Why First Class First Year?

[acco40]

In response to Beavah's request of which sign-off expectation was used:

1. Planned a weekend's meals with a fair bit of help and/or went very simple: oatmeal breakfast, sandwiches lunch, hobo dinner.

2. Planned a reasonable weekend's meals with little help, but mostly copied previous month's meal plan.

3. Planned a weekend's meals multiple times until becoming pretty good at it, then demonstrated a complete, healthy meal plan with zero help.

 

Well I wasn't involved in signing off any of my sons requirements but I can tell you what I require. First, what is the requirement? Requirement #4a for 1st Class is:

 

4a) Help plan a patrol menu for one campout that includes at least one breakfast, one lunch, and one dinner and that requires cooking at least two meals. Tell how the menu includes the foods from the food pyramid and meets nutritional needs.

 

Not to sound like a broken record but I neither add or subtract to the requirements. The requirements don't state "gourmet" meals nor do they require "do the planning all on your own", nor do they require multiple times for sign-offs. It does however state a patrol meal (not individual or troop), help plan, "tell", "explain", "serve", "supervise", etc. So I make sure that they do just that. So yes, if they helped plan a patrol menu of oatmeal and juice for breakfast, sandwiches plus something else for lunch and a simple dinner and told me about the nutritional value and was familiar with the food pyramid (let's see - helped plan, check, requires cooking at least two meals, check, "tell", check) then yes, I would say #1. Now, I would probably ask how he helped, how was the menu chosen/agreed upon, did you write it down, what could possibly make it more appetizing and nutritious, etc.

 

So now that he has done this once he will have novice skills. Will he ever repeat this task again? Of course, he will attend many outings and have to plan patrol meals and each time he does his proficiency will increase (especially if his leaders challenge his creativity, skill levels and don't revert to "easiest clean-up" method all the time).

[Beavah]

Thanks, Acco. Do you apply the same #1 standard to the other examples of requirements (a bit further down in the parent thread, after Eamonn said one example wasn't sufficient)?

 

B

 

[acco40]

 

Okay, now I feel like I'm being tested!

 

I find it helpful to always look carefully at the actual requirement and to be familiar to what is in The Boy Scout Handbook because this is what the Scout should use as a resource. So for 1st class 8b Demonstrate bandages for a sprained ankle. and for injuries on the head, the upper arm, and the collarbone.

 

1. Demonstrate a head bandage or collarbone sling usin' materials partially pre-tied by the last person, with someone givin' hints/talkin' him through it.

2. Put on a head bandage or collarbone sling from scratch; might not be quite tight enough so that it would probably fall off after a 5-10 minutes but it's good enough (or gets removed after a minute so no one knows).

3. Responds to a scenario that involves a head wound or collarbone fracture, accomplishes the diagnosis and treatment on his own during the scenario. Makes a fine bandage using improvised or troop first aid kit materials rather than specialty gear.

 

First, let me tell you what a typical scenario is like based on my 5 plus years as a SM. A Scout will approach me and ask for me to sign this off because he knows how to do it and starts explaining how to me. I say thats great but I can't sign-off because the requirement states that you need to demonstrate. The Scout groans and asks about materials. I'll say well what do you think we should use and then may playfully bang my head against the wall and shout, oh no, my head is bleeding and watch his reponse. The Scout will then use either his (or my larger) neckerchief or other appropriate material to tie an "Aunt Jemimah" bandage on my head. Depending on his skill level I'll either state good job or go into teaching / mentoring mode. So, I guess I'm more like a #2. I certainly would not require him to treat a real injury but I would require him to be able to do it on his own at least once, in a fairly sufficient manner without coaching.

 

Successfully complete the BSA swimmer test - Jump feet first into water over your head in depth. Swim 75 yards in a strong manner using one or more of the following strokes: sidestroke, breaststroke, trudgen, or crawl; then swim 25 yards using an easy, resting backstroke. The 100 yards must be swum continuously and include at least one sharp turn. After completing the swim, rest by floating.

 

1. Swam 75 yards usin' doggy paddle/head up crawl (might have grabbed pool edge briefly after each 25 yards); struggled through 25 yards of backstroke and float. Barely made it, but tried real hard.

2. 75 yards of flailing forward stroke that was better than dog paddle but exhausting (without grabbin' pool edge). Float and backstroke were OK but not really restful.

3. 75 yards of solid crawl or breast stroke that left a boy tired but more than able to continue swimming; 25 yards of good elementary backstroke and float that let him rest well so he could continue swimmin' strongly.

 

I would not count #1 because it was not in a "strong manner". #2 I may count if I thought the "flailing forward stroke" was a crawl or trudgen like stroke and the backstroke and float were at least somewhat restful. The intent is not how well he does the backstroke but that the Scout "clearly allows the swimmer to rest and regain wind."

 

9a Tell what precautions must be taken for a safe trip afloat.

 

1. Recite the 9 points of Safety Afloat from a Safety Afloat Card or from memory (with a few prompts/hints).

2. Recite the 9 points of Safety Afloat and describe 'em, using a Safety Afloat Card.

3. Put together a plan for a patrol or troop float trip (which incorporates da Safety Afloat issues "in context" as part of the plan).

 

Although the requirement does not specifically state memorize what I do is have the boy read me the nine precautions and make sure he understands what it means and then we close the book and see if he can state the nine from memory. If not, we repeat the read and try again. Most get it after two or three tries. So again, maybe something like #2 but I don't let them use a Safety Afloat card.

 

 

[evmori]

Testing is OK but retesting is a no-no!

[acco40]

Huh? Was your post in reference to mine?

[Beavah]

Okay, now I feel like I'm being tested!

 

Nah, no test intended, mate. Just curious, eh?

 

I think it's possible in good faith to interpret each of the requirements legitimately as #1, #2, or #3. Consistency seems to matter the most within a program.

 

Now, the BSA does sort of set a preferred standard in the Rules & Regs, which is that Boy Scouting advancement is given for proficiency in activities related to outdoor life, useful skills, and career exploration.

 

Proficiency to my mind is closer to #3 than the other two. So is learning (as in "A Scout Learns," the first step in advancement). I think to learn anything, a boy has to do it a few times. To learn a knot, he has to tie the knot a few times, and use it for some purpose. To learn meal planning or cooking, he has to plan or cook a few times. Only after he's learned "A Scout is Tested". A test for proficiency should hopefully be as close to a "real world" and fun way as we can make it. And it should be without help, eh?

 

Despite da National Executive Board's proficiency standard, I think it's fine if individual CO's and units make a deliberate and thoughtful choice to set a different standard, eh? I think yeh have to set a #1 or #2 standard in an LDS unit to fit within their program structure. I think yeh also have to tend more toward #1 if your unit really pushes to get every boy to First Class in the First Year. Units that do #2 might have a gung-ho lad or two make it, but mostly boys seem to make first class at 18 months or so. I think the #2 standard also seems to go with troops that do "classes" of various kinds, for whatever reason. Probably because a class doesn't give each lad a lot of individual practice time before a test. Units that do #3 seem to pretty much forego the FC emphasis program in favor of maintainin' the proficiency standard.

 

Just my experience. Close as I can figure, most summer camps use #1 as the standard at camp, for "customer satisfaction" reasons . So it's not like we in da BSA are demonstratin' the proficiency standard, either!

 

Scout on!

 

Beavah

 

[Venividi]

>Testing is OK but retesting is a no-no!

 

Especially not requirement 9a right before a canoe trip!

[Philt]

In the second post on this thread Gold Winger says:

 

"BSA claims that boys who make first class in one year are more likely to stay in Scouting. I have a feeling that their data and analysis is horribly skewed."

 

The data is certainly not skewed. We studied this for calendar year 2005 and found that 100% of the first year Scouts in our District who earned 1st Class retained their membership for a second year. That percentage, of course, is higher than those who reached Tenderfoot or 2nd Class. The study led to several other interesting discoveries, including the relationship between advancement, the rest of a unit's program, and retention. But the main purpose was to see if FYFC actually leads to retention, and it does.

[Lisabob]

Philt, while that may well be true, it glosses over the larger question of chicken and egg. Does a program that promotes earning 1st Cl/1st year *result* in more boys staying with the program, or were the boys who actually earn 1st cl within their first year the ones who were gung-ho about boy scouting to start with and probably would have stayed with the program no matter what? Put it another way, are those boys who didn't earn 1st class within a year the ones who were most likely to drop out anyway, and they simply did not last long enough to make it to first class? What does the data about this program/emphasis really measure? The effect of earning 1st class on retention, or the degree to which a boy is invested in boy scouting? These are two different concepts and I argue that while we really want to know about the former, the data might very well only be telling us about the latter.

 

Please understand I'm not bashing the program or emphasis on 1st Cl. Actually I think there's a lot to be said for this idea. But the way the evidence is collected and analyzed simply is not sophisticated enough to back up the claims that are frequently made on that matter.

 

 

[Bob White]

No matter how gung-ho the scout might be, without a planned program in place that allowed him to learn practice and apply the skill he is not going to actually advance according to the scouting program, and is less likely to stay in the troop. Lots of Scouts start out gung-ho only to be let down by a poor unit program. You will find them leaving units in about a year.

 

These units are easy to identify. When you ask why so many scouts have left they wil tell you things like; poor parental support, left for sports, peer pressure, competing activities, etc. Units with poor programs quickly become masters of excuses.

 

Then again, it would seem logical that a well planned first year of Scouting that gave a a Scout the opportunity to learn and apply the skills leading him to First Class has a far better chance of building his enthusiasm for Scouting (as well as his skills) than would a troop that did not have such a program.

 

A lot of how much a boy is invested in scouting will be effected by how much is invested in him, having a planned program that supports the advacnement program of scouting seems a reasonable thing for the scout (and the Scouting program) to expect from a Scout leader.

 

The Handbook tells the scout that he should be able to reach First Class in about a year. Shouldn't the unit have a program plan to support the Scout Handbook?

 

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Beavah]

We've got all these old threads poppin' up like Lazarus around here!

 

Shouldn't the unit have a program plan to support the Scout Handbook?

 

Nah, that's exactly backwards, eh? The Scout Handbook is a resource to support the unit program, not vice versa.

 

I think Bob's got the right of it, in spirit. The key is caring about the kids, and giving them a lot. Certainly movin' fairly quickly to give 'em the skills they need to do well outdoors, and then start 'em on the skills they need to start givin' back and supporting each other.

 

I think what we're frequently faced with is the law of unintended consequences. When yeh have an image of gettin' kids what they need to have fun and be successful and then codify it, all sorts of odd stuff starts to happen.

 

Some folks say every boy must make FCFY, that's what defines a good troop. So they become a class-lecture-and-badge-mill.

 

Some folks say we have to offer boys the opportunity to meet all the T21 requirements, then use that to trump youth leadership, and patrol method, and outdoors method, and the principle of boys workin' at their own pace and the most important one of all... FUN.

 

Some parents start pushin' their kid with threats of grounding and whatnot to make FCFY, because that's what's expected, even if Joey were better off just havin' a good time fishing and hiking with his friends without the pressure, until he matured a bit and made advancement his thing.

 

and on and on...

 

For that reason, it's probably better to talk about the actual goals (kid learning and fun and kids sticking around), rather than the made-up ones (FCFY).

 

Beavah

 

[Bob White]

I agree that FCFY is a fabrication, but it was not a program fabricating by the BSA. It was fabricated by unit leaders who misunderstood the First Class Emphasis program.

 

We agree that the Handbook is one of the many resources that support the scoutihng program. But it starts with goals and promises that the BSA program, when followed by the volunteers, delivers on.

 

But it does not support every individuals version of what they think the scouting program should be. No book can do that. It supports what the BSA program is currently designed to be and how it is meant to operate in order to meet the Aims and Mission.

 

Sure scouting should be fun and educational. When used correctly the advancement program measures what a scout has learned to do. It gives the scout milestones to chart his accomplishements in scouting. If a scout in not advancing then he is not accomplishing the goals of scouting, and isn't that what the program is for. Through Scouting the Scout learns and accomplishes specific skills and activities in order to achieve a specific mission?

 

To say that 'the scout isn't advancing but that's Ok because he is having fun' is a little odd. If he isn't accomplishing the goals of scouting why does he need to be a scout, or even more bewilderingis why does he need a Scoutmaster? There are lots of ways kids can have fun without scouting. There are lots of things kids can do without achieving the goals of scouting. The whole purpose to be a scout is to learn and do things in the scouting program.

 

Scouting is more than just keeping a group of kids happy. Scouts who are not advancing are not learning and practicing the skills and values of scouting, or if they are someone is evidently forgetting to recognize them for their efforts.

 

What would keep a Troop from having a planned program that gave a Scout the opportunity to learn practice and apply the handful of skills from Tenderfoot to First Class in 12 to 14 months? (besides simply choosing not to do it?)

 

 

[evmori]

Kids don't leave Scout only because the unit they are in has a poor program. The reason Bob White listed poor parental support, left for sports, peer pressure, competing activities are valid reasons why Scouts quit.

 

Scouting isn't for every boy. Neither is football or band or the 4H Club or the Chess Club. Boys will go where their friends are & do things they like. The best we can do as leaders is keep the boys we have & deliver the mission of Scouting.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

And would not a program that allows an active scout to earn the rank of First Class in a year? And how do we keep the boys we have unless we have a program that is fun for them?

[Beavah]

If a scout in not advancing then he is not accomplishing the goals of scouting.

 

Nah, that's backwards too, eh?

 

If a scout is not accomplishing the goals of scouting he should not be advancing is the way to think about it, not vice versa. Advancement is just a tool we use to achieve the goals. It ain't the goals. Otherwise just by handin' out patches we can pretend we're achieving the goals.

 

There's lots of ways to achieve the goals of Scouting... at least seven more that are listed, eh? . A lad can get to character, fitness, and citizenship by seeking recognition and challenge through the advancement program. A lad can get to character, fitness, and citizenship through proper use of the outdoor program, a lad can get to character, fitness, and citizenship through adult association and youth leadership and especially patrol method. And all kinds of combinations of the above. Even uniformin' can contribute .

 

Any of us who have been doin' this Scoutin' stuff for a while have known plenty of kids who didn't really care about advancement, but were great examples of kids for whom Scouting achieved its Aims. In fact, there's so many of 'em that there's a whole BSA program where advancement ain't a method at all.

 

Advancement is one tool we have to achieve the aims. It should never be the sole assessment of whether "a boy is accomplishing the goals of scouting."

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)