-
Posts
8173 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Store
Everything posted by Beavah
-
Yah, hmmmm.... The broad, expansive PC definitions continue. Corporal punishment requires da deliberate inflicting of pain, eh? Pushups are not corporal punishment. Bullying is aggressive behavior that singles someone out and involves an imbalance of power? Yah, that would be like a parent ordering a lad to bed early in a loud voice? Come on, folks, let's get a wee bit of a grip, eh? B
-
Yah, hmmmm.... BNelon44, I have no idea what you're talkin' about. Leastways, it doesn't bear any relationship to the Scoutin' program that I know. Again the idea is to get them the tools so they can do the program which accomplishes the Aims. That's the purpose of the T2F requirements. No, that's not it at all. The purpose of the T21 requirements is to accomplish the Aims, not to give 'em the tools to accomplish the aims. Just like all of advancement and all of the other methods, eh? Each method helps accomplish da aims directly. By learnin' about rights and responsibilities of citizenship for First Class boys grow in their citizenship. By doin' service work for 2nd class they grow in their citizenship. By learnin' about the flag and how to care for it, and learnin' the oath and law for Tenderfoot they grow in citizenship. T21 isn't for "tools". It's for growth in character and fitness and citizenship directly. So there's no need to rush, eh? All of that development and learnin' that goes on through T21 is accomplishin' the Aims. The better job your troop does on those things, the better job they'll do accomplishin' the Aims. It is the Forming, Storming, Norming and Performing model of team development. Huh? No it isn't. Did yeh ever take training? Da model of team development doesn't have a lick to do with First Class First Year. It's about helpin' youth leaders servin' on the PLC or as leaders of their patrol, or adults who are workin' with those groups. Beavah
-
Yah, hmmm... I reckon there's probably a universal rule in Scouting circles, or should be. Anybody who uses "you may be liable" or "you may be sued" as an argument for making someone do (or not do) somethin' doesn't have any idea what they're talkin' about and should just be ignored. Relax, folks. The world is crazy and there are always outliers, but it's not that crazy. When yeh do have a standard of care, da issue of liability depends on whether yeh acted reasonably. It is reasonable to take the boy's porn away from him and tell his parents. It's not really reasonable to call the cops, eh? When yeh call the cops for trivial nonsense you are stealing resources from your fellow citizens, eh? Those officers aren't available for a real crime being committed. They have less time to follow up on an investigation of a genuine crime. I think as scouters we need to be on the side of de-criminalizing childhood. Children experiment and make mistakes. Yeh don't arrest 'em yeh work with 'em. If yeh can't do that, then yeh shouldn't be involved in youth programs. As for the SE, I'd ordinarily say the same rule applies, eh? But then again, if everybody in da nation starts calling the SE every time a boy is caught with a Playboy or gets in a friendly wrestling match with his tentmate then perhaps someone will think to change the dumb wordin' on this particular passage. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)
-
We want them to learn to camp so they can get going on the adventure we promised them. Yah, hmmm... Well that doesn't make any sense. The adventure we promised 'em was goin' out and learning how to camp. Why would we rush is or shortchange it? It's fun to go out and challenge yourself and learn and figure out new stuff. This sounds to me like "Oh, we have to get you through all this boring camping stuff in a hurry.". I remember once I was talkin' to a Council Advancement Chair, a fellow who was servin' on a national committee who told me that "I always tell boys to hurry up and get Eagle by age 14, because then they can have fun.". To my mind, that's exactly da wrong way to think. Goin' camping and learning and gettin' good at stuff is fun. Ever seen those lads who hang out at skate parks or in your neighborhood? They spend hours and hours together just tryin' to learn one trick. It's fun to learn. It's fun to practice. It's adventurous. It's not somethin' to rush through because then they can go have adventure. It is the adventure. Beavah
-
The Goal of BSA Advancement is Not Eagle
Beavah replied to bnelon44's topic in Advancement Resources
Yah, I've always maintained that yeh can tell what a person's or organization's real goals are by where they spend their time and resources, eh? Doesn't matter a lick what they claim the goals are. -
Just another way to reinforce gender differences beyond the physiological ones. Interestingly enough, I think da actual research on da subject suggests otherwise. I remember readin' a piece by the head of a boys school that explained how in single-sex environments some boys take on traditionally female roles - they read more, they take on community support and caregiving, etc. Just as in all-girls schools, girls take on more traditionally male tasks, eh? More science and math, etc. I'm fond of real diversity myself, eh? I don't mind Catholic schools and Jewish schools and Islamic academies. Most of 'em do a fine job with kids, often better than their public school counterparts. I don't mind single-gendered environments either. I don't even mind single-race environments when there's a need to be served. Remember when some cities were developing African-American boys academies to address da specific needs of that population? Just seems logical if yeh find that a population is being neglected by da regular system. That's the thing about liberals, eh? They get all dogmatic about stuff that's really empirical, and should be considered with an open mind. . If single-sex education works for scouting, why wouldn't we consider it for schools? Beavah
-
The Goal of BSA Advancement is Not Eagle
Beavah replied to bnelon44's topic in Advancement Resources
Yah, bnelon44, I agree with yeh. Though I'm not really convinced that it's possible to change another person's goals, we can at least advocate for what we think is the best approach or be clear about our goals. But here's the thing. Yeh say that Advancement is not a goal, not an end in itself. Yeh say that the real goal is the Aims of the BSA. Yeh say that Advancement must serve the Aims. And yet, whenever any of us here talk about how it's necessary to interpret and apply the Advancement Method so as to serve the aims, yeh turn it back into a Goal. Yeh make "The Requirements" the absolute - the Goal for advancement, instead of thinking about how the requirements are supposed to help achieve character and fitness and citizenship. Worse, it's usually da literal requirements, fenced in by the "Thou Shalt Not Add" bit, and interpreted in ways that have no relationship to character, or fitness, or citizenship. That's how we in the BSA are often not clear about our goals, and how we send mixed messages to parents and to boys. We care about citizenship, but we'll reward you even if you don't participate. We care about fitness, but doing one pull-up is too much to expect, as is preparing food safely. We care about character, but as long as you hold a title for 4 months in any combination you Advance, even though you never really demonstrated responsibility. When we send such mixed messages, it's no wonder that folks get confused, and many follow our lead and turn Advancement into a Goal. Beavah -
The Goal of BSA Advancement is Not Eagle
Beavah replied to bnelon44's topic in Advancement Resources
Yah, hmmm... I think what yeh mean to say is that the BSA's goal for Advancement is not Eagle. For an individual unit, their goal for the Advancement program might be Eagle(s). We might disagree with that as an approach, but it would still be the case. For a boy, his goal for Advancement might very well be Eagle. Or not. For a parent, their goal for Advancement probably is Eagle. It's da tension between different goals for different folks that keeps things interestin'. Beavah -
Pushups for behavior modification is a form of hazing... Nah, it most definitely is not a form of hazing. It's OK to disagree with somethin'. It's OK to be opposed to somethin', to argue against it, to say you'd never do it yourself. It's not OK to be dishonest about it. We should be able to disagree about public policy without callin' it "fascism". We should be able to disagree about other things without callin' 'em "terrorism" or "abuse." To my mind, we do real harm to other folks and to communities when we turn an ordinary disagreement about approaches into extreme-line-in-the-sand life-or-death criminal accusations. So let's be a better example to our scouts and our communities, and not throw the "H" word around for ordinary exercise or singing goofy songs. Beavah
-
The same troop had added requirements about the hours spent on an Eagle service project because one of the fathers who was an Eagle Scout did not like the removal of the hours requirement. National really wants Eagle to mean the same if you get it in Troop 5 or Troop 500. It only makes sense to keep the integrity of the award. Troop 5 could say no service project is required and Troop 500 could say 500 hours is required. You're jokin', right? Do yeh really think that the award means the same thing between troops anywhere in the country? Have yeh ever gone and visited troops or served on a district or council advancement committee? Rank standardization is a chimera. It just doesn't exist. If yeh just look at your example, number of man-hours on a service project, you'll find that in every council in the country that number varies widely by troop. Whether they "require" hours really isn't so relevant as what they "expect" in terms of da overall scope of a project. In my council there are troops that average 300 hours per project and troops that average 50 hours per project. Now, if yeh really were goin' to "standardize", then in most cases yeh end up with somethin' near the lowest expectation, eh? So we'd move the average down to 50 hours. Or, as in this case, we eliminate da expectation. "Standardization" in a volunteer community leads to least-common-denominator approaches, eh? Yeh see that trend toward lowest-common-denominator in threads on Scouter.Com all the time, eh? Like the never-ending set of threads about how lads can't be expected to actually handle food safely, or even explain the basics of safe food handlin' for different items. My experience is that ends up being the opposite of "keeping the integrity of the award." And honestly, I've never heard a national staffer talk about keepin' the integrity of awards. Not once, and that's in quite a few years. They are focused on other things. Beavah
-
How many hours is a typical Eagle Project????
Beavah replied to Basementdweller's topic in Advancement Resources
Yah, hmmm... Our council would say "no" to the playground mulching, since that would be routine maintenance given what yeh describe, BD. We'd also say "no" to the boulder thing (no leadership). The ramp is an edge case that would be left to the unit to decide, eh? I'd guess that at least a third of our units would say "no" based on what yeh describe. The tougher ones are the dad-does-everything bit. Those can only really be caught at the unit level, because districts by and large don't know the lad well enough to know if he's just really nervous in front of strangers or whether he doesn't know his own project because it's really dad's project. A few units have the gumption to deal with that sort of thing, and they usually have dealt with it long before the Eagle process. Lots of units, though, are just a group of conflict-adverse parents, and while they resent dads & kids like this, they don't really have the mechanisms or the will to address it. Sometimes, they get confused and think they can't do anything because someone starts shouting "you can't add to the requirements!" and they can't find any explicit statement in the requirements that a parent can't "help" with da entire project and writeup. Beavah -
I think we agree. I just do not like to see a Scout spend 6 months in a POR with no one telling him he is not doing a good job, and then at the end of the 6 months be told that his time in POR does not count. Yah, that would be sorta goofy. But I think it's mostly a fiction. Leastways, I've been around since da days of single-celled organisms and I've never seen that happen, really. Mostly what happens is that the lad stumbles and bumbles and is talked to, the lad keeps makin' excuses and promises, and the leaders (youth and adult) are tryin' to work with him and keep givin' him extra chances and more benefit of the doubt. Then at the end of the time they realize he's really not done much beyond makin' promises and excuses. Then sometimes the parents get in a snit, and the boy gets caught between his parents and the troop leadership, and like boys do he tells his parents that the troop leadership was picking on him or he was really trying or whatnot. So the parents start makin' a fuss. What National is tryin' to avoid with its "rules" is getting so many phone calls. The point is that for Advancement Method to work best, it has to reward positive behavior and achievement, not reward the absence of negative behavior, and not punish negative behavior. So yeh get an award for workin' hard and doin' good things, that's how we reinforce character. Yeh don't get any award for not doin' much, but yeh don't get punished either. Yeh get coached, cajoled, perhaps some positive peer pressure. And if yeh do somethin' wrong, that gets addressed quietly but firmly by your youth and adult leaders. B
-
A Tale of Two Troops (spin off from Guide to Advancement)
Beavah replied to Beavah's topic in Advancement Resources
Yah, bnelon44, I agree that da review step should not be turned into the testing step. At the same time, in workin' with a lot of troops yeh find that most troops aren't yet perfect. Sometimes, troops have gotten lax, and they've recognized it and start to address it. The natural thing for 'em to do is begin by makin' SM Conferences or BORs stricter, because those folks have to project the change in vision, eh? Then, supported by that new vision yeh work at Troop Leader Training, and then as a new round of boys comes up havin' become used to higher standards, that shifts back to the boys in instruction and testing. In other words yeh have to adapt approaches a bit to where a troop is at and what the needs are at the time. But I also think that you and others are redefining "re-testing" in ways that are never imagined by Green Bar Bill and any of the BSA materials. No retesting means that a BOR shouldn't make a lad cook a meal or take a 5-mile hike with the board. It doesn't mean that the board shouldn't ask any skills-related questions, or that a board's only role is to make sure the paperwork is complete. The BSA program has always been that the BOR is to ensure that the boy has earned the rank and demonstrated the attitudes and skills in real life, eh? If a boy's skills or attitudes were discovered to be weak they were to give him guidance and send him back to work harder, learn more, and be re-tested before coming back to the board of review to be considered again for advancement. The error is to believe that a guidance statement like "The Board of Review is not a re-test" means the same thing as "The Board of Review's only role is to rubber-stamp advancement based on signatures in a book." That's not the way Scoutin' works. A Scout saying that you keep the fresh eggs in the ice chest would satisfy the requirement. LOL! Yah, that's too funny, eh? So a lad can say that all food, includin' dry pasta and oatmeal packets, must be put in a cooler and that would fulfill da requirement? Nonsense. Bein' proficient in the requirement means understandin' that cans of tuna do not need to be refrigerated, but hamburger does. That's not expert knowledge. That's basic knowledge. In the same way raw eggs in the shell don't need to be refrigerated but egg products must be. Milk requires refrigeration, but cheese does not. Again, not expert knowledge, basic knowledge that any 7-year-old can understand. At least for those of us in rural areas who still understand that milk comes from a cow, not from a carton. Boys in patrols who go farther than the parking lot need to understand this stuff to be successful. Just stick it in the refrigerator in the RV is not Scouting, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah) -
Yah, johnponz, it's a false dichotomy, eh? The choice isn't between either removing him or waiting until the end before talkin' to him. That's not the way Scoutin' works. That's why the advice which was given briefly in memos for a few years (about adults having to remove a boy from a POR) was so poor, and why it was rescinded by the new G2A, eh? Yeh have to think about how all the Methods fit together. First, yeh have to bring in youth leadership, eh? So the SPL works with and mentors the PL who needs it, and the ASPL mentors da Quartermaster who needs it. Then yeh think about Adult Association, and how the Scoutmaster or an ASM might do some guidin' and mentoring. In the end, though, it's a better lesson for both him and his patrol if the Patrol Leader is removed by his patrol members choosing a new patrol leader, eh? And it's a better lesson for both the Quartermaster who is not performing and for the SPL and ASPL if the SPL and ASPL remove the Quartermaster. I'd save removal-by-the-Scoutmaster for cases where a lad is caught bringing pot to a campout, eh? Stuff that is a serious behavioral issue that merits a firm adult response. Advancement Method is different, though. In Advancement, we reward kids for workin' hard and learning and showing Scout Spirit and being responsible. That's the way it's designed to work, eh? Positive reinforcement only. A boy can keep workin' on stuff as long as he likes, but he only "passes the test" when he reaches the positive goal - when he actually shows Scout Spirit, serves actively, and is responsible. So just because he held a position for 2 months as PL and was removed by his patrol, and then 2 months as QM and was removed by the SPL, does not mean that he has met the requirement for Star Scout. Nor does it mean that a lad has to be removed, eh? Yeh might have a Quartermaster who doesn't do anything for a couple of months, and then the SPL and ASPL have a serious sit-down with him and he starts to get it together. It takes another couple of months of the ASPL workin' on him with da help of the Scoutmaster before he finally starts showin' real promise. Has he met the requirement? Of course not. Da requirement is serve actively in a position of responsibility for four months, eh? He hasn't done that yet. But he's learnin' and growin' so just like the Tenderfoot and the fitness requirement, he can keep workin' until he gets it. The boy learns more from being allowed to keep workin' at it, and the SPL and ASPL learn more from havin' to keep workin' with him. Beavah
-
How many hours is a typical Eagle Project????
Beavah replied to Basementdweller's topic in Advancement Resources
Yah, in our council da average (mean) is probably pretty close to bnelon44's estimate. Of course, that average is highly skewed, with most projects fallin' below 130 man-hours, and a few fallin' substantially above. I'd guess the mode is between 80 and 90 man-hours. There are very stark differences between troops, though, as bnelon44 points out. Most troops have projects of similar scope in the boys in their troop, but the differences between troops are very wide. Advancement Mill type troops average around 50-60 hours. Troop 1 type troops (from da other thread) average around 100 hours. Troop 2 type troops (from da other thread) average around 250 hours. There is generally a negative correlation between number of MBs a boy earns and the number of man-hours of the project, which reflects this trend between troops with different approaches. And of course there's generally a negative correlation between da age of the Eagle Scout and the number of man-hours as well. At least those are my off-da-cuff WAGs . Haven't served on Advancement Committee in a few years. Be interested if anybody has more solid figures from their own council. Beavah -
It is a disservice to the Scouts to allow someone to spend 6 months in a POR doing nothing, and at the end disqualify the Scout from advancement. Yah, hmmmm.... Continuin' the questions... Johnponz, is it a disservice to the Scouts to allow a boy to spend six months shy of Tenderfoot doing nothing to work on fitness, and at the end disqualify the scout from advancement because he hasn't worked on fitness as required? Is it OK for a Scoutmaster to remove a boy elected by his peers to Patrol Leader just because the adult does not like the boy? Or should it be the boys who remove him? B
-
A Tale of Two Troops (spin off from Guide to Advancement)
Beavah replied to Beavah's topic in Advancement Resources
Yah, fred8033, let me take a stab at some of your long message... 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. Yeh are correct. That's not the BSA requirement. The requirement is the test. That's Step 2 of Advancement. What Green Bar Bill and the BSA materials I quoted from were describing is Step 1 of Advancement: A Scout Learns. Learning requires a lot of practice. Yeh don't learn how to cook by doin' it once. Yeh learn how to cook by doin' it a bunch. A Scout has to learn first. A Scout has to learn before he is tested. That is the BSA program. That has always been the BSA program. That is what the Rules & Regulations and every BSA training tries to explain. Anything else is unfair to the Scout, eh? Because either he's put in a situation where he doesn't feel confident and can't pass the test, or he's put in a situation where someone gives him an award when he doesn't have the skill. That's "going rogue". That's substitutin' your own one-and-done program for the BSA's program and tryin' to justify it by strainin' definitions. 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. Most adults don't even know the answer. I had to look this one up too... Personally, I want eggs to be refrigerated. Essentially, the answer is different than what we should teach as safe food handling. Yah, hmmm.... So first, if an adult doesn't know the answer to somethin', then I reckon he or she should look it up, eh? Isn't that part of what we'd expect any Scouter to do? This is just an example of where "the literature" does not contain da information the scout needs to fulfill the explicit requirement that he know how to handle and store eggs properly. Second, I'm certain I'm not understandin' the second part of what yeh wrote, because it sounds like you're saying that we should lie to Scouts, because lying to Scouts is good for them. Boys should know when eggs are safe and when they are not. We should tell them that honestly. You should not substitute your own personal preference for teaching them properly. If yeh go to Europe, no eggs in stores are refrigerated, and their food safety record on eggs is better than the U.S. Would yeh have scouts travelin' to Kanderstaag or WSJ not know how to handle food properly? More importantly, by not lying to kids they get to learn the "Why?" of somethin', not just the "How?". Knowin' why somethin' is done helps them develop understanding and good judgment far more effectively than memorizing one adult's personal preference. Beavah "The Verbose Justifier" (This message has been edited by Beavah) -
A Tale of Two Troops (spin off from Guide to Advancement)
Beavah replied to Beavah's topic in Advancement Resources
the GTA is trying to stop arbitrary roadblocks in front of the Scout (knowing how long an egg stays fresh in the field, for example.) Yah, hmmm.... BNelon44, the requirement is "Explain the procedures to follow in the safe handling and storage of fresh meats, dairy products, eggs, vegetables, and other perishable food products". So I guess you'll have to explain to all of da rest of us how the G2A considers knowing about safe handling and storage of eggs is an "arbitrary roadblock in front of the Scout" when the requirement explicitly demands that he know about eggs. How much more strained can yeh make these definitions, do yeh think? Just curious! Old Bill Hillcourt's description of a Test on preparing a meal that I provided above is perfectly consistent with da modern BSA notion, eh? The test is done in the field by having a Scout actually prepare a meal, start to finish. So a "re-test" would be for a Board of Review to ask a scout to actually prepare a meal, start to finish. Yeh have to strain the definition of "re-test" to the breaking point to believe that asking about meal planning is the same thing as having a boy prepare a meal. But a BOR member might ask "When you prepared your chicken salad sandwiches for lunch, how did you store the chicken salad?" A "How" question, right out of the Handbook. If the boy says, "I used real mayonnaise for the chicken salad, and prepared it Thursday night, put it in a Tupperware container and kept it in my tent until Saturday at lunchtime (in 90 degree heat)" then the BOR can safely establish that the lad doesn't understand food safety, eh? He should be congratulated on his progress so far, then told that he needs to do more work on food safety before earnin' the rank. That is the BSA program now, and that has always been the BSA program. There are only a few folks recently who want to "go rogue" and "do their own thing" by giving out badges for signatures rather than for knowledge, on the grounds that anything else is putting obstacles in a boy's path. Beavah -
This thread assumes the conclusion that BSA is inconsistent or going down the wrong path. Nah, not at all. What we are arguin' is that some folks' interpretations of the BSA materials make the materials inconsistent or take 'em down the wrong path. There's a difference. Venividi is claimin' that those who interpret the BSA materials in the "most literal sense", even though that sense is "not consistent with BSA's own rules and regulations, nor with specific sections of the Guide to Advancement that provide instructions to leaders on the advancement method" are breaking trust with the rest of us, eh? It's being disloyal to Scouting, both in the BSA and as a Movement. We aren't arguing with da BSA, fred8033. We're arguin' with your unusual interpretation of da BSA which rejects unit leader judgment and makes the Scouting program inconsistent, right now in 2012. Beavah
-
A Tale of Two Troops (spin off from Guide to Advancement)
Beavah replied to Beavah's topic in Advancement Resources
Yah, fred8033, yeh have to read things in context, eh? Though I agree that's hard in internet forums. I was respondin' to bnelon44's claims about Bill Hillcourt and the BSA's long-term view of advancement, eh? So I was quotin' from Hillcourt's 1947 Handbook for Scoutmasters, which states clearly that a BOR can send a boy with weak understanding back for more learning and re-testing (among other things). The point for both bnelon44 and myself is that to understand the modern BSA program and materials, it is helpful to have an understanding of the long-term BSA understandin' and practice. Much as to understand modern Constitutional Law it is helpful to have an understandin' of long-term historical interpretation and precedent. Da struggle both you and bnelon44 have is that the "Constitution" (the Rules and Regulations) has not changed, eh? It's the same as it was historically. So in order to make the claim that your somewhat peculiar interpretation of the "modern" program is the correct one, yeh have quite a hurdle to get over. That's why yeh have to try to redefine plain-language terms like "mastery" and "proficient". Now me, I'm not particularly wedded to BSA historical documents, though I find 'em interesting. My objection to the one-and-done nonsense is that it is the epitome of poor education and encourages poor citizenship. Right now, in the modern world. So to my mind and in my actual experience workin' with many troops, it doesn't do as good a job of meeting the BSA's mission. It may well meet a particular Chartered Organization's goals, and I support units that take the approach yeh describe, so it is in fact a modern Scouting approach. It's just wrong to believe that it is the vision that the BSA intends or the the Scouting Movement desires. As I mentioned in a recent post, I believe both of yeh fall into the group that "want to live up to what they perceive as their obligations to legalistic interpretations of children's program materials, so as not to place "obstacles" in the way of giving Scouts a credential. For them, the issue is that all kids program materials should be narrowly construed in a manner that limits the scope of the Advancement Method".That has never been Scouting, and is not Scouting now if yeh read the program materials in anything other than a strained way that relies on redefining words. It is a re-definition or re-interpretation of Scouting that tries to bring in aspects of modern American culture and helicopter/snowplow parenting that I frankly abhor. I know I won't convince yeh, but I think da discussion is worthwhile because I may perhaps help other people to a better understanding of Scouting. That better understanding I think is epitomized by da issue of food safety, eh? On the one hand, yeh have bnelon44 sayin' that it's adding to the requirements to expect boys to be able to store and handle food so as not to make their patrol ill. That relies on redefining proficiency and mastery, abandoning our educational mission and emphasis on real-world skills, precise reading of da requirement "to explain" so as to exclude other options, and emphasizing the "no adding to the requirements" half-sentence above all other BSA advancement guidance and the Rules & Regulations we agreed to uphold, and abandoning the shared understanding and interpretation that BSA Scouting has had for a century. On the other hand, yeh have folks like me who say that boys should be able to store and handle food safely because it's one of the things we're tryin' to teach, because that has always been the expectation and BSA interpretation, because it doesn't involve redefining words, because it is in keeping with our mission to build citizenship, and because that interpretation lines up with Patrol Method, Youth Leadership, Personal Growth, and Values Methods therefore using Advancement to support da other methods. Now let me take a bit to digest your more longwinded piece before I respond in detail... Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah) -
What I see is constant tension between applying BSA rules literally and using them as a guide that may need some judgement in applying them. Yah, this seems to be the case, eh? I confess I find more of the former online than I seem to know in real life. In real life they tend to be district folks who weren't all that successful as unit scouters. I'm probably more sensitive to this stuff than most, because philosophically I don't think it teaches good citizenship. First, I don't think that literal and legalistic meanings should be applied to childrens' programs or the raising of kids. Raising kids requires love and judgment, not strict adherence to someone else's text. Second, as a Christian I'm not personally a fundamentalist, but even fundamentalist Christians would properly ascribe infallibility and fundamental interpretation only to the Word of God, eh? To treat BSA documents with the same sort of fundamental reverence for text I feel is a form of idolatry. Third, I think it leads unit scouters to misunderstand their proper duty of loyalty and agency, because it requires them to view themselves as agents for the BSA, which they are not. They are agents for the Chartered Organization, and obliged to loyalty to the Chartered Organization's interpretations and goals. Lastly, in my line of work I think lookin' at things in terms of applying the BSA rules literally is just poor citizenship. It doesn't reflect how any law or regulation in the real world is properly viewed or interpreted. In fact, approaching interpretation in such a way ordinarily falls in the category of legal mischief. In a citizenship program for youth, if we are to treat BSA materials as a sort of pseudo-law, then our methods for interpreting that law should reflect what is common practice for interpreting real law. The approach that folks take on this stuff clearly does not. Yah, yah, some of that is just me, eh? I care about this stuff a lot, so it bothers me more than most perhaps. But I also think it really does damage to the program and the boys. To teach 'em judgment, we must demonstrate judgment, exactly as SeattlePioneer suggests. Beavah Beavah
-
A Tale of Two Troops (spin off from Guide to Advancement)
Beavah replied to Beavah's topic in Advancement Resources
Yah, exactly brooklynscout! And that's always been da ethic of the Scouting program. BNelon44 mentions some of da historic materials, and I think perhaps it's worth takin' a stroll through those. I didn't know Green Bar Bill as well as ScouterTerry, but he was ever the advocate of da sort of real-world stuff brooklynscout is talkin' about, and never would have supported da very recent notions of credentialism and minimalist interpretation of requirements with no substantive review. But let's take a look at that, eh? The Requirements for Second Class and First Class Scout Ranks were developed in such a way that, when properly applied in the Patrol and Troop, they will: ... Promote SCOUTCRAFT - Make the boy at home in the out-of-doors; encourage more than "just getting a badge". The requirements add up to making a boy a good Scout hiker (2nd Class), a good Scout camper (1st Class). They stress learning by doing - doing for a purpose instead of just knowing. (emphasis in the original) So to Bill's mind, and to the BSA for most of its history, there was a notion that properly applying the requirements meant that a boy was a good Scout hiker and good Scout camper. Any result that was less than that showed that the requirements were not being properly applied. They weren't to be strictly construed, they were to be construed broadly so as to correspond to everything that a good hiker and camper is able to do. What's more, the requirements embodied doing for a purpose, not just knowing. So it would never have been acceptable to Bill or to the BSA for a boy to "know" about food safety, but not to be able to actually store and prepare foods safely. Let's see how that's accomplished. First, there's PREPARATION - By taking part in plenty of outdoor Patrol and Troop experiences, the boys can't help but learn these skills. They have to know how to use an axe, build a fire and cook, to make a meal in the open. They need to know how to use a compass and a map to go on a cross-country hike... Rank advancement is therefore a natural outcome of the boys' participation in regular Scouting activities. (emphasis in the original). So no classes, no curricula. Just learning by example and experience in the woods. "Plenty" of experiences are expected before a boy is ever ready to be tested. No signoffs for the first time. No notion that the troop experiences "retain" skills either - the troop and patrol experiences teach the skills, and continue until the boy has mastered the skills, at which point retention is not an issue. QUALIFICATION - ... A Scout goes on several hikes and learns to cook a meal for himself. Some day, on a Patrol hike, he tells his Patrol Leader "Well, I think I am ready now". The Patrol Leader then watches the boy as he prepares firewood, builds a suitable fire, and cooks his food. If the boy does everything smoothly and well, the Patrol Leader says "You did fine!" and checks off the boy's advancement card.... An even more natural way is for the Patrol Leader to plan a Patrol hike that involves doing things the requirements call for, without specifically telling the boys that it is advancement he is aiming for. So we see that unlike what was advocated by some here, boys were expected to spend a lot of time learning, with "plenty" of experiences and practice meals before ever being tested. When tested, he is expected to prepare a meal smoothly and well, not simply execute individual requirements that are narrowly construed, nor have a burnt mess interpreted as acceptable because "It doesn't say it can't be burnt". Preparing a meal smoothly and well would include storing and preparing food safely. Each boy is called in singly before the Board of Review and asked enough questions to assure the members that he deserves the rank he seeks.... The main purpose of the review is to make sure that the examination was up to standards. It is a check-up to see that what should have been done was actually done... Answers to "Where? When? How?" and so on will soon reveal whether the Scout has learned and demonstrated his skills under real-life conditions. (emphasis in the original) So the point of the Board of Review is to have a friendly conversation with the scout, to see where he his at in his scouting progress. It should not re-test the scout, so the board should not expect the boy to prepare a meal for them. But it should determine that he actually met the full requirements by being able to prepare a meal smoothly and well under real life conditions - that he has become a good Scout hiker or camper. There was no notion that once a requirement was signed a Board was obligated to rubber-stamp the advancement. In fact: If the review has been satisfactory, the boy is told so. If not, he is asked to prepare himself better in the subjects in which he is weak, and to come back before the Board when he has been examined in them again (emphasis mine) So in traditional scouting and Green Bar Bill's vision, the Board of Review can revoke sign-offs on requirements and demand re-examination. The better way to think about that, though, is that the board in its conversation can recognize that not enough work has been done for a boy to be proficient and confident in his skills under real-life conditions, and to encourage him to go back and keep working until he really is. There is no notion of "flunking", but there is a notion of awarding only real camping skill. What is the standard? Scout advancement provides a progressive series of requirements in various skills, sets standards for meeting them, and offers awards to the Scouts who master them, in the form of special badges. In other words, the expectation is mastery of the requirements, not one-and-done. If a Board of Review were to discover a one-and-done signoff, their duty is to send the boy back for more learning and then re-examination. What da traditional Scouting materials describe is pretty close to Troop 2, eh? Not really a surprise, because Troop 2 is an older troop with more long-term adults. It's very far from what bnelon44 is advocatin'. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah) -
A Tale of Two Troops (spin off from Guide to Advancement)
Beavah replied to Beavah's topic in Advancement Resources
Yah, hmmmm.... The definition of "proficient"? I'll have to remember that line for my next dinner party. If a Scouter doesn't know what level of effort and learning is required to be Physically Strong, Mentally Awake, and Morally Straight mean; if he doesn't know what level of skill is required to Be Prepared and to Help Other People at all Times, then I'm not sure providin' a legalistic definition of proficiency is goin' to help the fellow, eh? He (or she) has to go back and learn about honor and duty and the rest of the Oath and Law. I think an honorable man knows what "proficient" means. So for that matter does an honorable scout. The quest for legalistic definitions is one that I confess I associate with those who strive to substitute legalism for honor. That ain't even the mission of the American Bar Association, eh? I'm not sure that it should ever be the mission of the Boy Scouts of America. And that's what this comes down to, eh? Some folks in the BSA want to live up to their obligations to the boys to teach 'em real skills and real values. For them, understanding that a boy should be able to prepare food for his patrol without risking making them ill is an obvious part of real skills, and workin' hard with lots more practice than doin' 3 "required" meals is both an obvious necessity for adequate learning and an obvious part of teaching real values. Other folks in the BSA want to live up to what they perceive as their obligations to legalistic interpretations of children's program materials, so as not to place "obstacles" in the way of giving Scouts a credential. For them, the issue is that all kids program materials should be narrowly construed in a manner that limits the scope of the Advancement Method so much as to isolate it from da rest of the "program". The mission of the BSA is in fact "left up to" the rest of the program without the support of Advancement. Aside from being nonsense that Bill Hillcourt would never have supported, it's not even logically or ethically consistent, eh? If the writings of the BSA are to be interpreted literally and legalistically and narrowly, then yeh have to start with da Rules and Regulations of the BSA with respect to advancement, and the Rules and Regulations repudiate the second interpretation. That's why those folks never quote the R&R, and they never quote da advancement guidance that's consistent with the R&R. The only thing they ever quote is the half-sentence about adding to the requirements and the one sentence about not retesting. They replace all of Advancement Method with those two tenets, and the added hand-wringing about "flunking" boys which is their own misguided and invented notion. That's not Scouting. It never has been. If it continues to be widely adopted, it will cripple Scoutin' in the U.S., because our public recognitions will have no value. No value for kids, no value for parents, no value for the community. Just look at Lisabob's son, eh? An Eagle Scout by any measure, his perception was that Advancement and Eagle Scout had no value. I already know employers who refuse to hire Eagle Scouts because their experience has been that unlike other employees, Eagle Scouts expect the employer to hand-hold them through every step of success. Shame on us for betrayin' the legacy of those who have gone before us by allowin' that to happen. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah) -
A Tale of Two Troops (spin off from Guide to Advancement)
Beavah replied to Beavah's topic in Advancement Resources
Yah, bnelon44, this is a point -> . And you missed it. The point that I was makin' was that up until very recently, it was not necessary to explain to anybody that the goal is to develop real skills proficiency, not simply to teach to the test or adhere literally to da requirements. Twenty five years ago nobody would have claimed that it was OK to pee on a fellow high school student because the Handbook didn't have an explicit requirement of not peeing on a fellow student. Nobody would have claimed it was OK not to be able to handle food safely because the Handbook didn't have an explicit requirement of actually handling food safely. But now we do have that sort of naive or silly sort of citizen, so we should probably change "the literature" a little bit to deal with 'em. That means adding to the training or the Handbook Chapters you mention, because those things assume a culture that valued proficiency over credentials. Now that we have members who value credentials over proficiency, we have to be more explicit. It's impossible, however, to create "literature" of the sort that some demand, where every bizarre and unproductive interpretation is ruled out. We can't even do that in professional law and regulation, eh? Those were my points. Your point is a different one. While da 5-second rule was always a joke, it is true that in other areas what constitutes skill proficiency has changed, eh? CPR has changed. Leave No Trace has developed. All sorts of stuff. What others have mentioned is also true - the BS Handbook has become far weaker on actually givin' people information on the modern skills. So for example, da BS Handbook doesn't actually contain much by way of information on proper food handlin' and storage in the field. A bit about bear bags, and a sentence about puttin' stuff in coolers. Yeh can't pass the requirement with what's available in the Handbook. Now personally I think most scouters are good folks, and good scouters go find resources and play with things until they figure out how to make it work for their kids. They need resources to support 'em, not somebody tellin' 'em what to do. But if you're concerned about novice scouters doin' the wrong thing, it seems to me that "the literature" is failing them twice. It fails them once by not bein' up front and clear about what "A Scout Learns" really means - that he works hard and practices until he becomes proficient, and that only when he's proficient in the skills is he ready to test, and that the test is meant to sample his proficiency and should reflect da expectations of proficiency. It fails 'em a second time by not providin' details about what constitutes real skill proficiency in the modern world - by not providin' resource that would help youth or adults become proficient. So we see more Troop 1's these days, eh? Good folks like brooklynscout who are doin' their best, but the BSA is not supportin' 'em against the one-and-done, teach-to-the-test, credential-not-competence culture, and the BSA is not providin' 'em with materials that actually help build skill proficiency. Brooklynscout's plan skips A Scout Learns entirely, eh? And given his urban location, 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. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah) -
A Tale of Two Troops (spin off from Guide to Advancement)
Beavah replied to Beavah's topic in Advancement Resources
It's not about da literature, bnelon44. It's about the goals. For the first three quarters of a century or more of Boy Scouting, there was no need to ever explain that we actually expected boys to have skills (like handlin' food safely). Everyone just knew it. Yeh don't need to write down what everybody knows. It's only in the last couple of decades that da culture of America has changed to perverse legalism and "teach to the test", where the norm for at least part of da population is to read kids' program literature looking for loopholes or da sort of 80-page precision language common in federal regulations. Heck, a few years back I had a colleague dealin' with a lawsuit against a school because their student handbook didn't state explicitly that they prohibited a student from droppin' his trousers and peeing on another student in the hallway. No joke. Actual case. That's what the student had done, and he claimed he didn't merit any punishment because it "wasn't in the literature." That's what we're becoming in Scouting, eh? Just as it should be blindingly obvious that peeing on other kids is not OK it should be blindingly obvious that a First Class Scout should be able to handle da storage and preparation of proteins without making his entire patrol ill. That stuff is not in da literature because da literature assumes an understandin' the Scouting movement and its goals when it comes to things that should be so obvious. Where I fault the BSA is that they haven't stood firm enough and been clear enough in their responses to this odd cultural trend, eh? In fact, in da last decade in particularly we've seen folks who are products of that cultural trend try to advance it within the BSA. As a result, the BSA has followed the cultural trend rather than living up to its mission. Even well-meaning fellows like yourself were apparently never taught how scoutin' really works. Beavah