Beavah

Nah, the implication was that Scouts Canada is comfortable with subjective interpretation of the requirements. I don't know what their actual language is in Scouts Canada, but I'm sure yeh can look it up. The point was that it shouldn't bother us that "master the skills" is subjective.

I am often surprised at how willingly people go down the road of comparing sexual orientation to racial discrimination, enforced segregation, slavery, or mental illness like irrational fear . Seriously? People can make these comparisons without a shred of doubt or sense of hyperbole? (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, I agree with VeniVidi, eh? It's interestin' if yeh look at some of "da requirements" in other Scout Associations, they mostly avoid spelling out long lists of micro-requirements the way we do in the U.S., in our goofy quest for "objectivity." Instead they tend to be comfortable with subjectivity and local interpretation. So if yeh look at some of the Scouts Canada requirements, they say things like "demonstrate that you're familiar with the proper use of your patrol's camping gear and procedures" (whatever they might be). They don't feel the need to have nation-wide standardization on a blow-by-blow basis. I've said it repeatedly, but will again. Da notion that nation-wide standardization is even possible in the BSA, let alone desired, is utter nonsense. Yeh can't point to a single educational program in the U.S. which is truly objectively standardized across the country. Da closest, AP tests / curricula, are for shorter periods of time in more closely controlled classrooms with paid professional staff and vastly more resources than da BSA. Most that try just "dumb down" the curriculum to achieve least-common-denominator standardization, like we do in the BSA. Pursuin' such an approach is just nonsense. We have wonderful leaders across the country who know their kids, their families, and their community. Train 'em, Trust 'em, and let 'em Lead. Beavah

Yah, packsaddle, well said and thought through. All of us Christian types believe in followin' the example of our Savior, who always approached each sinner as an individual. There were times he condemned individuals and even groups, because they were choosing a destructive "lifestyle" ("woe to you, priests and scribes, hypocrites!"), and times he exercised compassion ("neither do I condemn you, but go and sin no more.") There were no times, though, when he condoned sinful action. Even when exercising compassion, he admonished to avoid the particular sin in da future. So the piece that yeh miss is that lookin' at each person as an individual does not imply that yeh don't have general rules as a society or group so as to guide individuals. You are tryin' quite nicely to equate homosexuality with being black, and that makes sense because that struggle was particularly seminal in your own life, which introduces a bias toward approaching other issues in da same way. But for the rest of us the proper analogy is to parallel homosexuality with being alcoholic. It's a propensity that we don't understand; perhaps personality-based early in life, perhaps genetic in part, perhaps a product of depression and experimentation in early adolescence when certain brain pathways are formin'. It's hard to say anything about the propensity, other than it is a burden that person must carry. But what we can say is that if yeh are alcoholic, yeh have to stay away from alcohol. If yeh choose to act on your propensity, it will drag yeh down and be self-destructive, and like all self-destructive behavior it ultimately has an effect on others and on society as a whole. It increases medical costs for everyone. It increases auto accidents and insurance costs. It hurts others. Those societal costs are hard to quantify, and da connections aren't always clear. What's the loss in productivity? The loss of businesses and harm to other families' livelihoods because of da loss of productivity? The indirect association with crime? On and on. Like all sin, it ripples out into the world. Da parallels to addiction particularly with gay males are to my mind pretty clear. Crazily high multi-partner activity (reflected in high disease transmission rates), very high rates of domestic violence and all the rest. Of course non-alcoholics also abuse alcohol at times, and since there are so many more of 'em, the damage they do is broader. In the same way, heterosexuals also behave promiscuously or inappropriately, and there being so many more of 'em, the fallout from that in unwanted pregnancies and divorce and such is grim. But in some ways they are part and parcel, eh? Condoning alcoholism or celebrating it contributes to alcohol abuse among da general population, I'd argue, just as condoning alcohol abuse or celebrating it leads to higher alcoholism effects. Similarly one might argue that condoning homosexuality or celebrating it may contribute to higher levels of sexual experimentation and abuse among youth and more damage to marriage-based sexual commitment, and conversely perhaps divorce and promiscuity contributes to higher homosexuality or at least worse homosexual behavior in relationships. So on that basis, even as we act with compassion toward each person as an individual, we also make some general rules and statements for the instruction of young people and for society. Makin' such rules or offering such guidance is itself also an act of care and compassion for the individual. Even when, like every alcoholic, they deny it and resist and don't want yeh to. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, hmmm.... pretty light on the actual paddling requirements, eh? Apparently yeh can get Kayaking MB mostly without doin' any kayaking. The requirements seem to call for a whole 56 yards of actual kayaking (plus a short buoy course with 4 whole turns set up by the counselor). That should fit right in to the Summer Camp MB farm. Lookin' at how similar the badge is to Canoeing, they should probably just combine 'em into a "Paddlesports" badge with the two options. These days recreational kayaks have become pretty ubiquitous. Beavah

If the Scout does what the requirement says he must do, no more, no less, he has passed the requirement as far as the rank requirement is concerned. Yah, again, I think da folks who run to this quote every time advancement comes up are the ones who tend to flub the Advancement Method. It's not about "da requirements", eh? It's about each boy's growing skills and confidence in really being prepared. "Da requirements" aren't the end we're workin' toward, and this quote mostly turns 'em into the end. Now in the 1936 Handbook, for Boards of Review, you'll see it sounds pretty similar to what we have now. Except yeh won't find "no adding to the requirements". Instead yeh can tease out: "Each boy is called in singly before the Board and asked enough questions to assure the members that he deserves the rank he seeks... Answers to Where? When? and How? and so on will soon reveal whether the Scout has learned and demonstrated his skills under real-life conditions" So the point of the old-school BOR was not to retest, but to make sure that no advancement was approved for once-and-done parlor testing. The expectation of "the requirements" was that the skills had to be well-learned and always be demonstrated in real-life conditions. Exactly what jblake is complainin' about no longer being the case. Now it is true that adult community and committee members served on BORs. But yeh have to remember when yeh read the old books is that Scout Spirit and Participation were approved by the Troop Leader's Council (modern PLC). So the lad was expected to appear before his peers where his Patrol Leader and any other youth (or adult) leader who had worked with him could discuss his Scout Spirit. Then generally the PLC voted on whether the lad had met the Scout Spirit requirement. The same was true for the Active Participation requirement. Of course, USA requirements were always a bit corporate / school like / wimpy compared with those in scouting in the rest of the world. All da historical stuff is interestin' and all, and we can learn stuff especially from da periods when it seemed we were more successful than we are now. But unlike some others, I'm personally not wedded to the "old school". Some stuff was good, some not so much. What's important is what works to get boys outside, to give 'em real mastery of skills, and thereby to teach 'em preparedness, fitness, and character. Beavah

Personally, I see it as defeating one of the major jobs of the BOR which is to gather information on how well the Scout is doing and the program is doing in an objective and non-confrontational environment. Then yeh have never seen it in action. I can't quite tell what it is yeh want, bnelon44. If yeh feel that the "major job" of the BOR is to gather information for program improvement and yeh only allow committee members on the BOR, then isn't that just an invitation to the committee to start "mucking around" in program? Wasn't that exactly what yeh didn't want? That's the problem as I see it. Da structure doesn't work for what its purpose is. If da purpose is to encourage the lad to greater efforts, then that is best done by his peers. His peers and fellow scouts are goin' to have much more influence on the boy than a group of adults he doesn't know very well. If da purpose is to see how well the boy is doing so that the program can do a better job for him, then the people who need to see that are da folks who are running the program, eh? The fellow who instructed him on menu planning needs to get feedback on how well he retained that and how he thought it went. And that's goin' to be his Patrol Leader or one of the youth instructors. Having a youth actually hear directly how he's done from a fellow youth is a far more powerful lever for program and leadership improvement then havin' some committee member report what he thought he heard to a SM who reports what he thought he heard to the patrol leader who takes away what he thought he heard. None of it makes any sense, unless yeh don't trust youth to teach and lead, and have some cockamamie notion that the adults have to "protect" him from his Patrol Leader by makin' sure no youth leaders are present. It doesn't even make sense to committee members, who are always scramblin' around lookin' for canned questions to ask or who go off the reservation in terms of things like demanding an allegiance to a Christian God and all the rest that the other poster mentioned in da other thread. That's why folks and even Bill pushed to make it a rubber stamp, eh? Because a rubber stamp is better than the weird stuff that happens sometimes. But both happen only because nobody can figure out what to do with a BOR in da current structure. It's the wrong group of people for da task. That's why in traditional Scouting across da world, all of this was the realm of the Court of Honor composed of youth leaders. The corporate BSA in da U.S. was an anomaly in the beginning with its notions of adult-run testing. Green Bar Bill was able to pull 'em back toward where they should be over time, but he was never able to fully move the adults out of da process, even though they don't belong. We adults in da U.S. are too into committees. Beavah

My guess as to why Scouts no longer sit on BORs is that they took advantage of their position to bully the other Scouts and prevent some Scouts from advancing and others to advance without accomplishing all the requirements Yah, hmmmm... Yeh know, if our real feeling is that boys will take advantage of their position to bully other boys, then da problem isn't with Boards of Review. It's with Patrol Leaders. What yeh have described, bnelon44, would be an indictment of all youth leadership and patrol method, eh? Now personally, while I recognize that Patrol Leaders or older scouts can be bullies, that's somethin' that is part of the role of the adults and other youth in a troop to address. That's not a reason to prohibit youth leadership. No different for Boards of Review. Anybody who has ever worked with kids or seen 'em on BORs knows that kids have a very strong sense of fairness, eh? If anything, they tend to take us at our word that the Oath and Law and "requirements" have real meaning, and set high expectations for each other. Havin' high expectations is somethin' that offends the "everybody deserves a trophy" adult community, and as far as I remember, that was da reason for the shift. Beavah

Yah, as someone else has mentioned, the program outline hasn't changed too much over the years. What has changed is the definition of words. The definition of words has become increasingly legalistic and strained. So where Green Bar Bill defined "active" as being a serious commitment by each and every scout to attendance, to his patrol, and to a personal standard of excellence (as in da quote BrentAllen uses to define "active" in his troop), the more modern definition of an active scout is much less than that, and for some includes leavin' his patrol high and dry so long as he goes to robot club. Even though da requirement pretty much says the same thing it said all those years ago. No different here, eh? What Green Bar Bill meant by "review" was a much more meaningful and substantive review than the version bnelon44 came up with for his district training activity. The words and guidance are the same, but the meaning people are takin' from those words is often very, very different. Beavah

The Scouts learn how to tie the basic knots, in a week or so the PLC tests them individually. If they pass they get signed off, if not, they don't. Interestin'. I've heard tell of one "rogue" troop that doesn't sign off for any individual requirements. Instead, once a quarter they have a special challenge campout run by da PLC where individual boys have to demonstrate all the requirements for the rank in normal use during the campout. If yeh demonstrate 'em all well, then yeh have your BOR at the end of the campout and get the rank. If yeh don't demonstrate 'em all successfully, then yeh have a BOR at the end of the campout, and the board members are joined by PLC members to let yeh know what yeh did well and what still needs work for next time. Still no signoffs. To be recommended and approved for rank, yeh have to be able to demonstrate real-live proficiency in everything. Beavah

Maybe I'm prejudiced because I was a Scoutmaster for a long time and I now teach Scoutmasters but program is my Scoutmaster turf, not the committee's turf. Yah, hmmmm.... Bnelon44, I think if you're thinkin' in terms of "turf" yeh have probably lost your way. The committee and the Scoutmaster need to work together, eh? The former to provide guidance as to CO and BSA expectations as well as resources for the program. In actual fact, if yeh read the Rules & Regulations, it is the troop committee, and not the Scoutmaster, that is responsible for ensuring the quality of da Advancement program. That's why there's a notion of committee review. That having been said, I did not mean at all that the committee should be "mucking around" in program stuff. Of course the BOR should feed information back to the SM and the PLC. It's a shame IMO that the youth in particular don't get to sit on BORs where they could get that information directly themselves, because by and large I think BORs do a poor job at this sort of "feedback". Poor or not, it should definitely occur. Of course if you're gettin' the lads to do their own shopping first, then we're still in the learning phase, eh? The boys won't have any signoffs for that cookin' stuff, and the BOR should naturally understand that and be talkin' about how the learning is coming and such. No big deal. Beavah

Yah, moosetracker, that's a nice theory, but I don't think there's evidence to back it up. More's the pity. I'm not talkin' about prejudice, though. I'm talkin' about judgment and discernment. Those continue to develop into and throughout adulthood. I'd suggest that it's a prejudice to believe that developing judgment will not lead one to reject liberal social values. I think very frequently, as young folks develop more experience with the world they do come to a more balanced and sensible view of social norms and values than liberal orthodoxy. For one thing, they learn not to conflate gay-bashing and the like with a principled moral stand on the propriety of homosexual behavior or society's endorsement of it. The former is reprehensible, the latter a matter of moral viewpoint. One can oppose gay bashing while still characterizing homosexual behavior as morally unsound, or while still choosing not to subsidize the behavior through legal marriage arrangements. That's the sort of developing judgment that allows young people to make more mature and sophisticated choices as they grow older. Beavah

The Dalai Lama only represents a sect of Tibetan Buddhism Of course. But then yeh were making a claim about all Buddhism, eh? So the Dalai Lama, who in this case is talkin' about general Buddhist tradition rather than his own personal views, refutes your claim. I'll leave yeh to evaluate your second claim about all of Buddhism on your own. During my many travels to Asia, I have never seen any evidence that they despise or discriminate against homosexuals in any way. Traveled extensively have yeh? In western-facing cities I suppose, rather than in da countryside. Most would disagree with your assessment. Consider, for example, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-02-21-gays-China-closeted_N.htm Da Catholic Church never considered pederasty as normative or accepted. Yep, it had sinful priests, but despite its efforts to cover up their sins or try to rehabilitate them, it never claimed that such behavior wasn't gravely sinful. That's the important difference with Shinto which yeh missed. The behavior there, as yeh correctly point out, was accepted within da culture/religion. Of course, these days it wouldn't be, because Japan has largely been corrupted by Western Imperialist Christian mores. Homosexuality is only one aspect of a range of moral behaviors which have to do with societal values and child rearing. I'm not claiming causation, but I'll stick with correlation. And as moosetracker suggests, da views of folks in their 20s don't correlate all that well with their views later in life. People do learn judgment and discernment as they get older, eh? No young person is naturally prejudiced, but they pick it up pretty well from others over time. The same often happens with other aspects of judgment that are more positive. But in da long run, I reckon we'll just be replaced by fundamentalist Islam, because they are reproducing faster. B (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Kind of like interpreting "A Scoutmaster signs a Blue Card" to add "unless the Scoutmaster says he can't to the rule "A Scout can work on ANY merit badge at ANY time and for as long as it takes him". Yeh mean the way the Guide to Advancement does exactly that, when it says: Though a few merit badges may have certain restrictions; short of them, any registered Scout may work on any of them at any time, as long as he has the approval of his unit leader. This is indicated by his or her signature on the Application for Merit Badge, No. 34124, commonly called the blue card. Just wonderin'. Beavah

I have a bit of a question about the BOR recommending program though. If it becomes apparent that a Scout doesn't remember a skill, shouldn't the best approach be to refer him back to the SM or to a troop program already in place? Sorry, bnelon44, I crossed with yeh. There are so many different ways of handlin' this in different troops that I'm sorta loathe to offer specific guidance lest someone start quotin' me. But let's say a lad comes to a BOR who is ADHD and he seems to be falling behind his peers in terms of understanding. Maybe that's a case where the board and committee need to help find additional outside resources to support the lad and his patrol leader and Scoutmaster. Or maybe, if a BOR has been gettin' nuthin' but hot dog meals for a stretch without any understandin' of nutrition, it's time to figure out how to help support some program improvements in cooking and menu planning instruction. I know one troop that went out and recruited a young male executive chef who enjoyed the outdoors to help out with such things. Really upped their game. Da point is that they wouldn't have been successful if they didn't also send the boy(s) back to work some more. Yeh can add program resources all yeh want, but if what you're rewarding is hot dog meals, then you're goin' to get hot dog meals. If instead yeh choose to reward only lads who are able to plan, purchase, and cook a nutritious weekend's worth of meals for their patrol, then you'll get that. And if yeh aren't getting it, then yeh should add resources to improve the program. To my mind, a First Class Scout should be able to plan, purchase, and cook a nutritious, outing-appropriate weekend's worth of meals for his patrol. On demand. That's "proficiency in outdoor skills". That's the proper outcome of advancement that is really based on education and learning. And that's the only proper way to interpret "the requirements" because it's the one that harmonizes with the Aims of Scouting. My biggest worry about da current approach used by many troops and stated eloquently by fred8033 is that in most of the cases it leads to poor scouting program, because it doesn't push the troop to improve. A Board of Review being a rubber stamp often means the boy isn't challenged, but what's worse is that the Troop Committee and Patrol Leader and Scoutmaster aren't challenged. They aren't forced to face and push to correct a program where boys can't cook. That's the real hidden role of a BOR in evaluatin' the troop program, and they don't really perform it if they rubber stamp. That's why I like to see boys on BORs. When a Patrol Leader realizes that a boy still doesn't understand something even though he's been "taught", even though he's been "signed off", that really impacts how hard the Patrol Leader will work in da future and how thoughtful he'll be as an instructor. Then that PL followin' the review can say "I'm sorry, George, I should have done better for yeh before I signed yeh off. We'll work on that together some more this month so you'll have it down for your next review." Beavah

Sorry fred8033, I confused yeh by writing too much. I do that sometimes. But yes, if yeh have learned anything right from this old furry critter, it's that general principles have a "higher calling." If there's a general principle called "Conservation of Energy" then yeh have to read the text for a specific problem in a way that harmonizes with da general principle, or you'll get it wrong. Yeh can quote ol' Haliday & Resnick's physics text to your heart's content, but if your quote implies violation of da Conservation of Energy, you're wrong. Or da book is wrong. (hey, packsaddle, I used a science analogy instead of a legal one. Aren't yeh proud? ). Same with every other discipline. Proficiency demands that yeh understand and be able to apply general principles in different contexts, rather than memorize pages of guidelines that only apply in specific contexts. And sometimes, da textbook is wrong, or more likely offers advice that doesn't apply in the situation yeh happen to be facing. To learn the real, non-rogue, actually-works-for-kids BSA program, begin with da principles set forth in the BSA Rules and Regulations, and keep your focus on the outcomes for kids. Not on the guidebooks, not on this month's national newsletter, not on checkin' off boxes for requirements. Not on what badges they get or how many Eagles yeh have. Focus on whether young George is makin' better choices and Bill is steppin' up to challenges and Charlie is demonstratin' character and commitment in and through the program. The BSA and da worldwide Scouting movement have 100 years of success in helpin' kids in that way, and yeh inform your judgment by building your understanding of the principles which have remained true during that time, as well as the individual program guidance which has succeeded and failed. Beavah

Yah, what moosetracker said. A lad can split duties over time if he's really doin' 'em, but don't get caught up in somethin' meaningless and silly like giving credit for failing to be responsible in various positions for one month at a time. Qwazse has what I think is the real issue. Most of our boys spend more than the allotted time working on ranks. That's generally the way of things in any troop worth its salt. What I generally tell folks is that if you are quibbling about what "counts" as number of nights camping or how long a lad is in a POR or any of those other "numbers" then yeh are failing. If you are running an active, real Scouting program then the lads won't be able to develop the skills and attitudes that are required for advancement without havin' a lot more than the minimum number of days / months. Most active troops don't even bother to count such things, because all the boys goin' for rank are well past them. Beavah

It is not considered wrong by Buddhism "Buddhist sexual proscriptions ban homosexual activity and heterosexual sex through orifices other than the vagina, including masturbation or other sexual activity with the hand... From a Buddhist point of view, lesbian and gay sex is generally considered sexual misconduct" - Dalai Lama It is not considered wrong by Taoists Yah, which ones are yeh asking? It is considered out of balance for some, and others consider all sex a distraction. Taoism generally doesn't have a language of "right vs. wrong", so the question generally doesn't have any meaning in that context. It is not considered wrong by Shinto "Nanshoku relationships inside monasteries were typically pederastic, that is, an age-structured relationship where the younger partner is not considered adult. The older partner, or nenja ("lover" or "admirer"), would be a monk, priest or abbot, while the younger partner was assumed to be an acolyte (chigo, 稚児), who would be a prepubescent or adolescent boy;[4] the relationship would be dissolved once the boy reached adulthood (or left the monastery). Both parties were encouraged to treat the relationship seriously and conduct the affair honorably, and the nenja might be required to write a formal vow of fidelity.[5] Outside of the monasteries, monks were considered to have a particular predilection for male prostitutes, which was the subject of much ribald humor.[6] Yah, if Shinto monks endorse what we would consider rape of boy scout aged boys, then I don't reckon it's a religion worth pointing to as an example, eh? And so on. Yeh have to be careful as a westerner tryin' to interpret eastern philosophical traditions, eh? Myself included, as they are well outside my cultural tradition and I don't have da language skills. But I'd suggest yeh be more thoughtful about it, BSA24. Now, Trevorum is correct in sayin' that Ancient Greece, like Shinto monastic practice, had a culture of older men bringing up young teens in the way of sex. That pattern does exist across some cultures, eh? The Jerry Sandusky approach to adolescent children was a common enough practice in many civilizations. It's interestin' and perhaps telling to have those who advocate for homosexual inclusion also give credit to those cultures who embraced this particular form of homosexuality. I, quite prejudicially I'll admit, was leavin' 'em out. I'm left wonderin' if that is what folks really want to advocate? Beavah

I'm always amused by da notion that progress is "inevitable" in the direction that individuals happen to agree with. The lessons of history are different. Acceptance of homosexuality has been a historical marker for da social and economic decline of cultures, which are generally replaced by ones that return to more "traditional" values. I'd suggest that there are sociological reasons why yeh can't find much by way of long-term religion or culture in da world that embraces homosexuality. B

I wish I would have known about these BSA published articles earlier. Yah, the one yeh mention is phenomenally poor. It shows a lack of understandin' of youth programming and youth development. I prefer the BSA's official definition of "active" in the Rules and Regulations, which we all agreed to and which da author of the article apparently forgot. I suppose someone signed him off on 'em for once-and-done instead of ensuring proficiency. An active youth member is one who, with the approval of a parent or guardian if necessary, becomes a member of a unit; obligates himself or herself to attend the meetings regularly; fulfills a member's obligation to the unit; subscribes to the Scout Oath or the code of his or her respective program; and participates in an appropriate program based on a member's age, as promulgated from time to time by the BSA. Beavah

Yah, I have no problem with the trite little "Guardian at the Gate" article and would agree with the author. But it would be improper to believe that a reflection by one individual represented da views of the entire BSA. Again, fred8033, if we're goin' to get into games of book-quoting, then yeh have to start with da Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America, which is the only authoritative document that defines the parameters of the BSA program that all of us agreed to. Yeh can't understand the real BSA program without beginning there. General Principles Education is the chief function of the Scouting movement and it shall be the basis of the advancement program. A fundamental principle of advancement shall be that the boy's progress is a natural outcome of his activities in his unit. In Boy Scouting, recognition is gained through leadership in the troop, attending and participating in its activities, living the ideals of Scouting, and proficiency in activities related to outdoor life, useful skills, and career exploration. Administration All advancement procedures shall be administered under conditions that harmonize with the aims and purposes of the Boy Scouts of America. ---- So yeh see, that is the real definition of the program that the guidebook is supposed to adhere to and help to define. Yeh can also look to other sections of the Rules and Regulations which define what it means to be an active member. And we're even given explicit instructions by da Rules and Regulations that in administering the program, we must interpret things in a way that harmonizes with da Aims of the BSA (and of the Chartered Organization, of course). The Guidebook is just a guidebook in that regard. The problem you're havin' in understanding the program is that yeh don't yet have a depth of experience, and you're lookin' to the materials to define the program rather than guide yeh to understand the program. It's those goals for kids that really define the BSA program. Now it's true that the new G2A didn't include some language which stated things like "A periodic review of the progress of a Scout is vital" and "Not only is it important to review those Scouts who have learned and been tested for a rank, but also to review those Scouts who have shown no progress in their advancement over the past few months." Periodic review, eh? The new G2A didn't repudiate those notions either, as they're also present in other texts, and it reaffirms that much can be learned from reviewing boys who are not advancing, and gives a nice description of some possible conversations at the end of a BOR in 8.0.1.5. The BOR is meant to be a formative review, eh? Like a performance review at work, it helps inform a lad of where he's at and where he should be going. Yeh see, that's how yeh keep the BOR from being a "test", where the result is to either "pass" or "fail". By makin' it a regular conversation where sometimes yeh end with "congratulations" and sometimes yeh end with "nice job so far, here's what we want to see next" or "it seems like you're really strugglin' with this, so we're goin' to try to do some more to help yeh." It's all about helpin' the boy, not about the paperwork or the guidebook, just like your "Guardian at the Gate" article is tryin' to tell yeh but you're missing. Once you have gone away from that sort of formative review to a review where you're lookin' to "pass" or "fail", yeh have stopped doin' Scouting and entered the realm of school testing or rubber stamping. It's become "fake" in the eyes of any reasonably intelligent red-blooded teen. Yeh can't achieve the Aims that way. And yep, in terms of doin' it well in the BSA, IMHO it was done better when we honored youth leadership and didn't have relative strangers take it away from 'em. I think that was again the case of some national folks who just got lost in da trees, with da result of steady membership decline and less engagement by older scouts. But yeh can use that as a good guide for what a committee-run board of review should feel like, eh? What would the conversation be with the boy's older peers and members of da community who know him well? Or, if it helps yeh, what would a performance review look like for the "job" of being a scout? Yeh don't pass or fail a performance review, though sometimes it may lead to a promotion. If yeh really want to get the full benefit of Scouting for yourself and your boys, yeh have to let go of the book thumping and think a bit on your own, focusing on the bigger picture of how to use Advancement Method to best achieve our goals for boys. That's the only way to properly interpret da guidebooks, according to the Rules & Regulations. Once yeh do that, yeh realize that calling together 3 or more MCs just to do somethin' that a computer program or a Patrol Leader can do better isn't good scouting. Beavah (This message has been edited by Beavah)

Yah, there we have it again, eh? Honestly, yeh don't need a Board of Review to tell yeh things like a requirement was skipped, the right merit badges weren't earned, or all da rest. All that requires is a secretary. If that's all yeh think a BOR's role in deciding on advancement is, then yeh don't understand the Method. Doesn't matter if yeh served on the committee that compiled the manual, eh? Just shows the problem of program by committee. I think part of the failure here is da whole notion of "pass" or "fail" that fred8033 describes. That school-language idea has no place in Scouting, and as soon as yeh start thinking that way you've left the trail and are off in the woods. The same with the notion of "denying" a lad the rank that bnelon44 uses, like rank is an entitlement that is being denied. When yeh start to think in such terms, you're no longer doing Scouting. A Board of Review is an opportunity to have a conversation with a lad and review his performance and progress in the troop. They should happen regularly, and not just for advancement. That's the only way they can fulfill any of their purposes, eh? The purpose to help the boy grow in character requires review and feedback. The purpose of informin' the committee on the troop's program requires review of all the lads, not just those advancing. At some fraction of those BORs, the board determines a boy is ready to advance. At many or most of the rest, they review the boy's progress and help him focus. If a lad has a requirement signed off but he indicates he really has forgotten the skill, they advise him on how to review and re-learn. If the lad is havin' difficulty, they play their part in helpin' the program find resources to help him. If they discover a weakness in his instruction and understanding, they address da program weakness and send the boy back to meet the level expected by the BSA and their program. Now, to my mind, I personally think those conversations have a better feel and tone and are more effective when the review is done by youth leaders and scouters who know the lad, because the boy really wants to earn credit and respect in their eyes, where the lad really doesn't care as much about the troop committee and the committee doesn't know him as well. Yeh see that on da forums when committee members come looking for "questions to ask" at a BOR, eh? Da relevant questions and comments for review are generally obvious to those who know the lad well, and generic question lists or examples really don't accomplish very much. But we have what we have, and so if you're goin' to use MCs then it's the job of the youth leaders and the youth-serving scouters to provide 'em with the information they need to conduct a meaningful review. The BOR is not meant to be a retest, of course. The BOR should not expect the lad to cook 'em a meal, hike 5 miles or perform a water rescue. But it is meant to be a meaningful review, eh? And that review is meant to be a separate step in the advancement process, which fred8033's post accidentally muddles up. It's not part of testing. It occurs after testing, down the road a pace, when there's time to see whether the lessons really "took." That's how yeh review both the performance of the program and the readiness of the boy, eh? By whether the lessons Scoutin' is trying to teach actually "took." If they didn't, then that's always, always, always the fault of both the program and the boy. The board members should help to correct both. Help the program improve, and help advise the lad how to meet the expectations. No passing, no failing, no denying. No mindless restriction to the trivialities of paperwork that can and should be handled by a Scribe. No wasting adult time by getting together to ask meaningless generic questions and pull out da rubber stamp. Real, genuine, meaningful review of da program and the lad's progress in it. And sometimes, a hearty congratulations and the award of a rank. Beavah

If a scout is turned down by a board of review for any reason, I would look to the adult leadership more than the scout. Why? Just curious. I reckon we all have to be careful about our assumptions, eh? I agree completely with JMHawkins that adults in the program need to be on da same page. Now, I may be just talkin' through my hat, but I think comments like eisley's assume that the SM is playin' a gatekeeper role with da SM conference or one of the other requirements, eh? And in many troops, that is how things work. In such cases, if the SM and BOR are on the same page then a BOR will affirm the SM's judgment. When that doesn't happen, it often is an adult problem. Da thing of it is, that's not necessarily the program. A SM conference is just a talk, and yeh have to participate not pass. Really the only review mechanism is the BOR. So it's quite possible that in a different program the SM can be a friend and mentor at a conference, and a BOR can say "no, not yet" with the SM's full agreement. Then the SM and the boy's PL work with him some more. In such a role, the BOR is a service to the PL and the SM. B

Yah, trust the boys, eh? They probably know their families better than you do, and if not, it will be a learning experience for 'em of a good sort. I know some troops that stay off of holidays. I know other troops who tend to schedule campouts on holiday weekends to make use of da extra day. I think yeh occasionally run into family vacation conflicts for a few kids, but otherwise it seems to work just fine for 'em. I used to think Christmas at least was "sacred", but I've seen high adventure groups take off on international trips over the Christmas holiday with good attendance. Beavah

I find it mildly amusing that Spencer is being objectively critical of his own troop, to a much greater degree than you are. Well, I reckon that lots of other folks had already completely covered the being critical of da adult leaders part of the conversation. And I agree with that, to a point. Whether it's BrentAllen's approach or non-advancement BORs or the pressure of peers or gentle words of a wise Scoutmaster, there's always room for us as adults to do better for each and every lad. SpencerCheatham's self-reflection is somethin' I reckon every good Scoutmaster does. But the responsibility doesn't end there, eh? There are also boys involved. Boys who are makin' choices and learning. Regardless of any failures of SpencerCheatham or his troop, the boy also failed in his obligations. Told that his participation and Scout Spirit needed improvement, offered suggestions for how to do that, he chose not to follow through for a full year. Now, if yeh were an employer, and yeh sat with someone and told 'em that their work needed to improve, and yeh attempted to offer remediation, and for a full year yeh saw and documented no improvement, and the person wanted a promotion, what do yeh suppose the outcome of that is going to be? Forget da promotion, the person wouldn't have a job. So how does it help the boy in our little miniaturized version of the real world to not only keep him on, but promote him to our highest award? Advancement is a teaching method, eh? Nothing more. If we're teachin' somethin' that just doesn't make sense, we aren't doin' it right, no matter what "da requirements" say. Beavah