I need some clarification..

[Hunt]

"I was basically told last night that in our district, that a BOR is not allowed to "fail" a boy for any reason! What do you all make of this??"

 

Clearly, that's not what BSA policies say, either. However, it may be that the person meant that decisions to "fail" a candidate will virtually always be overturned on appeal--probably because those "failures' are virtually always based on retesting. Or maybe they just mean that you shouldn't use the word "fail" when what you really mean is that BOR will have to continue at a later date when some issues have been cleared up. Obviously, a BOR can't pass a boy for rank if they discover that there has been some mistake in the requirements recordkeeping (i.e., we once had a BOR for a boy who had not done all the requirements for the rank yet--I think there was a mixup with the SM that was nobody's fault, really--that boy didn't exactly "fail" the BOR, but he didn't get the new rank that night, either.)

[ScoutNut]

"I was basically told last night that in our district, that a BOR is not allowed to "fail" a boy for any reason!"

 

Told by whom? Did they give you a reason or site a BSA reference for saying something like that?

 

Per BSA BOR Training -

 

"If the Scout is not advancing, the board should certainly give the Scout the opportunity of learning what he needs to do to advance. He should be given a definite time for a subsequent board of review. Finally he should be given information about appeal procedures. In a good troop, having a Scout deferred for advancement by the board of review is unusual. If there is a problem with a Scout, normally he will not be presented to the board of review."

 

This does NOT mean pass no matter what!

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

There has got to be some story behind this, do you have any background?

[SueM]

Nope..don't think it has anything to do with being overturned by appeal or being a retest. It was more like the Board did not have the authority to do it and the SM had the final say in everything.

 

There is somewhat more of a story behind it but I don't want to get into it publically...just wanted some opinions and hopefully some specific "quotes" from offical sources that I don't have access to at this time to reference...and I knew someone here would be able to point me to them!!

[SueM]

What I was told was that each district made their own decisions as to whether or not to allow "failures". And perhaps in their view it's just a matter of symantics as far as what they are trying to say..maybe they are just stating things in a different way and not realizing it!

[OldGreyEagle]

SueM, my reference is the BSA publication #33088, and it does not mention any "District" option. It goes through great lengths explaining the process if a boy does not pass the BOR, but never says that a District says you can't fail a BOR. Perhaps they mean that a boy can't fail a Board of Review because if a decision is made not to advance the boy, the boy is given specific steps to take to pass and a subsequent BOR is scheduled with a letter going to the boy and scoutmaster so one could say the BOR was not "failed", it was adjourned to a scheduled time in the future

[LongHaul]

SueM,

As has already been said a BOR is not a pass / fail proposition. A BOR is convened at the request of the unit leader, the scout, or the unit committee and does not always involve advancement. It is recommended that scouts not ready for advancement attend a periodic BOR. With the adjournment of the Board the BOR is completed. Some forum members have talked about adjourning a BOR, this is actually not possible but could be looked at as a matter of semantics. If you are attacked walking into a building and then attacked by the same person upon exiting the building was the original attack adjourned or were they two separate attacks? The BOR can, depending on the purpose of the review, decide to advance the scout or not advance the scout. If the decision of the board is to not advance the scout procedures are spelled out on the Advancement Committee policies and procedures publication.

If the person telling you that a unit BOR can not fail a scout is in fact telling you that every scout must be advanced, then I would refer them to the afore mentioned publication. The District Advancement committee can chose to advance the scout on appeal. If the District Advancement committee chooses to advance the scout there is no avenue of appeal for the unit advancement committee. Appeals are only provided in the event that a BOR chooses not to advance. The unit advancement committee, the COR and Unit leader can petition the Council Advancement Committee for a policy statement in writing concerning the parameters, latitude of consideration, and latitude of jurisdiction concerning Boards of Review. If this statement conflicts with National Policy it can be brought to the attention of the National Advancement Committee.

Bottom line is that the District can not demand that the Unit become a rubber stamp. I hope you have come to the acceptance that in your case the District is not in line with National policy. There is little you can do to make them comply with National policy if your council does not support you.

LongHaul

 

 

[acco40]

One of the purposes of a Board of Review is a quality check on the program as administered by the Scoutmaster and his/her assistants (that is why they do not sit on these boards). Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to ask the Scout to repeat the Scout Oath, tie a bowline or demonstrate first aid. I think Beavah and SueM touched on this issue in previous posts but I just wanted to make it perfectly clear.

 

Now, if the Scout is not able to tie a bowline and the requirement has been signed off, that is not grounds for failing the BOR. However, if ten Scouts in a row do the same thing, fail to be able to tie a bowline, and the board notices that the requirement was signed off by the same person for all ten Scouts that is a red flag that the program being delivered is flawed.

[CNYScouter]

Perhaps the Supplemental Training Modules on Board of Reviews and Scoutmaster Conferences will help to answer your questions.

 

They can be found at:

Board of Reviews

http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/supplemental/18-625/index.html

 

and

 

Scoutmaster Conferences

http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts/supplemental/18-629/index.html(This message has been edited by CNYScouter)

[SueM]

Thank you all for the input...as always it does help sort through some of the questions. Perhaps as some have suggested, if we didn't use the words pass/fail things would fit together better and I can see where their thought process was. And I do agree that ONE of the purposes of the BOR is to provide internal oversight, but they are implying that it's the ONLY thing that the BOR is supposed to do.

I had a meeting with my adult leaders last night and suggested that we ALL sit down and really read the Advancement requirements so that we can all understand them better.

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, SueM, district people I've sometimes found are among the least well-informed out there, eh? Districts exist as a convenient organizational mechanism to provide service to units. Nobody from da district should be tellin' a unit what it can and can't do. Not their role. I'd encourage yeh to treat what yeh heard like so many other Scouting rumors and wives' tales you pick up at district.

 

But, since yeh specifically asked for quotes, I'm sure OGE will get a good chuckle out of this old Beavah quotin' the guidebook, eh? I'm using Advancement Committee Policies and Procedures #33088D . Keep in mind bad rumor has it that an updated version due out this year essentially gives Eagle to any parent who whines .

 

The review has three purposes:

* To make sure that 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.

 

... long description here including "not an examination" and also "the board should make sure a good standard of performance has been met." BOR members are encouraged to refer to the Boy Scout Handbook, SM Handbook, and other references.

 

"At the conclusion of the review, the board should know whether a boy is qualified for the rank or Palm... The decision of the board of review is arrived at through discussion and must be unanimous. .... 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." (p. 29-30).

 

-----

 

Now, all that's just fine and dandy.

 

But what do you and your CO want the kids to learn, and how do you think it's best to use the BSA advancement program to get there? What's your view of character? Does fitness include learning? Is feedback on learning important for the BOR to get? What sort of kids do you attract? What's the right level to set the bar for them? What do you feel the SM's role in setting/maintaining that bar is? How about the Committee's role?

 

Ferget all the books and district gnomes and such for a minute. Ask yourself, "How should this work for us, to get the kids to where we want them to be?" Discuss that with your ASM's and Committee. Do that. Don't worry about the other fuddy-duddys, or Old Beavah's quotin' guidebooks.

 

[FScouter]

"Ferget all the books and district gnomes and such for a minute."

 

It sound like that already happened. Some district or council volunteer decided he knows better and has given advice contrary to the advancement policies of BSA. The important thing to realize is that we don't achieve the BSA mission by discarding BSA methods because someone (even with good intentions) thinks he knows better.

[Hunt]

"Therefore it is perfectly acceptable to ask the Scout to repeat the Scout Oath, tie a bowline or demonstrate first aid."

 

I don't have a problem with asking the scout to repeat the Oath, but I disagree with respect to retesting skills. I would urge everyone to take a look at the resources CNYScouter linked to above--they make this very clear, and they give a good explanation of what a BOR is supposed to be like.

[OldGreyEagle]

I will sorta repeat myself here. I see no problem is asking a scout to tie the dreaded bowline. Why? because its a review of the program as well as the scout. If you have 5 scouts in a row that can't tie a bowline, then you have a program problem as well as 5 scouts who cant tie a bowline. I would not fail the bowline deficient scout in the BOR, but I would be sure he learned the knot and perhaps taught it at the next opportunity. I see having scouts demonstrate scout skills at a BOR as proof of the programs effectiveness, not as a pass/fail for the scout.

[evmori]

So if a Scout admits he never learned how to tie a bowline (never completed the requirement) but it is signed off, he would still pass his BOR for 1st Class? What if it was the swimming requirement? Would it be OK if that was signed & the Scout admitted he never completed it?

 

I agree if this is the only thing the Scout is deficient in he should be given every opportunity to learn practice & demonstrate it during his BOR.

 

Tossing a Scout a piece of rope & asking him to tie a required knot for rank can be one way for the BOR to ensure the signed requirement is valid.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10