Beavah

Hiya BrooklynScout, and Happy 4th! What yeh propose is a solid plan, eh? It gets boys through the requirements. Probably not quite in a year, since yeh need a separate campout for each of those 6-8 11-year-olds, on top of the several campouts for Second Class, on top of the one for Tenderfoot. But still, a good adult plan that's close to FCFY and reflects a well-run Troop 1, eh? Now here's the thing to think about. An individual boy in that setup will get one lecture on planning and food safety, and one experience of planning a meal together with a group of 7 other boys. As we know from such group work, that generally means that one or two boys do most of da actual work, with others perhaps offering suggestions or just being quiet supporters. Then he gets to plan and cook 3 meals (one for Second Class, two cooked meals for First Class). Presumably he helps with other meals along the way, as part of a group of 8 chefs. So some of that time is just getting to stir occasionally, or chop an onion. An average 11-year-old has never planned or cooked anything, eh? Do yeh think, after planning and cooking 3 meals, that he is proficient in that skill? Can his patrol now trust him to do this task on his own, without help? I've never seen anyone go from raw beginner to proficient in 3 tries, eh? So from da Troop 2 perspective, what Troop 1 has done is subtract from the requirements, and deprived the boy of the fun and satisfaction of actually becoming competent and confident at the important skill of planning and cooking. In Boy Scouting, there are four steps to Advancement: A Scout Learns, a Scout is Tested, a Scout is Reviewed, A Scout is Recognized. What got skipped completely in the rush to First Class First Year is the "A Scout Learns" step, eh? It went straight to "A Scout is Tested" and then (presumably) signed off on the test for his very first try. That boy, if he moved to Troop 2, would be in tears, eh? Because his peers would all expect that a First Class Scout could plan, handle, and cook a weekend's worth of tasty & nutritious meals on his own. So his PL would assign him that task and he would fail. The badge does not represent what the boy is able to do, eh? It was given as a token recognition for what he had done once. I think what confuses people a lot is that "the requirements" are meant to be the Test. They're what a boy has to demonstrate at the end of learning, not a place to start from. And like any test, "the requirements" don't measure everything a boy needs to be a First Class Scout. No test can measure everything without bein' way, way, way too long. Instead it samples da most important skills, and assumes that a boy demonstratin' those has also picked up on lots of other skills. So, for example, while the test is to explain food safety, the assumption is that in the course of learnin' the boy has gotten a lot of practice and can also do food safety. It's just that that's much harder to test. So Troop 2 would just teach cooking and camping, eh? They wouldn't teach to the test. And eventually the lad would build up experience and learning until he demonstrates that he's proficient to his PL's satisfaction and to "the requirements" of the test. But he wouldn't have just da isolated bits of disconnected knowledge from the test, eh? He wouldn't just be able to explain food safety, he'd be able to do food safety properly, because he'd really learned. Even though doing food safety isn't part of the test. The rank badge would signify what the Scout is able to do, not simply be a reward for what he had done once. Beavah

Yep, moosetracker, we humans (or monkeys, in packsaddle's case ) form competing groups. We do it naturally with high school cliques, and tribes, and nations, and religions. That sort of tribalism is deeply seated in humanity, eh? What is unjust is treatin' it as though it is a product of religion. It isn't. It's a product of sinful, selfish humanity. So da question is not whether religion can be corrupted by man's natural tendency to form competing groups. Like any idea, it can be. The question is whether there's enough of God in religion so that it sometimes is able to overcome or restrain man's natural tendency toward such sinfulness. Whether it inspires some men to take to heart Jesus' admonitions to the Hebrew tribes that tribal identity is not enough for salvation, that God can make sons of Abraham from the stones. I think the historical evidence is clear that monotheistic religion and some other non-ethnically confined religion (like Buddhism) does act to overcome or restrain mankind's natural tribalism. It's an uphill fight, eh? Religion is definitely the underdog in this struggle. All of da evolutionary background, family ties and upbringing, and economic resources favor tribalism, and that's enough to corrupt many a religious fellow, eh? And yet, over da centuries, yeh have to admit that the lands covered by Christendom have become in so many ways better than those where natural tribal savagery still prevails. Beavah

Wasn't Black Bart a stagecoach robber of the Wild West? Seems like a strange fellow to possess a rack or be worried about conversion. Besides, even under da Spanish monarchy it was convert or be expelled from da country, not convert or be tortured. The torture thing came about only because da natural consequence of "convert or be expelled" was a lot of false conversions. So then it became necessary to try to ferret out who was really loyal, and who might be part of a secret sleeper cell. Not a particularly distinguished time, eh? But then again, not much different from those in the U.S. who distrust and stigmatize Arab-Americans who are naturalized citizens, and how our government infiltrates and spies on those communities because of our fear of such "cells". Yah, yah, we're nowhere near as bad, eh? But unlike da U.S., Spain was conquered and occupied by those Arabs, so yeh can understand the feelings being more strongly felt. Beavah

Yah, hmmmm.... Do yeh understand da history of Northern Ireland, moosetracker? Yeh know of course that the British had invaded Ireland multiple times well before Britain became Protestant, right? And yeh know of course that in order to secure its control, Britain forcibly transported a large Scottish (Protestant) population to Northern Ireland and gave 'em military and economic control over the native (Catholic) Irish population, right? Now do yeh really think that was religious? Seems like da normal political act of a conqueror and occupier tryin' to secure land, eh? The Chinese are doin' that right now to Tibet, and nobody can accuse China of being religious. Or perhaps yeh mean that if the Dali Lama and Tibetan Buddhism weren't around, then the populace would be more subservient and easier to conquer? Yep, I agree that when wars split along ethnic lines that include differences in religion, da language of war picks up religious overtones. I don't think that has anything to do with religion, eh? I think it just has to do with war accentuating the differences between groups. If one group lived on land where there was abundant material for red dye and the other on land with green dye components, the language of war would pick up on nefarious clothing color. That has nothing to do with dying clothes and everything to do with da nature of war. What's different about monotheistic religion is the notion of conversion and the sense that it's possible to share somethin' that transcends tribal, ethnic, or national lines. That sense of common shared value is what led to the laws of war in the West, eh? The sense that because of shared faith, even war had rules. The notion of conversion makes it similarly possible to transcend tribe/ethnicity/nationality as well, eh? It's possible for one of them to become one of us, so that puts limits on what is allowable in war. Even notions like naturalized citizenship have their origin in da Christian notion of conversion, eh? Yeh spend some time as a visitor and then as a learner, until yeh know the basics of da religion, and then yeh renounce former allegiance and swear fealty to the new faith and are baptized. Aside from dunkin' 'em in water, that sounds like the U.S. naturalization process, doesn't it? Beavah

Ah, there yeh are NJCubScouter! Knew you'd be back with da personal stuff. If you're goin' to make a claim, though, I think even the elementary schools teach students that yeh also must provide evidence and reasoning for the claim. It's not enough just to call it fiction. Let's pick just one of your theoretical examples, shall we? I don't care which, so we'll try the Crusades. Now, when we talk about the Crusades, we're really referring to dozens of separate events occurring over hundreds of years, each with different driving forces and people involved. So which of da Crusades do yeh feel was primarily religious? The Spanish reconquest is also typically referred to as a Crusade, and came with an Inquisition and forced conversions to boot, so it's a good example. Of course, da Spanish Inquisition was under the authority and control of the Spanish Crown, eh? As was the reconquest itself. So was that truly religious, if it was being prosecuted by the government? Do yeh honestly think that in the absence of religion the northern Spanish ethnic groups who were bein' squeezed by a slowly emerging France and Arab encroachment from the south would not have launched a program of reconquest against da weaker of the two? That such a political and military effort along ethnic lines would not have included some brutality? Really? Of course not. The strife that occurred in Spain in da 14th through 16th centuries occurred because people of different ethnic groups were competin' for limited resources. It would have occurred had they all been the same religion. Yah, there were religious elements there, because each ethnic group also happened to have different religions. But if religion were neither a necessary nor sufficient cause, it strikes me that blaming religion for those events is a bit overboard, eh? Yah, there were also forced conversions pushed by the Spanish Crown as well, eh? But let's think about that a moment. When ethnic cleansing is goin' on, it strikes me that conversion providing protection for people is arguably a way in which religion restrained both the state and people's ethnic tendencies. It provided a way out of more brutal ethnic cleansing, which had been the norm (and still is the norm in many places). Would that Hutus and Tutsis had a notion of conversion even a few decades ago! It would have saved a lot of lives. So when yeh actually spend some time lookin' at things in a more careful and considered fashion, it's not always so clear, eh? Have religious folks behaved sinfully and shamefully in the past, especially if measured by modern standards? Of course. But is that because religion made 'em do it, or is it because they were a bunch of packsaddle's over-evolved monkeys? I'd say the latter. So let's not blame bein' monkeys on religion, eh? Blame the scientists. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Well, I had a snappy reply all typed out and then realized this isn't the push-ups thread. Clearly I'm gettin' old and goofy. My apologies, dkurtenbach. I jumped to da last page of the thread and saw your comment, and thought we were talkin' about the sort of actions that a lad might get push-ups for. Didn't that thread have some title like this one? Ah, well, in da context of this thread my response was perfectly ludicrous. Yes, I agree completely. Though the original poster has never returned, my view is that "verbal warnings about his behavior" are silly. Boys who are learning need consequences for their behavior. The consequence is its own lesson, and it can conveniently convey a message without a whole lot of blah blah blah that boys brush off anyways. I agreed with Eagledad on page one which is why I never responded in this thread, until I got myself mixed up. Again, my apologies. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Beavah, I repeat that quote because I agree with it. It's that simple. Well, then, I'll keep repeatin' my objections because I think da quote is hurtful rubbish. Also simple. AZMike, insurance is largely regulated at the state level, eh? So is medical practice and licensing. It's not easy to waive a magic wand and open up interstate commerce on the matter without federalizing a huge body of state law and practice (with a dubious constitutional basis for doin' it). I've got no objection to da notion of goin' to non employer-based health plans. Most economists agree that would be a much more sensible system overall, albeit with some risks and traps. That's what the insurance exchanges are doin' in Obamacare in some ways. Folks can decline their employer coverage and purchase coverage on da market. So under the ACA, those Catholic hospital employees can choose to pay for coverage which covers abortion or sterilization, just as packsaddle suggests. It's just likely to cost more than the coverage being subsidized out of the generosity of their Catholic Church employer. Beavah

Comparing the game of Scouting to competitive sports? Yah, it wasn't my comparison, eh? It was yours when yeh started talkin' about scouters being "umpires" and kids "playing the game". It's not one I would have used myself, but it sort of fits. The point I'm tryin' to make is that we don't start from a position of removing a lad from activities or scouting. We start from a position that the boy is us. He's part of our patrol, our troop, our community and he has a place there. It's not a place that is compromised by minor behaviors. He is a member of the community. He can screw up, he can goof up, he can trip and fall, but he is a part of da patrol and troop regardless. Not because he "follows the rules", but because we care about him. Scoutin' is a family in that way. To my mind, yeh compromise all that scoutin' should be with da premise that "if he breaks the rules he's no longer allowed to play". That takes it away from being a community. I think it's a bit like sayin' "if he breaks the rules he's no longer a part of our family." Let his parents deal with him. To me, that's nonsense. If he breaks the rules as a scout, yeh deal with it together with him and his peers. That's what caring communities do for the folks they care about, eh? Yep, down the road for very serious things, yeh have to deal with suspensions or removals. Those are happily rare, and rarer still if yeh build a sense of community and caring and deal with da little things with humor and grace. I'd just never recommend anybody start out thinkin' about things the way yeh framed 'em. Could, of course, just be me. Beavah

Yah, dkurtenbach, that's a lot of nonsense, eh? When someone breaks the rules of the game, there's just a penalty within the game that is accepted by everyone, and assigned by the game's referees. Use your hands while playin' soccer, the other team takes possession and gets a kick. Travel while playin' hoops, the ball changes possession. Commit a foul while an opponent is shooting, the shooter gets a free throw. Commit a penalty in hockey, get put in the penalty box for a specified time. Ordinary stuff that happens for breaking the rules of the game while it is being played. Evicting a player from the game is a level of response reserved for rare, unusually egregious infractions. Some sports even have stages of "yellow card" warnings beforehand. Yah, yah, we all accept that there are some kinds of infractions that merit a "red card" and being sent home. But as scouters our job is not to send lads home, it's to teach 'em the rules of the game, eh? And that requires that there be all manners of responses to minor infractions of the rules that occur while playing. That's what we're talkin' about in this thread, I reckon. Normal within-the-game-of-scouting responses to the sort of minor infractions that players will commit in the course of being boy scouts. So I agree with Lisabob, eh? Yeh don't create 3-strikes policies for minor infractions. Yeh need penalties within the game. Maybe pushups. Save your yellow card / serious warning / "strikes" for fairly serious breaches. But like Eagledad says, in the vast majority of games you'll never need such responses if yeh have "ordinary" responses in place to handle the smaller stuff earlier on. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, packsaddle, it's da difference between lookin' from within and from without, eh? In science, there are all sorts of flavors. Physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, da social sciences and all kinds of others. If yeh talk to 'em, you'll find some harder, some softer, some don't care for da others' standards of evidence, there are different experimental practices and all the rest. Some take umbrage at being combined with other flavors. The range of opinions and beliefs is amazing. I'd still venture to say that you could make a statement about good science or bad science, or about a shallow understanding or a deeper understanding, both within biology and often enough in other fields as well, to the extent they share general principles. No different from any other area or topic, like Christianity. Theology is a human endeavor strivin' to understand, just as science is, and it can make da same distinctions. Different subgroups you'll find "harder" or "softer", some don't care for da others' standards of evidence, there are different doctrinal practices and all the rest. But it's still possible to make statements about shallow or deep understanding, good practice or poor, both within Christian denominations and often enough across denominations as well, to the extent they share general principles. Lookin' from without, it might seem wise to try to reduce things to individual personal opinion and belief, eh? Even allows yeh to find poor science or shallow science that supports your own political view or prejudice. But da reality is that science constitutes a community. So lookin' from within the community, notions about muddled or shallow thinking are quite normative. Most folks within the community can tell 'em apart. The same is true of Christian Theology. You frequently quote this favorite quote of yours from TheScout. It's exactly the same sort of thing as some non-scientists quoting favorite lines from climate change or evolution skeptics. Like them, yeh do it to try to discredit the discipline and those who practice it. Like them, yeh imply that it's not a community that shares approaches and beliefs, but rather just competin' individual beliefs all of equal value. I reckon yeh know better. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, it's just paperwork, SMT224. Don't let it get in da way of program. If the lads earned the badge, they earned the badge. B

Nah, the quote doesn't cause any discomfort at all. It does, however, elicit da rolled eyes and valley girl response. TheScout claimed to be Christian, eh? Once yeh stake your claim to a particular religious tradition or belief, I reckon being taken to task by one of your fellow adherents is fair game. Just as Luther or Jeremiah did, eh? Just as I expect you would recognize an unnuanced and shallow representation of science. In fact, I seem to recall yeh takin' an old furry fellow to task a time or two for just such a thing, eh? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Patrol Leader. All da rest are just administrative support. In small troops, da PL job is typically taken on by a lad with the SPL title, so in that case give da SPL good Patrol Leader training. In a troop with same-age / new scout patrols, da PL job is really taken on by Troop Guides, but again it's da same principle. B

Yah, packsaddle, I know yeh like that quote and all, but I reckon it's long since gotten a bit old, eh? It was a quote from a fellow who had a remarkably unnuanced and shallow understandin' of his own faith, and it really doesn't capture or speak to anything that is valid or helpful. It would be a bit like me choosin' a favorite quote from one of da more naive eugenics advocates to claim that's what your field of biology stands for, eh? And that is why there have been so many religious wars, massacres, persecutions, Inquisitions, crusades, forced conversions, and other unpleasantness, throughout history Yah, and this too is just one of those meme thingies, eh? There in fact have been very few "religious wars" throughout history. Mostly there have been racial/ethnic/tribal/political/economic wars, which sometimes have a religious component only because da religion happens to split on racial/ethnic/tribal/political/economic lines. This is classic confusion of correlation with causation, abetted by anti-religious prejudice. In fact da vast majority of the nastiness man inflicts on his fellow men is done for those racial/ethnic/tribal/political/economic reasons over the objection of religion. But to get back to Scoutfish's original bit, I'm with Callooh. All religions at some level believe in a form of universal truth, and at some level believe it is a gift worth sharing to enlighten and improve others. If yeh knew about the causes of disease but were in a culture that dumped sewage in the street and was afflicted by seasonal plagues, would yeh not feel some obligation to work for changin' the beliefs of da culture? To educate, cajole, push your beliefs on others? If yeh had control of da political establishment, would yeh not enforce sanitary regulations using the coercive power of the state even though it infringed on the beliefs of your fellow citizens? That's da position of at least da Western religions, eh? That at some level da racial/ethnic/tribal/political/economic belief structure leads to poverty, oppression, wars... or at least sewage in da streets. And that religion is an effort to overcome and transcend all that dross for everyone's benefit. An underdog effort to be sure. An effort that is constantly outspent and outgunned by da beneficiaries of the racial/ethnic/tribal/political/economic systems, eh? An effort that is occasionally co-opted by those same folks to bad ends. But nonetheless the only effort that has successfully eroded those noxious beliefs bit by bit over time, to the great benefit of humanity and the greater glory of God. Religion, lads, is the only thing that has ever brought people together in groups beyond race/ethnicity/tribe/political caste/economics, and the only thing that has ever tempered the darker and more destructive nature of those other beliefs. Da notion that puttin' religion in a box is goin' to help society is just foolish. Beavah

Yah, hmmm.... Yeh are pretty funny. Might I suggest that yeh actually read the opinion? I know that's sort of not in fashion in modern America when it's just so much more titillating to read da wingnut blogs, but perhaps every now and again yeh can think of ol' Beavah and indulge me. Just a thought. B

Yah, that's sorta right, BSA24. But if everyone's on the same page, includin' the Scoutmaster, I don't see why the BOR chair can't make that statement on the part of the group. Remember, under da G2A a boy is entitled to a BOR whenever he thinks he has met all the requirements. Signatures aren't mentioned anywhere that I recall, those are just an optional record keeping tool. So a BOR is actually da final arbiter of advancement, at least for T21, and it may well be an AC as board chair makin' that determination (since to advance it has to be unanimous). Again, not at all a problem if everyone is on da same page. This is how yeh go about tightening up requirements when they have gotten too lax. That happens sometimes, eh. Beavah

Oh, yah, fer sure NJCubScouter. Mrs. Beavah definitely considers me an old coot, and I reckon I'd have to agree. From that perspective, those justices yeh mention are young whippersnappers. Da full opinion is quite an interestin' and amusin' read. BS-87 have yeh read even the Cliff Notes version yet? The court struck down the individual mandate with respect to the Commerce Clause, eh? So no forced purchases of broccoli. Then they upheld da essential provision of the individual mandate as fallin' within the Congress's powers of taxation. Beavah

So a Scout is Trustworthy unless he wants something right away, then he cheats and lies to get a badge for someone under false pretenses. Well, if yeh don't like da replacement badge thing, there's always just "please give us your old badges" or good ol' EBay to pick up the initial stash. But if yeh feel that national's need for paperwork is more important than a boy's need for recognition (and his right to wear his proper badge of rank at the next event for all to see), then I can't help yeh. Like Eagle92, my experience with da ScoutNet records across multiple councils is that they've got an average failure rate of well over 10% when it comes to showin' proper advancement records for boys, even when the paperwork is correct and timely. So it just doesn't seem like a priority for most councils or national's IT people either, eh? And that's as it should be. Keep da focus on the stuff that really matters to the boys. That's what being Trustworthy really means. Beavah

It's called the Patrol Leader's Handbook Nope. Da equivalent of that would be if we had an Advancement Chair's Handbook. Where's the Patrol Method Handbook for everybody, not just the individual? I don't think this is just a training thing, eh? This is a materials thing. In da prior thread to this one, yeh (perhaps reluctantly) admitted that yeh felt the proper way to interpret da requirements was one-and-done, talk-not-do, a boy doesn't need to be able to actually store and handle food safely. If that's what yeh choose to reward, that's the outcome you're goin' to get, eh? No amount of training that says "do what I say, not what I do" is goin' to change the outcome. But I agree, it would be a big help to be more up front about da purposes in all of the materials and training. If yeh want to change the outcome, the BSA has to more clearly and unambiguously endorse the notion that the proper interpretation of "da requirements" is proficiency in the skills, as per the R&R, and that lack of proficiency discovered either through testing or review means the lad has not yet earned the rank or badge. That's not adding to the requirements or retesting, that's followin' the program to achieve its desired purposes. So at very least, the notion can't stay buried in the R&R, it should be mentioned repeatedly in the G2A and in each of da training syllabi. But as dkurtenbach points out, it would be far more effective if someone did a decent and thoughtful editing job on the Requirements book to ensure that the notion was pervasive in the actual requirements. Personally, I'd also put FCFY six feet under. If you're runnin' with a NSP, yeh just can't get proficiency in all of those skills in a year in a typical troop program. So when yeh try to legislate the improbable, it should be no surprise that folks cut corners. Far better to specify da outcome - camping skills proficiency - not the timetable. Beavah

I always claimed it would, of course, but the bumblin' incompetence of da Obama administration's Solicitor General would give anyone pause. Roberts' opinion is an interestin' threading of the needle, but da essence of it comes down that the government's approach to the matter is just fine. The tap dancin' to avoid the Anti-Injunction act is truly humorous. What's really novel, though, is da approach to the Medicare expansion. For the first time ever, the court has limited Congressional Power of the Purse. Now, as a conservative, I believe that big-government economic coercion of states and individuals is a real thing, and worth being thoughtful about restrictin'. I'd say it's better to restrict it just by makin' it smaller, though, not by havin' 9 old folks tryin' to decide whether their party's favorite initiative is "too coercive" or not. Close as I can tell congress could get around da novel restriction by just repealing Medicaid and then re-passing Medicaid as da complete package if it wanted to, so the court ruling isn't particularly efficacious. What it does do is throw the door open to new litigation testin' the limits of this new-found restriction on congressional power of the purse and ability to adjust da terms of existing federal grant programs. That could open a fair bit of litigation on things like education mandates tied to federal education monies, eh? Includin' (for example) a liberal state arguin' that the BSA equal access act is unconstitutional, or a conservative state arguin' that da Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is unconstitutional. Much as I agree with da principle behind Justice Roberts' arguments, da actual argument in this case was quite a novel stretch. So Obamacare is a done deal, eh? Especially with da precedent that the current Senate Republicans have set for filibustering being a norm. Republicans aren't goin' to have the ability to repeal it before full implementation, and Romney knows it, which is why he's free to make bold proclamations about how he'd repeal it on day 1. Now da question is, with opt-in for Medicaid expansion, do yeh think any states will be long-term hold-outs? Beavah

What part of the Scout Law says it's ok to cheat if your an adult but the Scouts can't? I would expect the boys to "cheat" in exactly the same way as I'm suggestin', of course! In other words, I expect scouts to learn judgment and discretion and priorities, and properly place a young fellow gettin' the award he earned in a timely fashion ahead of da service corporation's desire for paperwork. Besides, da need to "catch" unregistered scouts is fulfilled just as well when the paperwork comes in two weeks later to purchase replacement badges for the stash. Now, it's true we did used to wait for Courts of Honor for everything. I'm OK with that, for troops who still do it. But da current program is immediate recognition. With Internet Advancement, I don't see any real excuse why the vast majority of units can't follow the process. I take it yeh live in a major metropolitan area with a nearby scout shop and are retired? In da rest of the world, that isn't often the case. Lots of units that are several hours round-trip from da nearest scout shop, and Eagle92 is right about postage and limits on available supply, especially in da late summer months. Even if it's just a matter of convenience for da unit, the paperwork bein' timely is just a matter of convenience for da council, eh? And as good servant leaders, we council and national scouters should put the needs of those we serve ahead of our own, don't yeh think? Being Helpful and Courteous as we are. Beavah

Advancement adds to a good program but doesn't replace a good program. Yah, I'd say instead that advancement is part of a good program. I'm sure that's what yeh meant. Despite what we say in the GTA or training, however, there's no question that advancement is more than just one of 8 methods when yeh look at how much time and resources are spent on it. Havin' a whole separate Guide for example. Where's da separate guide for Patrol Method? For youth leadership? For adult association? For Personal Growth? Maybe if we had those and they had an equal footing, and demanded equal paperwork, we'd see more balance, eh? But our own actions speak louder than our words about our priorities sometimes. Mrs. Beavah has been a teacher for many decades, and I learn a lot from listenin' to her (I type a lot here because it's hard to get a word in edgewise when listenin' to Mrs. Beavah ). One of da things she talks about is alignment between curriculum and tests. Yeh have to assess on the same things and with the same methods that yeh taught. Seems straightforward enough. I think that's what I want to see in each troop's use of Advancement, eh? Advancement should assess and recognize da same things the program is trying to teach. That's how advancement and recognition support the rest of the program. My core problem with da way some folks seem to approach advancement is that they mis-align advancement from da rest of the program. The rest of the program wants boys to be able to plan, purchase, and cook a meal, but the way they use advancement they recognize boys for just talkin' about it. The rest of the program wants and needs boys to be proficient in First Aid, but the way they run advancement recognizes boys for one-and-done-poorly. That's an alignment problem, and it confuses kids, and sends mixed messages to everyone. So I don't mind if Troop 1 has a program that is mostly car-camping where adults buy food and boys bumble through cookin' such staples as hot dogs. In that case, the way they're interpreting da requirements lines up with what they're doin' in practice. We might work on helpin' 'em think about youth leadership a bit more, but they're usin' advancement method to support the program they have. Same with Troop 2, eh? If their program expects boys to plan, shop, and prepare a weekend's meals on their own, I don't mind if their advancement interpretation is that a First Class scout actually has to go to da grocery store on his own and handle food safely. Da problems all happen when Troop 1 tries to hold up advancement because the boy hasn't done a 4-course meal for his BOR, even though the program has only called for adult-purchased hot dogs. And the problem is just as bad for Troop 2 if their program is teachin' proficiency in meal planning and prep, and some nitwit from da district or an internet forum is tellin' their boys and parents that all they have to do is talk about food safety while readin' from a cheat sheet in order to advance. Both things "break" Advancement Method because they don't line up recognition with program. I think fred8033 worries a lot about da former, and I worry more about the latter. That's just because we have different preferences in terms of troop style and youth outcomes. But perhaps we all can agree that advancement should support da program that is bein' offered. Beavah

Yah, da previous thread brought up an interestin' issue. Traditionally in Scouting, a boy who earns a badge or rank is presented with it immediately. In fact, that immediate recognition was considered an important component of advancement method, eh? A lad who works hard and is awarded rank by a BOR should be able to show up at the very next meeting or event wearin' his new badge of rank proudly. His uniform should always reflect his actual status in da program. Seems like lots of units have gotten away from that because of da (fairly recent) efforts by national supply to put a paperwork requirement in place. Now, granted, for a unit with adults who live a few miles from a scout shop and have free time durin' business hours, that only introduces a week's delay in awarding a boy his badge of office, unless the shop is out of stock. To my mind that's still unacceptable, as it could easily mean he goes off to summer camp or Philmont with da wrong badge on his uniform, especially in a troop that doesn't meet very often in the summer. But for most troops that don't live so close to scout shops, the purchase waits for multiple badges to be earned, because yeh can't justify the 1 hour (or more) round trip drive to pick up only one or two badges in an era when gas prices are high. Or it waits for an even longer time for mail order. Then yeh start seein' units try to hold all their BORs at once so that they can pick up all da badges at once, which means they delay BORs for boys who are ready. And other things. Paperwork starts driving the program. To my mind, we should never let paperwork drive the program. What matters is that the boy should be recognized immediately, and should be able to wear his proper badge of rank or skill proudly. We used to say a lad with da incorrect rank badge on was out of uniform, eh? So my feelin' is that for units that care about such things, da proper thing to do is to build up a stash of badges by havin' boys order "replacements" for their current ranks and MBs and give 'em to the troop. That way when a boy earns a badge he can be awarded it immediately, and wear it proudly. Yeh replenish da stash when eventually supply gets around to mailin' yeh the order. What says the group? Beavah

In the first post, I did not say spoiling children is a partisan issue. In the second post, I explicitly said that I don't think it's a partisan issue. If yeh didn't think it was a partisan issue, then why bring up right/left politics at all? Why not just address the argument? However in both posts, I did mention the proclivities of lefty journalists and anthropologists to find fault with the modern US where they find good in other societies. Yah, hmmm. Again, I don't see how it's at all relevant to da argument being presented about the current outcomes for kids in the U.S. It seems like it should be possible for folks to address the issue being presented without generalizing and stereotyping about the ethnicity of the author or an entire profession. Mentally awake and all that. It might well be that same-age grouping is a contributing factor or cause, but then same-age grouping is a cultural phenomenon of da U.S. and some other industrialized nations where we confine children to institutions for most of da workday so their parents can go off and do adult work. Absent comparison to another culture, it would be almost impossible to distinguish or comment on that effect. Yeh need a control or comparison group, eh? ------ Anyways, to bring it back around to Scouting, I reckon one of my concerns is that despite its potential to work counter to da trend, we're really bein' swept along by it. Look at da ever-increasing restrictions on activities (even in Scouting, a 6-year-old would not be allowed on a river trip accompanied by knowledgeable adults ), and the long-winded discussion about how advancement for a 12-year-old doesn't include being able to cook as safely and successfully as that six year old. B

key is to figure out what it is they struggle with - some it's endurence, some it's being on their back, some it's face in water... whatever it is there can be a way to make it easier on them. What, yeh mean da key is not to EDGE more loudly? Agree 100% B