OldGreyEagle

Longhaul, I thought the Policies and Procedures for Advancement were pretty clear cut. I am not sure how to respond to problems I dont see, although you clearly do. A troops program should be constructed so that a scout never "loses" his proficiency of a skill once learned. If a scout never has an opportunity to use a bowline other than when he "passed" the requirement, how will he retain the knowledge? If a scout only uses his map and compass skills the day that was signed off, can we expect him to know his stuff? if the troop program gives frequent and ample opprtunity to use scout skills the whole retest/redo/reexam thing is a moot point. If a troop has poor scout skills, is it the scouts fault? Is it the Instructor fault? or is it because the scouts dont use the skills they learned because they arent placed in positions to use them? WHy not set up a troop program where there isnt a chance a socut doesnt know his skills becasue he is given ample opportunity to use them.

I thought of something else. Can you call your Council Office and get the names of the Council and your Distict Advancment Committee Chairs? DOnt leave a message, get the names and the phone numbers and call them yourself.

I think you want to get/read the BSA publication "Scouting for Youth with Learning Disabilities" Its BSA publication 33065A. The one I have was printed in 1999, I dont know if there is a more up to date one, if there is, its would be 33065B or C etc. This is the one to get.

Actually Dug, the quote that Longhaul used was in my original post, if you go back you will see the following: The Scout should be neat in appearance and his uniform should be as correct as possible, with the badges worn properly. (Sorry, as correct as possible doesnt mean a full and complete Field Uniform) The blue text is my comment. The scout should be neat, the uniform as correct as possible, doesnt mean it has to be a full and complete. I would hope the scout would be motivated to wear a full and complete uniform if at all possible, but if its not, would you hold up his advancement? BTW, the above quote comes from the BSA publication Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures, it doesnt say guidebook anywhere. If anyone can direct me to the BSA Advancement Guidebook, please do. Policies and Procedures to me are a lot more than "guides" And let me make this as clear as I can, I know there are no magic words to use to "make" a troop follow BSA policy. As a volunteer organization, units are pretty much left to do things as they will. But I feel it incumbent that the correct information be posted especially when aberrant practices are passed off as OK,

So Dug, even though the Board of Review compositon is clearly set as being composed of at least three and no more than 6 Committee members, you have scouts (read youth) serve on your Boards of Review. I was the one who made the twisted comment and before I cued Dee Snider I wanted to be sure.

BSA publication #33088D Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures Page 3 Advancement Principles "...No Council, District, Unit, or individual has the authority to add to or subtract from advancement requirements..." page 23 Boy Scout Advancement "...No council, district, unit, or individual has the authority to add to or subtract from any advancement requirement." Page 26 Merit badge Sidebar "...Scouts must be tested individually, and they must meet all the requirements. No additional requirements may be added..." PS, I looked and I didnt see "guidebook" printed anywhere on this publication

So Dug, these three, they are always 3 committee members and there are no scouts sitting on any Board of Review in your troop?

Personally I cant wait to read Kudu's response, and I think I will agree with nearly all of it!

Dug, did you notice that the quote on Boards of Review had a few sentences concerning the compositio of a Board of Review? It calls for at least 3 and no more than 6 Committee members. How do you staff your Boards of Review? For all ranks?

I was going to spin this thread off from another one, then I wasnt able to figure out which would be most appropriate. If not the one on merit badge councilors, perhaps the one on Boards of Review, or others. The issue is as I see it a trend to take failures of the program out consistently on the scout. For example, The Board of Review is the Quality Control point of the program, we want to be sure the scout knows his stuff, if he doesnt, he doesnt get pasesd. OK, where is the corrective action towards the person who errantly signed off the requirement in the first place? That is hardly if ever mentioned. Why not come down as hard, or harder on the person who caused the issue in the first place? The assigning of Merit Badge councelors, ok, you know this guy is a zero, you wont accept him as a councelor. What is being done to remove him from the list? If he is as bad as all that, other troops know it, why does his name remain? Why punish the scout for the transgerssions of an adult. A scout doesnt do "squat" for his position of authority and admits it. He also says he was never given direction, guidance or had any expectations for that position given to him. The Board of Review says we cant pass you because you didnt do anything and the scout does something else for his POR. What is done in the troop. Are job descriptions written? A monitoring system put in place to assure this doesnt happen again? I agree with what Beavah posted somewhere, we dont want to give "social promotions" because all that does is reinforce to the promoted they can slide through and makes the scouts who worked hard feel cheated. But as much as we come down on the boys for their "own good" some adults need to be sat upon because of the damage they are doing to the youth. The standards we espouse for our youth have to be demonstrated by our adults or we are just hollow uniforms. (This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

I have lived long enough to understand that there are laws of the land and there are my own personal values. While many times they coincide, its not necessary that all do. I expressed my own thoughts and ideas.

Kahuna you asked, I answered, didnt say a thing about what you should beleive, only what I do

Beavah, I agree with you, its time the adults stood the same scrutiny that the youth are subjected to. I think the 4 step process should be the basis for a "certified troop" program. I mean if the adults dont bother to implement BSA polcies and procedures in their troops, they can attend as many training sesisns as they wish, but they still arent trained.

I love this forum, so many scouters from so many places all deicated to helping youth. It's a great resource. Our New Scout Patrol chooses a Name, a Patrol Medallion patch (was that redundant?), a Cheer, they cook together on campouts, elect a patrol leader, are in the service patrol rotation for clean-up and honor guard duties for meetings and I am not sure what more they would have to do to be considered a "real patrol" By BSA definition a JASM is at least 16 years old, appointed by the SPL with the scoutmaster's advice and consent.

Beavah, what was said in any part of this thread that makes you think that anyone here is in favor of "social promotion"? Lisabob, I have given you what the BSA guidelines and policy is regarding Boards of Review, its up to the adult leaders to either deliver the BSA program as was promised when they filled out the adult application or do their own thing

Actually Kahuna, yes

I feel your pain Eammon, or at least I think I do. A few years back the Council had a Spring Camping event/exposition. The original plans had the Ventures acting as "security" and I said why? We arent a service organization, we are units that want to attend the event. If we need to help the event out, we can certainly do that, but its up to the membership (youth) and I would have to get back to them. They were stunned I wouldnt commit the Ventures to do anything. AS far as attending Klondikes or Camporees, yeah, thats just what the Troops would want, Show up with a Co-ed crew and run a team around the events. See if the 11-14 scouts like competing with 19-20 year olds, sounds like a lot of fun for both groups. If they want the units to participate in Distirct/Council Activies, why dont they set up a few, regattas for the ships or events for Crews and Ships. Its a different program, why wouldnt it need different Districts programs?(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

Lisabob, you snuck in while I was composing. If you run into a situation where a scout is clueless about a skill, where and when it was taught, etc. Then you do have a problem. But, then it should only happen once. The scout may be assigned to teach the skill in question at the next opportunity. And the Troop Program adjusted so the skills are actually learned, requirements met. Its not like the troop committee is barred from attending troop activities and outings and the BOR should not be the only exposure a committee member has with the troop. How many forum members do we have that would only do "Quality Assurance" activities once a quarter? Or only on a limited basis with limited resources? QA is ongoing, as should the Troop Committees oversight of the Troops Program. I have to admit maybe I am in an unique situation. In the Troop I serve, the SM and Committee Chair agree on nearly all things. There are no "cowboy" or "rogue" ASMs out there subverting the process. The adult leaders of the program appear to actually like and respect each other. I have every confidence that ASMs and Committee Members are there to improve the program, not go on the only power trip their life affords. If these are huge issues in other troops, I may not understand how such things are possible as I am limited by my experiences, then again, arent we all?

Beavah, what are you talking about? From the tone of your post it seems like you had a rebuttal to me, but heck if I can figure it out. The whole issue of what a Board of Review is and what it isnt is explained in the section I quoted, save for Eagle of course. If you want to justify the way you do it by using the quote, go ahead, I can't stop you but I did want other people reading this thread to know what the BSA says. There is enough mis information floating around BSA that when there are actual guidelines published, I want to be sure as many people see them as possible. How they use the information is up to them.

From the BSA Publication, Advancement Committee, Polcies and Procedures (Please note my comments will be in blue) Review for Tenderfoot Through Life Ranks and Eagle Palms. After a Scout has completed all requirements for Tenderfoot, Second Class, First Class, Star, and Life ranks, or an Eagle Palm, he appears before a board of review. This board of review is made up of at least three and not more than six members of the troop committee (Denotes BSA Policy, oh and notice no mention of scouts sitting on the Board of review). One member serves as chairman, usually the committee member responsible for advancement. Unit leaders, assistant unit leaders, relatives, or guardians may not serve as members of a Scout's board of review. (Again BSA policy) The review shall be conducted at a convenient time and location, such as a meeting, summer camp, or the home of a member of the troop committee. The review has three purposes: To make sure the work has been learned and completed. To check to see what kind of experience the boy is having in his patrol and troop. To encourage the Scout to advance to the next rank. Because many boys are ill at ease when talking to adults, it is important that the board be held in a relaxed atmosphere. A certain amount of formality and meaningful questioning should be used during the review. The Scout should be neat in appearence and his uniform should be as correct as possible, with the badges worn properly. (Sorry, as correct as possible doesnt mean a full and complete Field Uniform) It should be the desire of the board to encourage the Scout to talk so that the review can be a learning experience for the candidate and the members of the board. The review is not an examination. (Not sure how to more clearly say the review isnt an exam or a retest) The Scout has learned his skill and has been examined. This is a review. The Scout should be asked where he learned his skill, who taught him, and the value he gained from passing this requirement. The Scout reviews what he did for his rank. From this review, it can be determined whether he did what he was supposed to do. The review also reveals what kind of experience the Scout is having in the troop. With that knowledge, the troop leaders can shape the program to meet the needs and interests of the Scouts. The board should attempt to determine the Scout's ideals and goals. The board should make sure that a good standard of performance has been met. A discussion of the Scout Oath and Scout Law is in keeping with the purpose of the review, to make sure the candidate recognizes and understands the value of Scouting in his home, unit, school, and community. The board of review members should feel free to refer to the Boy Scout Handbook, Scoutmaster Handbook, or any other references during the review. The Troop Committee Guidebook contains examples of questions that could be asked during a review. The review should take approximately fifteen minutes. ( so much for those multi hour marathons we sometimes hear about) At the conclusion of the review, the board should know whether a boy is qualified for the rank or Palm. The Scout is asked to leave the room while the board members discuss his achievements. The decision of the board of review is arrived through discussion and must be unanimous. If members are satisfied that the Scout is ready to advance, he is called in, congratulated, notified as to when he will receive his recognition, and encouraged to continue his advancement or earn the next Palm. (Please note the following) If the board decides that the Scout is not ready to advance, the candidate should be informed and told what he has not done satisfactorily. Most Scouts accept responsibility for not completing the requirements properly. The members of the board of review should specify what must be done to rework the candidate's weaknesses and schedule another board of review for him. A follow-up letter must be sent to a Scout who is turned down for rank advancement, confirming the agreements reached on the actions necessary for advancement. Should the Scout disagree with the decision, the appeal procedures should be explained to him. After the board of review is completed, the Scoutmaster is informed of all of the decisions that were made by the board of review. Remember, after a Scout satisfactorily completes a board of review, he cannot be recognized until that action is reported to the council service center on an Advancement Report. A monthly report keeps unit records current and is a good practice. The troop scribe should also keep a record in the Troop/Team Record Book for easy reference by the Scoutmaster and use by other boards of review. (Do it any other way, and you are doing it wrong)

How long were the sesisons? DId the scout do any work between sessions and then presented at the subsequent session? Could there have been phone or some other comunication between sessions?

Be careful gwd, if you arent careful this boy lead stuff could get out of hand and before you know it, they will be leading meetings, planning events, having fun, being responsible...

Oh Beavah, and it started off so well. No, the BOR is not the place for restesting, the fact troops do it does not make it right.

Oh well Ed, we both knew it wouldnt last, I beleive you to be wrong. In the situation you describe the scout goes to the scoutmaster and asks, "Sir, may I work on the Orienteering merit badge?" and the grand scoutmaster contemplates his next course of action. Meanwhile, Sammy Scout is all aquiver, he desparately wants to work on the Orienteering merit badge, its his current passion, its all he can think about. Why should he need the scoutmaster's permission? The answer to the question of who decides which MBC? The guy who controls the list,,,

Gern, I apologize about the obfuscation. I do want wish to give you credit that you have pushed skills testing down to the SM conference level and away from the BOR. I didnt realize the troop has made that progress and you should be applauded for it. I hope your improvement continues. My answer was targeted for you as well as anyone else, the lurkers who may have a similar question about BOR and wanted to see the replies and I felt if I didnt point out the error of having a scoutmaster test for skills that someone could come away thinking it was a fine practice. The scouting program should be set up so when the scout is signed off on a requirement, there is no doubt that the requirement is met and the skill learned. Ok, so a handy camp gadget was made, perhaps a sedan chair for the scoutmaster (!). Is this the last time a handy camp gadget is used? DOes the PLC set the expectation that a towel rack, sign post, etc and other devices is part of setting up camp? Are scouting skills used in any part of every outing? As a freshman in high school I got an B in french first semster and an A second semester. By the time I graduated high school 3 years later, I barely remembered how to say hi and bye in fench because I didnt use it. To expect scouts to learn knots, never use them in the troop program and then berate the scout for not knowing their knots is nuts. The more I think on it the 5% not successful rate is probably high, it does happen, I am not sure what the reasons were. I can say all the ones I attend have always been successful.