The Role of a BOR and "Retesting"

[DugNevius]

Interesting. Maybe the Dug Nevius form of scouting isnt as "Twisted" as previously thought. haha.

[FScouter]

I think the publications are written under a basic premise that the reader will read the entire publication and make an effort to learn and understand the purposes of the board of review.

 

If a boy shows up for a BOR wearing a complete and correct uniform, what does that say about the boy's commitment to Scouting, and what does it say about the program is being operated by the SM? If a boy shows up in dirty sweatpants, you have a discussion point. The discussion should give the board a litte more insight into the way the Scouting program is being implemented in the troop.

 

A board of review requires a little more thoughtfulness on the part of the board members that just going down a checklist.

[OldGreyEagle]

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?

[evmori]

What if the boy shows up for his BOR in a suit & tie? Or his school uniform?

[DugNevius]

OGE- The youth always goes before a panel of 3 or more all in full uniform.

 

 

[Makeitfun]

I have been an "observer" on the forum for a few months and have never posted. I think now is the time.

 

Most of the advice given here is very practical and ensures that scouts get as much out of the program as possible while adhering to the BSA guidelines. As has been pointed out though, BSA guidelines are very vague and sometimes contradictory. Many documents that we Americans hold to the highest standards (the US Constitution) are written the same way. Why do you think Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson debated and argued so much over it? Hamilton wanted a strong national government by focusing on the elastic clause (Article 1, Section 8, #18) while Jefferson was in favor of States rights by focusing on the 10th Amendment (powers reserved for the States).

 

Some of the posts in this thread are unbelievable. I dont think I would want my son in a troop with a heavy-handed BOR approach that some are suggesting. Do you think that all the scouts retain all of the information that have been required to learn for each level of advancement and each merit badge earned? If you do, you are nuts. I am a history teacher. For a test I give specific topics and concepts that I expect them to know (much like merit badge requirements). If they pass, they pass. On the next test, I dont re-test them. For a midterm or final exam, I will re-test. BUT, they know what I will re-test them on. For a BOR to start re-testing scouts on any and all things will intimidate the boys and will take the fun out of scouting for some of the boys. Again, do you possibly expect them to remember everything? If they dont practice things, they will forget them and that space in their brain will be replaced with new information. Some of you scout leaders are way too hung up on knot tying. Around where I live, people doesn't ties many knots and if they need to, they can make do. Most scout equipment these days doesnt require you to tie knots either. So to not advance a scout who has met the requirements because you feel they dont know some fact (or knot) you think they should have remembered is plain wrong. Believe me, when they get ready to advance, they will have learned a lot. They may not remember it all (or more specifically what you think they should have remembered), but the process they went through to get there isnt easy. You could end up picking on a certain scout with arbitrary and capricious judgment. Keep in mind that this is supposed to be fun for the boys and they should want to approach adult leaders. If they think they will be re-tested on something when they see you, they will avoid you like the plague.

 

Let the ranting from the hardliners begin.

 

[Beavah]

Let the ranting from the hardliners begin.

 

Yah, OK (I'd put a little smillie face here but I don't know how).

 

Makeitfun, as one of those pesky citizens who is payin' for you to teach our kids history, I think you're missin' the point. We want da kids to learn history. We want them to be able to use that knowledge years later when listenin' to tomfool politicians. That's why we're wastin' our time and money sending kids to school, eh?

 

And so through No Child Left Behind and other accountability laws, we've started to do what you refuse to - test kids on what they know and retain. And gosh, we do it without telling them in advance what exactly we're going to "retest" them on. No cramming facts, just understanding knowledge. And just like a good BOR, state testing is being used not so much to hold kids back as to hold the adults and schools we're paying accountable for our aims.

 

In another troop in our district, a 1st Class Boy Scout saved his dad's life three months ago by recognizing the signs and symptoms of a heart attack after his dad came in from snow shoveling. Darn tootin we want and expect our boys to remember those little facts and requirements! If they don't retain the knowledge, we've wasted their time. We take boys into the woods every month. Knowin' what to do if they get lost isn't optional! Knowin' fire safety and stove safety isn't either! Lettin' learning for advancement be optional in the name of "fun" is just plain wrong. The most fun is gettin' good at somethin'.

 

Da teachers most of our kids avoid like the plague are the easy and arbitrary frauds. The ones they talk about with respect and come back to visit are the ones who held them to high expectations, and retested and retaught until the knowledge was no longer the teacher's, but truly theirs.

[Makeitfun]

Beavah - why did I know it would be you to reply?

 

I won't post again on this topic but you clearly missed my point. In my classroom and in scouts, the overriding question should be... have they learned something, have they learned to think, and can they put their "knowledge" to good use. "Facts" can be looked up, so why keep re-testing on them, especially if you aren't requiring them to use the specific "facts" (versus "knowledge")? It's what you do with the "facts" that make or break a student or scout. In your reply, you talk about knowledge of fire safety and stove safety. I agree and that's my point. If they can apply the knowlege they have learned, but forget one specific "fact" that you as a leader are hung up on, does that mean they can't advance if they can't recite/demonstrate for you at a BOR? It seems to me by your tone that you wouldn't advance them.

 

So, if a scout doesn't know how to tie a bowline knot from memory at a BOR you won't advance him? If on the monthly outings he needed to be tying bowlines until his fingers were bleeding, then I would agree he needs to know how to tie a bowline. But, if he doesn't ever use the knot (which is the case around here), then why would I re-test him at a BOR and not advance him? If a scout were asked at a BOR to tie one, but couldn't because he hasn't needed to then I think the adults were being over the top. If he told the BOR what a bowline was good for (as opposed to a different knot), but hadn't in x years of scouting ever needed to use it, then I'd be glad that he knew WHY a bowline was important. Again, make sure you understand that the scout has not needed to use the knot in x years of scouting.

 

If you think that knowing these "specific" details is important, then I'll leave you to "kill and drill" your troop to your hearts content. My son and I don't live the frontier lifestyle that you must - and I'm thankful for that. If he and his friends learn how to apply their knowledge and know what to do with it, then they'll be ok.

 

Again, just to be clear, the orignal threat was talking about re-testing at a BOR for "specific" information. If the "specific" information (versus working knowlege) isn't used, why would you possibly be re-testing him on it at a BOR?

[OldGreyEagle]

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

[LongHaul]

Makeitfun,

OK I'll take the bait. In my area we call what you do "Teaching the Test" You decide what you want them to retain and you tell them that and then test them on their retention of what you told them you were going to test them on. At mid term and final you do the same. for BSA the "test" is printed in the requirements book right up front. The Scouting experience is designed to teach many things and is delivered in many ways if different areas but the test is standard.

If a BOR denies advancement solely because a scout couldn't tie one knot then I would question the priorities of the BOR. If you gave a final and a student got lest than 75% of the questions correct would he pass the final? The BOR is the final.

I know what the publications say as to what is policy I ask what is fair. Asking a boy about his uniform when you are not wearing one? Asking a boy how he lives up to the Scout Oath without answering the same question yourself? Asking him what good turn he did that day without telling him what yours was? At least if you ask him to tie a bowline and he can he we will know if you know what a bowline looks like when he hands you back the rope.

LongHaul

 

[Venividi]

Makeitfun,

 

I have to say that I missed your point then also.

The bowline knot is probably not a good example here - it is the rescue knot, and ought to be known before many high adventure type activities. Like first aid, the likelyhood of needing to use it is very small, but if it is needed, that is not the time to be pulling out the book to figure out how to tie it, nor the time to use some other knot that does not have the properties of a bowline.

 

I think the whole conversation about knots gets away from the salient point of understanding and aquiring knowledge. Knots may not be important to many troops programs - thats cool - its not my nor anyone elses program - thats a call for the owners of the program. Rather than continue with this about knots, perhaps it is more useful to center discussion around things that we can all agree are important; which I think will foster a better discussion. First Aid skills are an excellent example. as is the concept in general of the scouts grasping knowledge.

 

Now to go back to Beavah's original post in this string, he said "But to do that, the BOR has to ask some requirement-based questions. Not "retest everything", but also not avoid reviewing a boy's understanding. "

 

So from what I am reading, I get this feeling that both of you are in violent agreement here, but are talking past each other.

 

Where I do think there is difference is differing opinions on what constitutes "retesting" vs "reviewing understanding". From what I read, both of you are in agreement that "reviewing understanding" is important.

[Venividi]

Makeitfun,

 

I also want to add "Thanks for joining." I always helpful to see things through the eyes of a new member of the forum. Evaluating a new perspective always helps me understand my own perspective.

 

Venividi

[Beavah]

Makeitfun, I'll add Venividi's "Thanks for contributing" as well, eh? It's good to hear fresh voices, and I'm sorry if your invitation to "rant" made my reply sound like a rant.

 

I think He who Came and Saw is right; we're mostly in violent agreement. Would I defer a boy on a BOR because he forgot some detail about any one requirement? Of course not. I might ask him what he thinks is important to run a safe trip afloat, but I'm looking not for memorized 9 Safety Afloat points, but for an understanding of what the issues and principles are. When he becomes a Patrol Leader next year, will he know enough to help his patrol-mates be safe on the water?

 

Frankly, I don't much care for BOR adults who ask longwinded questions in adult-speak. I think it's easier for younger boys to answer direct questions than the convoluted "questions about a requirement" that some adults pose to avoid "retesting." As a UC I was/am occasionally invited to sit on a BOR. I'll often ask the SM what the boy is really good at. If the SM says "he's great at knots" I won't hesitate to toss the boy a cord and ask him to tie two half hitches. That one simple and instant success often puts a boy at ease with the adults and makes for a great BOR.

 

[DugNevius]

OGE- gee, must we reopen that old debate or should we stay on topic?

[FScouter]

Good luck trying to keep any thread "on topic". These things take on a life of their own. But since the operation of a board of review is the topic, the makeup of the board members certainly seems appropriate.

 

We seem to have a tough time getting some adults to understand that a real board of review requires some careful questioning and insightful discussion with the boy candidate. Replacing adult board members with troop boys is just as wrong as adults quizzing the candidate with 20 questions from a checklist and tossing a rope at him.