Beavah

Yah, that's OK. Yeh can't put apostrophes in thread subject lines anyways. B

Yah, hmmm... Sorry, I just don't see it. I guess I just don't believe in viewin' everything in da world through a partisan lens. The story about the Amazonian girl was an anecdote as far as I could tell, and irrelevant except as an interestin' counterpoint. Da stuff that was more telling was the actual video data from (presumably randomly selected) families in the L.A. basin that showed late elementary-aged kids unable or unwilling to tie their own shoes, eh? I don't think da sample is an aberration, because we've seen those kids in Scouting, eh? Even here in da upper Midwest. How exactly is that a partisan issue? I guess I must be a "lefty" because I agree with da researcher. I believe in teachin' children responsibility and independence, not entitlement. Beavah

Yah, Roadkill Patrol, except that I'll bet your council is a 501©(3) not for profit, eh? And da popcorn fundraiser revenue is also goin' to and through the council. So yeh can affect them, eh? Tax law for NFPs is also only one issue. There are also state laws on fundraising fraud that are more serious, and would definitely apply to your charterin' entity. Other issues as well. I'd humbly suggest that your CO have a sit-down with its attorney and a consultation with da counsel for the local council to look through your practices and set things up properly. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... I'm not sure how raisin' spoiled kids is a "lefty" issue, Callooh!Callay! I'm a traditional conservative fellow, and personally I would think of well-behaved kids with strong family values as being a conservative issue. Overly permissive parenting I would associate with more liberal folks. Why is it that yeh feel the opposite? Do yeh feel that conservative families are spoiling their kids rotten and so you're sensitive to "lefty" researchers callin' us on it? I just don't get it. I agree with yeh that there is potentially some real merit in young people being around mixed ages. It's perhaps why I advocate for mixed-age patrols and I think K-8 schools make more sense than puttin' a bunch of hormone-enriched adolescents all together. But yeh should keep in mind that da little girl from the Amazon was only 6 years old, eh? That's mostly kindergarten for U.S. kids, and I don't reckon a semester of kindergarten can be blamed for such big differences in effects, do you? So lookin' to the home seems pretty natural to me. Don't yeh think? Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

As a result, troop one tends to be more active, more confident and independent and stronger friendships and more adventures and have better scouting experiences Yah, fred8033, I actually know these troops, eh? So I can say with some degree of confidence that analysis is incorrect. You assume that followin' the program as you have interpreted it will always lead to da best outcomes. Me, I'm just reportin' on real-world outcomes and approaches. Maybe that's where da wisdom and experience thing comes in. Troop 1 in fact is fairly typical, though a bit larger than average. About 35 registered scouts, with low 20's who are "active" in that they come on events regularly. Older high school aged boys participate less or disappear for long stretches, and as you have described in your own approach, they consider that normal and are just happy when some of 'em pop back up for deathbed Eagles. At their EBORs, they don't talk in as animated and deep a fashion as Troop 2 about their adventures and scouting experiences. Now, I get where you're comin' from, and I'm OK with it. I don't have a need to call yeh contemptuous or lay ethical judgments at your feet because of how yeh happen to use a children's program. That just seems over the top for me, especially since I consider critique to be a form of caring about people and organizations. I wouldn't suggest yeh leave da organization. I'd support your Troop 1 as best I could, and help yeh use the materials to accomplish what yeh wanted to accomplish for kids. An old poster on these forums once mentioned that there's no resolvin' things when yeh set up what yeh are tryin' to set up, eh? There are different stages of moral development, and it's hard to discuss things across da stages. You are advocatin' for what Kohlberg would have called Conventional morality. Stage 4, being subservient to authority. Criticism is the same thing as contempt and all that. That's fine, if that's where you're at right now. I'm tryin' to argue from Post-Conventional stages 5 and 6, eh? That's what I care about for kids, and really for everybody. I can understand how that makes yeh feel uncomfortable, and how easy it is to mistakenly characterize it as earlier, self-centered, pre-conventional stages. That would really be mistaken, however. For me, talkin' about da elements of a children's program as though they are High Moral Issues of Obedience and all the rest is pretty comical, at least when it isn't sadly misguided. We should be talkin' instead about what's the right thing to do for kids and families, not how to best comply with da corporation that makes children's books. I reckon it will just take some age and wisdom to figure that out, eh? For this thread, though, that's what I wanted it to be about. I wanted to bring it back around to being focused on kids, not on materials. If yeh want to continue the Stage 4 / procedural obedience stuff, let's keep it in da previous thread. I'll keep playin' if yeh want. But let's let this thread be about kids and real, live programs, with different perspectives. Beavah

The patrol has to gain skills and confidence to get over this hurtle or they will disband (quit.) So you emphasise skill training. That is the purpose of FC1Y. Yah, that's our guess as to what da purpose of FCFY is, eh? Just like it's your guess as how to read the sentence "Establish practices that will bring each new Boy Scout to First Class rank within a year of joining, and then to Star rank the following year" in da strained way yeh do, eh? What with redefining the words "will" and "each". Where in the actual BSA materials are we presenting that sort of vision that yeh want to advocate for, bnelon44? It's just not there. Your read on Advancement Method has the emphasis on narrowly parsing da words of da requirements, not on skill training. Lots of other folks are readin' our stuff that way too, eh? Just look at how fred8033 is interpretin' things. Even though all of us who understand da system understand that the emphasis should be on the development of skills and proficiency. What yeh reward is what yeh get, and many units are usin' da more recent advancement guidance not to reward skills development. To improve that, we have to move aggressively away from this narrow-parsing of words nonsense and get back to sharin' the vision and fun of Scouting with people, the way da R&R direct us. Beavah

But, no one is argueing that all churches must perform those marriages. Yah, I reckon that what yeh mean is that no one is arguing that all churches must perform gay marriages YET. Just like until fairly recently, nobody was arguing that all churches had to perform abortions or sterilizations or offer contraceptive services. Beavah

I don't think yeh are being deliberately dishonest, rdclements. Just inaccurate. Now, havin' learned that yeh were inaccurate, if yeh continue to tell other people that this sort of thing is a legal issue, that would be dishonest. I do know some district scouters like that, eh? They do a lot of damage before they get removed. I fully admit this is a pet peeve of mine. Folks in da legal profession get a bad enough reputation for things they do that are accurate, eh? It's discouragin' to have folks heap on a load of stuff that isn't accurate. Lawsuits over kids doin' a few pushups is the sort of thing that merits public ridicule and is likely to show up on Fox News. Beavah

Yah, this might be an interestin' read for discussion as it pertains to Scouting. http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/07/02/120702crbo_books_kolbert?printable=true

Yah, rdclements, I think yeh would make a better argument if yeh talked about kids rather than throwin' around legal nonsense, eh? Legal nonsense is just being dishonest with people, and a Scout should be trustworthy, eh? We shouldn't be dishonest to make our point. Same with throwin' around terms like "abuse" and "bullying", eh? That's not what either of those terms really mean, and since bullying is now a matter of statute in many states, what you are describing as bullying is very clearly not bullying. It is also very clearly not corporal punishment. Honestly, you accusing an adult of using corporal punishment carries far more legal risk to you than havin' a kid do pushups. That can land yeh in a lawsuit pretty quickly, eh? So if legal risk is what you are worried about, yeh would be advised to be more circumspect. Let's try to keep discussions of what are ordinary choices in the realm of ordinary choices, eh? There are lots of good arguments for not havin' kids do pushups that are based on what works and what is best for the kids, without torturing definitions or makin' up stuff about the law. Let's also let this thread go back to that, eh, and move any other discussion of law or expansive language to another thread. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, brewmeister, I think yeh hit da nail on da head exactly. Boys learn lots from all the methods of Scouting, but the Advancement Method is da visible scorecard that helps boys and parents focus. So it communicates what we care about. What da current materials do is muddle up what we care about. On the one hand, we say that Eagle is a fantastic and rare accomplishment. On the other hand we say that Eagle tickin' off a few boxes interpreted in the most strained way possible. On the one hand we say that proficiency in skills is the standard, "what a boy is able to do". On da other hand, we say once-and-done, only da paperwork matters, no caring adult can contradict da paperwork. At best yeh would say that is a muddled up and unprofessional job of communicatin'. At worst, yeh would say it's dishonest and lying to families, a sort of bait-and-switch. I think it happens just because da folks on district and council and national committees lose touch, eh? So we start to believe that filing paperwork is more important than getting a lad the badge to recognize his achievement and wear with pride. That happens just because we folks who serve at da grey or gold-tab levels spend more of our time dealin' with paperwork, eh? So we start to think of it as important for its own sake instead of thinkin' of it as being a service to boys and units. Same with writin' muddled-up guidance on advancement, and focusin' on the words or requirements instead of helpin' the boys and units. Folks at councils and national deal with more outlier cases and personalities, and only second-hand. So they start to write things for those outlier cases, instead of presentin' the best general guidance. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, rdclements, let me respond just briefly and then let's let this thread go back to shortridge's original intent, which I think was more of a poll. An attorney general's opinion is a form of advisory statement by the chief law enforcement officer of a state. It offers guidance that can be used until actual case law gets made through prosecution or litigation. It's written in legalese, eh? So yeh have to be alert for terms of art and da usual circumlocutions common in da legal profession. The California statutes referred to prohibit corporal punishment in schools. So we start right off by knowning they do not apply to Scouting in any event, except perhaps in da rare circumstance that a unit is actually chartered by a school. Even then, scouting would appear to fall under da statutory exemption for a recreational activity voluntarily engaged in by the pupil. Then da AG points out that the core issue in the statute is inflicting pain, eh? Whether somethin' inflicts pain is of course a question of fact for a trial court, not somethin' that can be ruled on as a matter of law. So the issue would be whether a jury of reasonable folks actually believe that makin' a boy do a dozen pushups is "inflicting pain" within the meaning of da statute, and the AG quite properly refrains from offerin' any guidance. He suggests that there could be circumstances where exercise rises to meet that threshold, but if yeh are used to readin' such things he's also implying that in most cases it would not. Given that California like many states uses boot camps that use exercise as punishment as part of youth diversionary programs, I reckon it's reasonable to assume that prohibiting such activity on a general basis did not fall within da legislative intent. So no, I don't honestly believe this is a matter of law in any jurisdiction in da U.S. That doesn't mean that it's appropriate, eh? Lots of stuff that isn't appropriate doesn't rise to da threshold of being legal matters. I think yeh can make a good case for this stuff being inappropriate for your unit or for Scouting in general without invokin' da law. Now back to shortridge's thread. Beavah

Yah, hmmm... Well, that didn't take long. We all know what's going on with someone in authority ordering pushups. Think power. Think control. Yah, what do yeh think any form of discipline is, FScouter? It's someone in authority exercising control, eh? A parent grounding a boy or sending him to bed without supper, a school teacher issuing a detention, a coach benching a player, an organization makin' a lad fill out a 20+ page project workbook to get an award. All of 'em are an authority exercising power and control. Da question is whether the authority is being wise in each case so as to do a good job of helpin' the lad learn and the community improve. Most states regard exercise for disciplinary reasons a form of corporal punishment. Ordering scouts to do pushups or run laps as punishment is illegal. Can yeh name even one state where that is actually true, rdclements, with appropriate citations? I reckon it would land every sports coach in jail. Me thinks you're a bit out there in left field past da bleachers. Much as I'm fond of da law, not everything falls under its purview. I also think we have to be a bit more circumspect about callin' things "abuse". Real child abuse is a truly awful, hideous thing. We do a disservice to those children when we deliberately mischaracterize ordinary stuff as being the same thing. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I'm sure this thread will generate all kinds of heat and break into camps and such. I think what shortridge is talkin' about little tricks and techniques to help boys focus or respond to simple misbehaviors that don't merit calling parents or even a "talking to". What in da real world we call civil infractions, eh? Minor stuff like parking tickets. Every community has its minor infractions. Mostly in scouts such stuff is dealt with by the PL without adult help, but the PL needs some techniques. Sometimes, for things like mild bad language, yeh just need somethin' to call boys' attention to it because it's become so ordinary in their regular life. Now there is some merit to havin' a system that everyone understands and buys into for such things. Demerits, tardy slips in school, etc. Pushups can be that in some troops. It's just ordinary, eh? A half-fun, half-inconvenient thing to call attention to your behavior. These days, though, the low fitness level for many boys makes such physical tasks not as useful, because for those boys it's a much bigger deal, eh? Too big a deal and too embarrassing to be useful for some minor offense. So while there's some merit to a standard system, I think a far better way to go is to tailor responses to each individual boy. For some boys who are healthy and energetic, havin' 'em run works just fine to call attention to a minor behavior, and has the double benefit of letting 'em burn off some of the energy that caused da behavior in the first place. Particularly when they just downed two gallons of caffeinated sodapop from da camp store. For other boys, yeh have to do somethin' else, like they have to surrender three Magic cards from their deck that you choose at random. The question should always be whether a particular response is the right one for a particular boy for a particular act at a particular time. Yeh can adjust the number of pushups to make the level of effort the same between boys fairly easily, to avoid what OGE is talkin' about, or even better change the task entire to to make it equivalent. Think about the boy, first and always. If yeh do that, yeh won't go far wrong. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, here's the thing. The BSA grants a charter to a council corporation to administer and support scouting in a particular area, eh? The terms of that charter don't really allow a council to administer and support scouting in another area. Otherwise da St. Louis council could offer online services to the folks in South Carolina, eh? So as close as I can tell what you're describin' is an edge case. The Chartered Org. is in one council's service area, but the meeting place arranged by the chartered org. is in another council's service area. To my mind, arrangin' a meeting place is properly the role of da CO, so it's not somethin' that the second council really has a say in. Within reason. I'm assumin' that we're talkin' just a few miles here. However, yeh can see why they would feel that their turf was being stepped on, eh? The first council probably wants to set up a unit to serve that school's population, which is properly their role. Yeh could even imagine abuses where a big CO like a Catholic diocese could charter units through its central headquarters in one council for all da other councils in its service area, which wouldn't be helpful. This is where yeh want people to sit down and behave like adults, eh? I would expect the Chartered Org. to understand the issue and be sensitive to the first council's interests, and find yeh a meeting location that would be acceptable to everyone. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, this is too much of a muddle to be able to comment on, eh? I'm not sure Dszczepa has enough experience in scoutin' to have the language to even inform us of what's actually goin' on. About all I can get is that some parents are upset about something, and may have left their pack to try to start up one in da neighboring council. Dszczepa, about all I can say is that I don't see this effort at a new pack ending well, given the lack of experience. A common set of gripes about a former pack is not the same thing as havin' the common vision, dedication and resources to be successful starting a new unit. Beavah

So, the way I see it, Troop 2 produces far superior results, but it requires significantly more experienced and talented adults to pull off. Yah, hmmm... Yep, that might be da case, JMHawkins. I've always agreed with B-P and others who believe that successful scoutin' depends on people more than on things, eh? Relyin' on program materials is a chimera; what's most important is carefully selectin' the right sort of people. Selecting for talent in particular, eh? Thinkin' about these two troops and others, yep, there's also a correlation with experience, but that one I'm less sure about. It might just be there because less experienced folks have had weaker materials in recent years to learn from, and some have been taught really odd ways of thinkin' about those materials. So it's not so much experience but poor guidance and support on our side, eh? That's what I'm worried about. Even when yeh have talented folks, it takes a fair bit of time to learn Scouting. To really understand youth leadership and the patrol method is pretty counter-cultural. Usin' advancement well is also tough, eh? People either get stuck in thinkin' like school with classes and tests, or they get caught up in procedural paperwork and da era of everyone gets a trophy for "exposure" or "trying". That's where our materials have gotten particularly weak at helpin' folks. As Kudu points out, the official BSA materials barely mention patrol method anymore; certainly not with any sense of vision, and youth leadership is a gloss where people get stuck a fair bit. Fellows like BNelon44 and Kudu try to create supplementary materials online to help, but that stuff only makes it to the really dedicated folks. Advancement is similar. I think what's been happenin' is that the official BSA materials development has been too committified, so there just isn't any vision anymore the way there was when Bill was writin' things. Lots of folks servin' on those committees honestly just aren't all that savvy themselves, eh? Besides, as Feynman said on occasion, it's a fallacy to believe yeh get a better result by averaging the input of dozens of engineers rather than carefully hiring the best engineer. Add that to some poor staff input and editing for other reasons, and yeh end up with materials that allow folks to interpret "proficiency" to mean the most absurd, nonsensically literal interpretation of individual requirements, without any thought for what we're tryin' to achieve with boys. Worse, some tom-fool scouter will look at da materials and tell everyone that a successful unit full of caring adults has "gone rogue" or some nonsense. I reckon our approach has to change within da next decade or BSA Scoutin' is goin' to be come irrelevant. Kids like Lisabob's son are telling, eh? If he hadn't switched troops, he would have gone into adulthood thinkin' Eagle and BSA advancement weren't worth anything, and probably would not have been a Scouting advocate or supporter. At least da coach of the travel soccer team really pushes his boys to become proficient accordin' to the normal English meaning of the word, eh? Boys find that cool and satisfyin'. Families find it worthwhile. And that's just kickin' a silly ball around a field. I just don't think that appealin' to the quick and easy credential crowd is a winning strategy for the long run. Beavah

Yep, Oak Tree, I like 'em both too, eh? Scouting is just fun when it comes down to it. And yep, bnelon44 and fred8033, when yeh look at it in terms of procedural accuracy instead of kids, yeh can find "problems" or fault with both units. Or, more properly, some would find problems with both units, but I deliberately selected things that were all justifiable under "da rules". There are no clear violations here on any troop's part, just differences in interpretation. Besides, we're talkin' about a children's program, eh? I'm not even sure what "violation" or "rogue" means in that context. And yep, fred8033, I lean a bit toward Troop 2, because in terms of what I personally care about they have better outcomes for kids. They hold on to their boys as truly active durin' high school, their boys show more skills, confidence and independence, and more long-term loyalty to scoutin'. That's not to say I think poorly of the Troop 1 boys, eh? They are also fine fellows. But if yeh were to put Eagle projects and BORs over da years side by side, the difference would show interocular significance, eh? It would hit yeh between the eyes. That's just me, though, and the stuff I care about, eh? It really is a bias. Other folks care about different things. Now the way I see it, despite my own biases and folks' desires to have procedural conformity on a pedestal, our role as da BSA is to support both units and help 'em achieve their vision and mission, not substitute our own. So the only question with any meaning is not whether they are doin' it right (meaning following da procedures of the day), and not whether they are achievin' the ends that Beavah likes best, it's whether we as the BSA and fellow scouters are doin' right by them. The burden and challenge of service is on us. So to my mind, da proper questions we should be askin' ourselves is whether the materials and advice we give to different units in different circumstances are helpful to 'em. This is where I think we as fellow scouters and especially district and council scouters fail when we try to insist on McDonaldsified uniformity that the BSA itself doesn't insist on. Time and again particularly in the districts yeh see council scouters who like to play "authority" with da materials and truly give damaging advice, often because they are really novices at helpin' units to succeed. If we were to get on our high horse and start yammering at Troop 2 about this, that, or the other procedural "violation", we'd only generate resistance. That would be the best outcome, actually. Da worst outcome would be if they actually went along with us. Troops are complex interactin' social systems, eh? Yeh can't make changes in one area without affectin' others. Take youth observers off a BOR and yeh would lose important aspects of how youth leadership and feedback worked in their unit. Take program quality review and insistence on proficiency away from da BOR and you would compromise safety on their outings, where they rely on youth having the skills associated with rank. The same applies to Troop 1 of course. Here, though, I think Troop 1 was poorly served by our materials. They're not as experienced a group of adult leaders, and they relied more heavily on da guidance given in the 00's in terms of advancement. I think it's handicapped their program a fair bit, not in terms of what I care about, but in terms of what they and their boys care about. BNelon44 claims to have spoken with some of da G2A editors and indicates that they put some things in in an effort to deter adults who they feel went off the deep end in terms of grilling kids. I can believe that, eh? I've seen it on many occasions from yellow-tabbers. Yeh see RichardB fallin' into that trap on da forums sometimes, though at least that's related to safety. The problem is that particularly for general program, that's fundamentally poor policy making and materials development. Yeh don't set the general policy to deal with specific problems. That generates unintended consequences, and the unintended consequence in this case is that a significant number of scouting programs have been substantially weakened, because the adults believe that what da BSA cares about is the stuff fred8033 talks about - procedural compliance and not kids, learning, and proficiency. They take away messages from IOLS and G2A like what Eagle92 describes, even though that was never the original intent when these programs were introduced. In fact, various well-intentioned district folks perhaps like fred8033 and bnelon44 have convinced 'em at round tables and trainings and such to give that impression. Da saddest thing is that along the way they didn't solve da "grilling" problem either, because yeh can't solve that one with policy, yeh solve it with coaching and better examples. The result of all of this yellin' at folks like TwoCubDad or Troop 2 has hurt scouting. It's given newer adult leaders the wrong ideas about da program, and it's alienated many folks who run truly wonderful Scouting programs. It's set up dynamics in units which increase the conflict between helicopter parents and our more dedicated leaders, and I've seen that lead directly to loss of leaders, loss of units, and loss of membership. So as an interpretation or a program approach, I think it's failed us. It's an example of national folks bein' out of touch with da units. The proper approach is to bring the guidance materials back to the common core values of character and proficiency, and stop tryin' to turn 'em into policies to address outlier cases. Along the way, to recognize that there are lots of different ways to handle procedural issues, not one "right" way, but yeh should be thoughtful about matching procedure and style to what yeh are trying to achieve for boys. We should be happy there are Troop 2s out there, servin' lots of lads well. We shouldn't be afraid of suggestin' their approach to other troops that are lookin' for outcomes with kids similar to the ones that Troop 2 achieves. And the same with Troop 1. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, so da long thread on Advancement degenerated as usual into people throwin quotes at each other claimin that their quote was da more authoritative. It seems to me that it might be helpful to talk about kids and programs instead, eh? So I offer yeh a tale of two troops using Advancement Method. Im tryin not to create a false hypothetical here, so I actually have two real troops in mind, and am describin each of their approaches, though I occasionally borrow a program element from a different real troop to help illustrate the point. Perhaps by seeing approaches we can talk more meaningfully about kids instead of redefining proficiency. ☺ Troop One T-2-1 instruction is done by the Troop Guide for the New Scout Patrol. Because theres one TG for 7 or so boys and because thats how he learned, da TG holds classes on various topics at meetings and on campouts, roughly followin EDGE and focusing on the T-2-1 requirements. He sorta follows a curriculum for the year that the adults put together to get through FCFY, with some guidance from da ASM for the new scout patrol. So what happens is somethin like this. When the time comes up to teach a topic, the TG puts together a presentation for the group, like on meal planning and prep for First Class. The TG gives a mini-lecture on da Food Pyramid and shows an example menu with food list and costs. The ASM does a similar mini-lecture on food safety and hands out one of those consumer food safety rules cards yeh can download off the internet. Each boy then picks a buddy and is assigned an upcoming outing to do a menu plan for. The two buddies work on the plan together at the meeting. Most just start with da example plan the TG passed out, and then make small changes, or they select recipes and quantities out of a book the ASM brought. When finished with da plan, the TG looks em over and offers a hint or suggestion of somethin to fix. When they make the changes, the boys show the ASM and he signs off on the requirements 4abc. When he does, he asks the boys about safe food handling and storage for that meal. The first two boys dont pass that, so they go back and tell the other boys to read the food safety card and be ready. All the other boys bring the food safety card with them and get signed off for da food safety requirement (4d) as well, and the first two boys finish up after the meeting. Over da next outing or three, the buddies get the ingredients from mom and take turns being cooks. The boys dont attend 100% of course, so sometimes a boys food-planning buddy isnt on the outing, so they just switch out and a different boy joins in on that plan. When theyve cooked that once for their patrol, the TG has the PL sign off on the last part of da requirement. When all of da requirements have signatures, a Board of review is set up durin a meeting in a side room, consisting only of committee members. The board asks what he planned for his meals, and he tells them, but hes a bit vague and cant remember some bits because his buddy did that part. A new parent who hasnt been trained asks about how he kept the chicken safe in the summer heat and guarded against cross-contamination and hes not sure. The new parent is informed thats retesting and not allowed. Another parent asks how he learned CPR, and he says Mr. ASM-NSP taught him at a meeting. He likes Mr. ASM-NSP because he makes it easy. They talk about his time in the troop and he says its been pretty fun, but he doesnt like all the bugs. After about 12 minutes or so the board congratulates him on earnin First Class, and he receives his patch three meetings later (da Advancement Chair couldnt get to the Scout Shop 60 miles away that week, and the boy missed the next meeting). Troop Two Troop 2 uses mixed-age patrols led by an older scout PL and APL with scouts of all ages mixed in there are 2-3 new scouts in the patrol. T-2-1 instruction is never done by classes, because that doesnt make sense for only 2-3 boys. Instead older boys of all ages just watch out for and help the younger fellows, occasionally giving tips and pointers. They have heard of EDGE but they think more in terms of recognizin and respondin. Recognize where a scouts ability is at and respond with da next step or challenge. The first year scouts mostly get assigned to help with da meals planned by older boys during much of their first year. They get to watch different cooking techniques and assist, then as they get comfortable they get to try em out themselves. They burn some batches, make mistakes, and get better. Along the way, they learn about food safety mostly by osmosis, by just pickin it up from other boys. When an individual boys cooking skills have gotten pretty good, his Patrol Leader gets him involved in planning meals, takin him shopping, showin him the ropes. He plans and executes some meals for the patrol, learns how to look up recipes on-line. As the boy becomes confident, the PL assigns him to do meals for da patrol for a few different weekends. The first couple of times the patrol gives the boy comments and suggestions. After hes done a few and clearly has meal planning, prep, and safety down, his PL signs off on the whole requirement 4. There were never any separate signoffs for sub-parts of one requirement. Troop 2 does Boards of Review on a regular schedule, tryin to make sure that every boy gets a BOR every 4-6 months. Often they do em in the field, and grab a few adult committee members, maybe an ASM and usually a youth leader like the SPL or ASPL. Because BORs are conducted regularly, its normal for a BOR to conclude with a scout not earning a rank. In fact, a boy probably had a couple BORs along the way before he earned rank and left each one feelin good about what hes accomplished so far and having an idea of what to do next. There is no sense that not makin' rank at a BOR is a "failure." Sometimes during a BOR when a boy is close, the ASM or SPL will call the PL over to consult and even do a quick test with the PLs permission durin the BOR. It all feels very easy-going. Nobody is carryin around pre-printed BOR questions or a copy of G2A. For our Second Class scout workin toward First Class, a board member might ask how he would store and prepare chicken safely, and because the boy has done it a whole bunch of times and has it down, he just rattles off a near-perfect explanation. No big deal. Bein able to answer a totally simple question like that gives the boy more confidence in talkin to the adults on the board. When asked about CPR, though, the lad might be tentative and not as confident. It might come out that he got signed off for CPR by camp staff at summer camp, and he really doesnt have it down. So the board will give him lots of praise for how hes learning, and suggest that the next thing he needs to work on for First Class is CPR and first aid. The SPL knows the boys patrol had a really challenging hike in the rain the previous month and asks about that. Having a boy he knows and a topic he knows on the BOR opens the boy up, and he talks quite a bit about the campout. Along the way he makes suggestions like how it would be really good to do a better job of checking out rain gear before trips in the spring. That leads to a few other brief discussions about being prepared and the Oath and Law in rainstorms, which give the board real insight about how the boy views da Oath and Law in his actual life. The board wraps up just shy of half an hour. The SPL apologizes to the boy afterward for not catching that summer camp staff were signing off when they shouldnt, and works with da PL to set up some CPR practice. The PL takes that to the PLC and they decide to add CPR practice to the meeting schedule, with a few surprise CPR emergencies on the next few outings. Da committee member lets the SM know that there might be some bad signoffs from summer camp so the SM can think about how to prevent that or give feedback to the camp. A couple months later at another BOR that is also just another conversation around a campfire, the boy is congratulated on earning First Class. The Advancement Chair keeps a stash of badges, and the followin morning at closing ceremonies for the campout the boy is presented his badge. By the time of the weekly meeting he has it sewn on proudly (if slightly crookedly). Summary As I mentioned, both are real troops and I actually sat in on each of da BORs. Both have good, well-intentioned adults tryin to offer the best Scouting they can. They each have happy kids and families, though objectively as an outsider what boys come away with from each program is different. Now before I add any additional commentary, well see what da group thinks. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm... Seems yeh have posted a couple of times, Dszczepa. I responded to your other one without lookin' at your post count to realize yeh were new. First, welcome to the forums. Second, ScoutNut and BSA24 are correct. When your son sold popcorn, he was conducting a fundraiser for the Pack. All of the money belongs to the Pack. None of it is yours or your son's. If it were yours or your son's, then they would have to withhold social security and other taxes, comply with labor laws, etc. What your son was doin' was a service project, and yeh don't expect anything back from giving service. Now, some scout units allocate a portion of fundraised dollars to "scout accounts", sort of a pretend bank account in order to teach boys the value of working hard and saving. That's an educational exercise only, and yeh should never think of it like it's a real bank account. Even so, da way some units do it is a bit fast and loose and generally not OK in terms of the laws for fundraising and not-for-profits, which prohibit funds to go to individual members in any way. So what it comes down to is it would not be legal for them to give any of the money to you or your son. If they choose to transfer any of it to the new pack your son has joined, that's entirely up to them. Best to ask 'em very nicely rather than makin' a scene, because the proper answer for what your son is entitled to is "Zero." And I reckon that old saw about catching more flies with an ounce of honey than a gallon of vinegar makes a good point, eh? Beavah

Well, I reckon I can refer yeh to this old thread: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=339551#id_339551 I can't tell without more information, but I reckon it sounds like the last item is the one you're lookin' for. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

I haven't heard you suggest any changes to advancement either or represent anything that lowers quality. I believe everyone on this discussion believes in holding scouts to high expectations, learn skills, grow as a person and develop a strong moral character. Yah, hmmm... What it comes down to is this, fred8033. Most of us feel that a First Class Scout should be able to handle food storage and preparation properly and safely. We believe that is the only rational way to interpret "the requirements". We believe that is the only way that other lads, like 5yearscouter's boy and Lisabob's son, will respect the awards and be willing to pursue them as goals. Bnelon44 has stated clearly that in his view, expecting a First Class scout to be able to handle food storage and preparation properly and safely is adding to the requirements. I have a few decades on Bnelon44 and probably more international contacts, and I say that in the BSA program as well as the international Scouting movement, that interpretation is entirely wrong, and is in fact subtracting from da requirements and violating the Rules & Regulations of the BSA. You think we have gone "rogue", and the rest of us would say that you have "gone rogue" and are hurtin' the image and usefulness of the advancement program for all of da rest of us who actually know how to use it. And that's where we're at. The BSA doesn't care one way or another, eh? They're happy to take money from any of us. Some parents like your & bnelon's approach, because they don't want their little darlings to every be "grilled", "denied" or "flunked", and their focus is on "the requirements" and the credential. Some parents prefer our approach because they want their child to build some real skills, not just in outdoor pursuits but in how to learn and achieve and live independently, and they figure advancement should reflect those skills. They don't mind their little darlings being challenged to their ability level and occasionally discoverin' they need to work harder than they thought in order to succeed. I support both kinds of troops, eh? Good people in each. I help folks think about how to do FCFY well if they want, or to do da madcap badge race if that's what they're into. But if yeh ask me which has better outcomes for kids in terms of what I personally care about for outcomes, it's da second approach, eh? The approach that makes Lisabob's son proud to stay fully involved and active as a teenager. Beavah

Yah, fred8033, thanks for all of the descriptions. It helps to understand where youre comin' from. Here's how Im reading it though. Yeh went to the rules and regulations and found the bit about proficiency. Then yeh said, well, they could mean proficiency, or they could mean that the intent is to redefine proficiency to mean that a boy who is profiicient in cooking really has only cooked once and doesnt know how to handle meat and egg products safely. And then yeh ignored all the bits about education and that advancement mus be administered so as to harmonize with the aims, which would tell yeh that only your first definition of proficiency is acceptable. That to my mind fits your "creative avoidance" description to a "T". What you're doin' is creative avoidance. Now, everyone comes with their own professional perspectives, and yours are from da ISO 9000 stuff. Much like the "Scouting is like McDonalds franchises" thing of CalicoPenn's, viewing Scouting through an ISO 9000 lens shows a novice understanding of scouting. A volunteer youth work organization just doesn't fit da ISO 9000 model. And that's the only point I'm making about being a novice. Yeh aren't showing an understanding of how this youth outdoor stuff really works. So I pulled something from one of da expert organizations in outdoor education. Did yeh read it? The part I found particularly apropos was this: Students also need to not learn dogma. When we teach dogmatically, we are providing simple rules that only work in identical situations. This doesn't set students up to make wise decisions later. More importantly, it doesn't train students to think for themselves. Jasper Hunt confronts dogma ethically. Jasper writes "There is something very strange and incongruent about an educational movement that espouses the values of personal responsibility, initiative, and freedom and then turns around and does everything they can to minimize the presence of these very values in the means by which they teach (by making rules.) Beavah

False. BNelon44, have yeh even read your Guide to Advancment? Right there in the section on Unit responsibilities, eh? The responsibility of the unit is to get every scout to first class in first year and to second class in second year. To my mind FCFY is part and parcel with the "don't add to the requirements" crowd that don't understand advancement method. In fact, the only way yeh can get all or most of the boys in a New Scout Patrol to FCFY is if yeh subtract from da requirements in just the way that bnelon44 describes, eh? Yeh get credit for cooking just once, not for knowing how to cook. That is not holding' high standards, and so I don't think fred8033 is right when he says that everyone agrees on holdin' high standards. Most of da troops I know that do FCFY tend to also be "done with scouting by high school" troops. The majority of the boys fade out, reduce activity, go do other things. Yeh see that reflected in comments here at Scouter.com as well. They really are not the most successful troops in my experience. Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Really? Novices? Such insults Beavah are below you. No insult intended, fred8033. There's nuthin' at all wrong or bad about being a novice. Just like there's nuthin' at all wrong or bad about a boy not being Tenderfoot, eh? Ranks and assessments and such are meant to be helpful and formative, not evaluative. It's when yeh start thinkin' about 'em as being evaluative and demeaning and "flunking" and such that yeh lose all their value. I'm usin' the term novice in the way that da outdoor leadership community uses it, eh? See for example http://www.nols.edu/publications/toolbox/judgment.shtml There'a great paragraph about half way down that page that's worth readin'. As for bein' grumpy, that's about as far from da truth as yeh can imagine. In truth, I'm a jolly old fellow. It just gets my feathers ruffled when people keep dissing BSA but want to represent it as leaders and when they knowingly proclaim disregard for that which BSA has written pretty clearly. Yah, I'm always a bit mystified when people have a notion of "The BSA" as though it's some monolithic entity. "The BSA" is just a corporation, eh? In many ways a sort of odd and not particularly well-run one, but with lots of good folks nonetheless. "Dissing" to my mind is somethin' yeh do to people, and no matter what Mitt says, corporations aren't people. But da real issue here is that the core rules and practices of the BSA are in the Rules and Regulations, eh? And to my mind, you and bnelon44 are the folks who are disregarding that which the BSA has written pretty clearly, and tried to practice along with da worldwide scouting movement for a century. In the process, you're proposing interpretations that make a wonderful Scouting program in the U.S. a pale shadow of what da real program is. Beavah