothing to do with "retesting" at all, but instead has some notion of "reasonableness" and "usefulness." Asking for the Oath and Law seems reasonable, having a boy cook dinner for the BOR doesn't. Asking about how he demonstrated scout spirit is closer to our core mission than flag folding, and so more useful; even though both are at the same "retesting" threshold. The point is that people's slavish devotion to the "no retest" clause doesn't meet the aims, and really isn't consistent with the rest of the BSA materials about the role of BORs. We'd do a better job training BOR members if we taught a "reasonableness" standard. I keep waiting for OGE's and FScouter's responses here to see if they are really "no retest" or whether they too have a "reasonableness" standard of some kind.

when I think about starting to backpack again, but then I think nah, if I'm giving up a weekend at least I want to eat good and sleep comfortable. Time to go find a local troop or outfitter and learn some new tricks, '69! It isn't hard to eat great and sleep better while backpackin' these days. Especially since it's got some extra seasonin' from the scenery and the healthy hike in! I agree, though, that smaller kids and out-of-shape kids and adults are an issue when considerin' backpackin' trips. Takes more work gettin' gear straight just because the troop doesn't do it that often. But I expect a troop like Dug's gets as good at it as the rest of us are car campin' and ice fishin'.

In a previous episode, Venividi wrote: Where I do think there is difference is differing opinions on what constitutes "retesting" vs "reviewing understanding". I think he Came and Saw right on the money, eh? And there's a natural tension between making sure the boy has learned and not turning a BOR into an interrogation. Let's try to make this a bit more concrete. For the first 1/3 of a board of review (before getting to his experience in the troop and encouraging further advancement), how do these questions sit with folks? Sorry, this is a bit long 'cause I got carried away. No need to reply with nine answers, it's just to seed discussion. CASE 1: DIRECTLY VERIFYING 1. Is it OK to ask a boy to repeat the Scout Oath and Law from memory (TF Req. 7)? Is it OK to ask him what Thrifty means to him? 2. Is it OK to ask to tell you what things should be done for a safe swim? 3. Is it OK to give a boy a map and compass and ask him to orient the map? 4. Is it OK to ask a boy to plan and cook a dinner for the BOR? 5. Is it OK to ask a boy to demonstrate Scout Spirit by living up to the Oath and Law during the BOR? Is your answer for any of the above questions different? If so, why? All of them directly retest a requirement. CASE 2: EXPLAINING THE STEPS TO SOMETHING THAT WAS DEMONSTRATED 6. Tenderfoot requirement 6 is to demonstrate folding an American flag. Is it OK to ask a boy to tell how he would fold an American flag (TF Req. 6), as long as you don't ask him to demonstrate folding a flag? 7. Is it OK to ask a boy to tell you how he would recognize and treat a fellow scout for hypothermia or heat stroke? (again, as long as you dont give him a victim and ask him to demonstrate it?) 8. Is it OK to ask a boy to tell you how he demonstrated scout spirit by living the Oath and Law in his everyday life? Is your answer to questions 6,7, and 8 different? If so, why? All of them ask the boy to tell you how he would/did demonstrate that skill or action.

Yah, FScouter, I think you missed Lisabob's point entirely, eh? Her point was that younger boys (age 10-12) are not as comfortable or capable of abstract thought about ideals and values and leadership. So the age-appropriate way to ask them questions at a BOR is by asking them concrete skill questions. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen an 11 year old freeze up when a strange adult asks him some long abstract thing about "aims and ideals and how they apply to his life." By contrast, if you ask him about the safe hiking rules, he's on safe ground, and you get to hear indirectly what he's thinking about obedience, and judgment, and taking care of his patrol mates.

Makeitfun, I'll add Venividi's "Thanks for contributing" as well, eh? It's good to hear fresh voices, and I'm sorry if your invitation to "rant" made my reply sound like a rant. I think He who Came and Saw is right; we're mostly in violent agreement. Would I defer a boy on a BOR because he forgot some detail about any one requirement? Of course not. I might ask him what he thinks is important to run a safe trip afloat, but I'm looking not for memorized 9 Safety Afloat points, but for an understanding of what the issues and principles are. When he becomes a Patrol Leader next year, will he know enough to help his patrol-mates be safe on the water? Frankly, I don't much care for BOR adults who ask longwinded questions in adult-speak. I think it's easier for younger boys to answer direct questions than the convoluted "questions about a requirement" that some adults pose to avoid "retesting." As a UC I was/am occasionally invited to sit on a BOR. I'll often ask the SM what the boy is really good at. If the SM says "he's great at knots" I won't hesitate to toss the boy a cord and ask him to tie two half hitches. That one simple and instant success often puts a boy at ease with the adults and makes for a great BOR.

Let the ranting from the hardliners begin. Yah, OK (I'd put a little smillie face here but I don't know how). Makeitfun, as one of those pesky citizens who is payin' for you to teach our kids history, I think you're missin' the point. We want da kids to learn history. We want them to be able to use that knowledge years later when listenin' to tomfool politicians. That's why we're wastin' our time and money sending kids to school, eh? And so through No Child Left Behind and other accountability laws, we've started to do what you refuse to - test kids on what they know and retain. And gosh, we do it without telling them in advance what exactly we're going to "retest" them on. No cramming facts, just understanding knowledge. And just like a good BOR, state testing is being used not so much to hold kids back as to hold the adults and schools we're paying accountable for our aims. In another troop in our district, a 1st Class Boy Scout saved his dad's life three months ago by recognizing the signs and symptoms of a heart attack after his dad came in from snow shoveling. Darn tootin we want and expect our boys to remember those little facts and requirements! If they don't retain the knowledge, we've wasted their time. We take boys into the woods every month. Knowin' what to do if they get lost isn't optional! Knowin' fire safety and stove safety isn't either! Lettin' learning for advancement be optional in the name of "fun" is just plain wrong. The most fun is gettin' good at somethin'. Da teachers most of our kids avoid like the plague are the easy and arbitrary frauds. The ones they talk about with respect and come back to visit are the ones who held them to high expectations, and retested and retaught until the knowledge was no longer the teacher's, but truly theirs.

Nah, I think we've got it wrong if we view not receiving a public recognition or award as a "punishment." Someone who doesn't earn an Emmy or a Nobel Prize or an Eagle is not being punished; they just haven't yet met the standards for a public recognition of that type. Punishment is a consequence for negative or hurtful behavior. It is a necessary part of scouting and raising youth, but it has nothing to do with advancement. Advancement is recognition of special skill and positive behavior. That's why a boy doesn't "fail" a MB requirement or a BOR, but the counselor or board may say, "not quite yet, but we'll help you try again." Other than that, I agree with OGE, eh? Da rest of the job is to do what it takes to improve the program. I'll add to the examples given. BOR discovers several boys clearly don't understand some first aid requirements. BOR tells committee member who is an EMT. Committee member backtracks the signoff, explains the problem to ASM who signed off. ASM says "I didn't know that, and I bet George and Bill don't know either." Committee agrees to pay for Red Cross "When Help is Delayed" first aid re-training for all adult leaders. Star BOR discovers boy who earned Astronomy MB at summer camp never really did any of the requirements. Committee immediately hooks up boy (who is really interested in Astronomy) with a local Astronomy MB counselor. Letter is sent to Camp Director, SM is told not to sign blue cards for Astronomy at camp unless he can confirm improvement. Boy is totally jazzed by his new MB experience, and does a fantastic Astronomy presentation for the troop that earns him Communications MB along the way. 2nd Class BOR has SM conference done by relatively new, young, ASM. Boy comes to BOR and does one of the "slouch and grunt" reviews. Boy gets sent back, ASM gets talked to on how to make sure boys understand the importance of respectful presentation and communication, SM sits in on a re-do of the SM conference with the ASM, boy returns the following week and nails it. Anarchist's tale is also a great one... and emphasizes how this kind of quality control, paricularly in a larger unit and with adult turnover, is an ongoing task of service to the boys. 8/10 of the work following a deferred BOR should be done on the adult side.

Yah,as a district committee member and commissioner, this annoys me, too. Sends me on a tirade even, in my best northern Wisconsin accent, eh? Service, the mission is Service. The only words out of any district person's mouth should be "Thank you" "Congratulations" and "How can we help?" I hope I'm not in your district, but on behalf of all districts everywhere: Thank you for your service to youth and the good Sea Scouting PR you've generated. Congratulations on the great job you're doing with your ship. How can we help you and Sea Scouting do even better in our area?

A Scout Learns A Scout is Tested A Scout is Reviewed A Scout is Recognized Scouting has one of the best youth education/training programs in the nation based on these simple principles. So one wonders, if we believe so strongly in this system, why we don't use it for adults. If anything, having knowledgeable adults is even more important than youth advancement. I'm with Newbie, eh? If we care about the aims for adult training, we must teach, and test individually, and review individually before we recognize. And any adult who isn't willing to make that commitment really shouldn't be a scout leader. We should at least hold ourselves to the same standards as the boys.

So what happens is, the BOR becomes a place for contending visions to pop up. Some committee members undoubtedly use this as a way to highlight their discontent with the SM's vision and to advocate their own vision instead; some SM's seem impervious to feedback from the BORs because they view it as criticism of their own vision and become defensive. Rare is the troop that seems to have a broad agreement on the vision, and how to achieve it. Dat's pretty scary there, eh? Differences in vision between parents and scout leaders can create all kinds of destructive energy. Differences in vision between the committee and the SM are worse, and really should be resolved, eh? Even if it means makin' a change in one or the other. Differences of opinion in how to achieve a vision are OK, tho, as long as everyone understands and stays within their role, and understands that the SM and PLC get to select the "how." Quality control doesn't just apply to the program. It also applies to the committee. A good CC or AC should train BOR members and sit in on BOR's... and occasionally decide not to use certain people ever again. Back when I was a CC, I remember a BOR I just dropped in on. Two members were railing on the boy over minor uniform infractions. Way out of line. I made sure we never used them again. If you use inexperienced MC's, that's also a good reason for putting a scouter or a youth member on a BOR, at least as an observer. It helps keep the adults polite, provides some on-the-job training, and includes someone who can "excuse himself" to go get help!

1. If a scout comes to you wanting to work on a MB for which there is only one (or a small handful) of MBCs, whom you know to be of poor quality... It would be our job as a unit or district to find and train a high quality counselor for the boy. 2. If a district-endorsed event comes along (like a MB Fair) and it is a situation where you don't have any idea who the MBC will be... No. If we're not sure of the quality, we wouldn't allow it. Our duty to the boys is to provide a high-quality experience. 3. Can you/Would you (two separate questions I suppose) direct a scout away from Eagle-required badges that are offered by a MB Fair in the above situation?... Absolutely. Da goal isn't "knocking out" badges. The goal is learning something well from someone who can excite/encourage/mentor the boy. Anything else is a perversion of the Advancement Method. 4. Can you/have you ever directed a scout toward a MBC from another council in lieu of your own? Sure. Again, it's our job to hook boys up with a high-quality counselor. Any method for doing that works. 5. If the DAC is ultimately responsible for procuring high-quality MBCs, what steps do you take to help or provide "quality control" feedback to the DAC? Good question. In my experience, DAC's are hit or miss, usually miss. Without troops doing quality control, it really doesn't get done most places.

Lisabob, good analysis and breakdown, eh? I'm with LongHaul here. The answer to how a unit chooses between your various cases/responses should depend on what's in the best interest of the boy and the program for all da boys. Generally, I think one of our goals is to help boys learn things, and by really learning things to develop self-confidence and leadership. I don't think givin' any boy a badge when he, and the adults, and his peers all know that he doesn't yet understand something is Trustworthy, Loyal, or Kind. I not only think it doesn't achieve our aims, I think it subverts our aims and does the boys a disservice. So my answer to your question is that when you find a boy who comes to a BOR having not really understood or learned the requirements, you help the boy. You don't pass him along by "social promotion," you make arrangements to meet with him and reteach him and help him practice so that he is able to do what he really wants to do - get good at it! I think you also then help the program by working with the SM to figure out how the boy got shortchanged and you fix it. But in order to do that, you need to ask a boy questions to determine his understanding and ability. I don't think it matters a whit whether you ask him to tie a bowline or you pussyfoot around for 3 minutes asking him who taught him a bowline and what a bowline is used for and what method he used to remember how to tie the knot. A boy who has learned it will snap off a bowline for you in 10 seconds. A boy who hasn't will struggle and be as uncomfortable with the "questions about" as with the task.

Do you utilize troop guides in your program? Depends on the patrol structure. Vertical patrols where new scouts are admitted pretty directly into a patrol do not need a troop guide. I've seen troops where PLs or APLs from various patrols served as temporary troop guides for new scout orientation type campouts & events. For troops that have horizontal patrols, or that keep the new scouts together for a year before letting them join real patrols, the Troop Guide sort of acts like "big brother" and de facto patrol leader for most things. In this role, I agree with Eagledad, you need to use an older boy - 16ish. The dynamic with TG's that are only a couple of years older than the new guys isn't that good. Who chooses them, based on what criteria, and how long do they serve? Da SPL and either the SM or ASM for new scouts typically recruit the troop guide. Both youth and adult input should be involved... you really need the right personality guy in this role. I personally think TG's need to serve as long as the NSP remains in existance. So if you run NSP for a year, the TG should hold office for a year. The relationships take time to form, and are hugely valuable to maintain, especially for the more shy kids. Do you assign TGs to specific patrols (say, to a specific NSP), or are they "floaters" who help out where and as needed? Ideally, they should stick with one patrol to build relationships. You have to watch attendance issues. Absenteeism is the biggest excuse for "floaters." I think it's best to assign 2 TG's per NSP if you can, for mutual support and coverage when one is absent. Last question (ha! well, for now anyway): how does a TG differ from a JASM? In a lot of ways, a TG is a similar personality and role to a JASM - an older boy who can be trusted to behave as a junior adult and helper to a group of boys. I think a lot of JASMs would make OK TG's and vice versa. Almost like TG is JASM for new scouts. JASMs can serve other roles - coaching youth leaders, helping with safety/logistics. All of these require the same sort of maturity as being TG, but might require different personality/talents. TG's should really enjoy helping the little guys, and often have a bit of "zany energy." JASMs doing other things might have different natural aptitudes and interests.

Yah, my understanding is that this might vary by Catholic administrative region (state? bishopric?). Summer camps and MB fairs where the approved leaders take the boys and are supervising doesn't seem to be a problem. But traditional/ideal MB counseling where the boys make an appointment and go and meet semi-privately with an adult requires the adult to go through the Catholic screening/training requirements. We are being told "no exceptions" in our district.

had the candidate begin by shaking all our hands with the Scout Handshake, then leading us in the Pledge of Allegiance, the Scout Oath, and the Scout Law, I consider that to be valid and viable example for how my units should begin unit level BORs. Yah, I agree with you, John. But there's many that would say that expecting the scout to know the Oath and Law by heart is "retesting" the Tenderfoot requirement, and condemn you to some circle of hell where as soon as you arrive at any campsite it starts to sleet. OGE, it's important to remember that bold indicates policy only in the Guide to Safe Scouting. Bold in other BSA publications like the Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures is just bold - it indicates emphasis. You will notice throughout the book that clauses, sentence fragments, and sometime single words are bolded. In your extended quote, I note that the first purpose of a BOR is "to make sure the work is learned and completed." If we look earlier in the same book to try to understand that BOR role, we are told: "A Boy Scout badge recognizes what a young man is able to do; it is not a reward for what he has done." That's emphasized in bold, even. So the first purpose of the BOR is to make sure he has learned and is able to do the things specified by the requirements. The BOR is also there to ensure that boys are expected to "measure up to a challenge or a standard" and that "the same measuring system is used for everyone... a single standard of fairness." So it sure seems to me like using a part of a BOR to figure out what a boy has really learned and making sure it meets the standards is consistent with the rules. It's certainly consistent with the aims.

Yah, John-in-KC. I generally agree with you. It's funny, though, if you look carefully in the book, the section you quote applies only to BOR's for Tenderfoot through Life. There is no such "uniform guidance" for Eagle BOR's. And of course, guys can earn Star, Life, and Eagle in a Venturing Crew, and drop da uniform entirely, eh?

Seems like this should be a separate topic from BOR pass rates, eh? Mike F in dat thread talked about how a BOR in his troop acted as quality control, discovering that a kid hadn't really served in a Position of Responsibility, and how they used that to address quality control in their unit by helping both the boy and the adult leaders. Exactly. Da advancement method only works if it means somethin'. It's too easy for adults (and kids) signing off to get lax. BOR's to determine if a boy has really met the requirements are an important part of quality control. But to do that, the BOR has to ask some requirement-based questions. Not "retest everything", but also not avoid reviewing a boy's understanding. So a good review DOES ask a boy to recite the scout oath and law, and explain what (parts of) it mean to him and how he's lived it. That may be "retesting" in some people's mind, since the Tenderfoot requirement was already signed off. But it is important for a committee to hear and see how a boy's view changes in order to evaluate the program. A good review also might ask other skill questions - how you would recognize and treat for shock, or when a person should or should not use a line rescue. Unlike the Scout Oath and Law, these aren't "retests" in that the original requirement is to "demonstrate," and the BOR isn't asking the boy to demonstrate again, just to tell what he would do. Such reviews can catch simple problems, like an ASM who is teaching a first aid procedure incorrectly. They can catch more complex problems, like a SM who is signing things off without having each boy actually learn and demonstrate. And the act of reviewing itself helps keep people from gettin' lazy. Now, should quality control or skill review consume a BOR? Of course not, it should only be part of da time. Should a BOR defer a scout because he's nervous and forgets "and to obey the Scout Law" in the Oath? Of course not. But it is important to determine that the requirements have been met... not the SM's requirements, but da BSA's. A BOR that isn't asking boys some questions about skills to determine his level of understandin' isn't doin' its job. And someone who claims that no questions can be asked to determine a boy's understandin' because that's "retesting" just doesn't understand their job. They need some retrainin' by someone who knows what he/she is talkin' about, eh?